One of the key components to LDS theology is that of scripture being an open canon. According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Bible Dictionary, scripture is defined as follows:
The word scripture means a writing, and is used to denote a writing recognized by the Church as sacred and inspired. It is so applied to the books of the O.T. by the writers of the N.T. (Matt. 22: 29; John 5: 39; 2 Tim. 3: 15). For an account of the process by which the books of the O.T. and N.T. came to be recognized as scripture, see Canon. Latter-day revelation identifies scripture as that which is spoken under the influence of the Holy Ghost (D&C 68: 1-4).
According to this definition, this leaves things pretty wide-open as to what scripture really is and can be difficult for many people, especially those from other faiths to comprehend. Basically anything that is spoken by someone under the influence of the Spirit can be interpreted as scripture. However, this also places great responsibility on everyone to be in tune with the Holy Spirit so they can interpret by the spirit and know if things spoken are essentially the word of God.
As I pondered this, I thought about the scriptures that the LDS currently use commonly called the “Standard Works.” These scriptures include the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.
Most Christians claim that the Bible is infallible and that every single word written therein is exactly what God wants us to have and there can be no more scripture. This is very hard for LDS people to fathom because they believe otherwise. Why are such scriptures as the Song of Solomon considered to be considered infallible scripture? Who was it that had the authority to declare that the Bible should be the only scripture? If the experiences and prophecies in the Bible are the only authorized scripture, what scriptures were the apostles and prophets of the Bible using at the time?
On the other hand, Christians firmly believe that it is heretical to have any additional scripture other than what is in the Bible. They may have questions and concerns about anyone else who claims to add scripture is a false prophet and therefore their writings and words should be avoided.
Athiests and Agnostics choose to avoid the scriptures altogether because of flaws and condradictions found within the scriptures.
As I contemplate these issues and questions, I’m very grateful for the following scriptures about the Holy Ghost:
Moroni 10:2-53 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
John 16: 7;13
In the first scripture, there is a promise given that one can know if the things written in the Book of Mormon are true. However, the promise extends further in verse 5 in that the Holy Ghost will not only help one receive a witness of the Spirit if the Book of Mormon is true, but also know the truth of all things. Also, in the Bible Jesus says when he leaves the Holy Ghost will show them the truth of all things as well.
If one is to read certain parts of the Bible (such as the Song of Solomon) and if one is to read certain parts of the Doctrine and Covenants (such as the polygamy revelation) it can be hard to feel the Spirit confirm it as truth. Also, Joseph Smith’s Lectures on Faith used to be “cannonized” scripture but were removed in the early 1900’s. Furthermore, when Joseph Smith spoke about the Book of Mormon he said that it was the most correct book of scripture written. But didn’t say it was completely flawless. I’ve read that the Book of Mormon has been changed and edited over 4,000 times. Also, authors within the Book of Mormon acknowledge their weakness in writing.
Acknowleding flaws and/or errors in scripture can be a huge thing for both LDS and Christians to accept. They both believe that scripture is flawless. Due to the weaknesses of men in writing and translations, etc. and the LDS view of having an open cannon, it is very important–essential–that one maintains a close relationship with the Lord so they can be led by the Holy Ghost to know the truth of all things that are found in the scriptures.
However, this can lead to discrepencies and to people claiming that “the Spirit told them” to say and/or do certain things and believe certain doctrine. The LDS comeback for this answer would be “that’s why we have prophets and apostles.” However, the questions then arise: How are we to know if they are indeed prophets and called of God? How can we know if what they’re speaking is truth? The answer: the Holy Spirit.
It would take a whole other post to write about how to recognize the Holy Spirit speaking truth to you, but some posts I’ve previously written on this topic include:”Effectively Using the Sword of the Spirit,” “Learning the Mysteries of God,” and “Questions to Know if you’ve Experienced the Holy Ghost.”
I especially like this quote by Gordon B Hinckley:
How do we know the things of the Spirit? How do we know that it is from God? By the fruits of it. If it leads to growth and development, if it leads to faith and testimony, if it leads to a better way of doing things, if it leads to godliness, then it is of God. If it tears us down, if it brings us into darkness, if it confuses us and worries us, if it leads to faithlessness, then it is of the devil” (Jordan Utah South regional conference, 2 Mar. 1997)
I would like to let those who read this know that I’ve felt the Holy Spirit confirm truth to me on numerous occasions throughout my life and that I’m grateful for this. As I’ve prayed about various scriptures I have felt the Spirit witness truths to me that are found in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other writings both LDS and otherwise. I know that I’ve felt the Spirit confirm that there is a God that watches over each one of us and that cares for us. I’ve felt His love and Spirit as I’ve prayed about big and small decisions in my life and know that he will lead us into the right paths and help us find truth in all things. I know that God will reveal the truth of all things to everyone if we ask in humility and faith.
76 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 26, 2008 at 5:14 am
Eric Zacharias
Ama,
You make it a point to rejoice in the fact that the Scriptures are infallible.
That amazes me. Why would your God inspire falsehood.
The only conclusion is that you have no problem believing falsehood.
Go Moroni,
aka, “Angel of Light” —
or, as Bruce McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”, 1966 ed., page 35, says, “See Devil.”
LikeLike
November 26, 2008 at 12:15 pm
thenonconformer
>>I have felt the Spirit witness truths to me that are found in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other writings both LDS and otherwise.
LIVING ON FEELINGS An dnot the Bible
I know that Mormons are all going to Hell for rejecting God, Jesus Christ himself.
LikeLike
November 27, 2008 at 1:06 am
KingOfTexas
Eric
He makes a point that he knows the truth of the scriptures. He also shows you how you can know if they are true for yourself. Are you always this angry?
LikeLike
November 27, 2008 at 6:02 am
ama49
Eric,
I’m not sure where your bitterness comes from, but it’s surely not God. I’m sorry that you have bitter feelings like that and pray you will be freed from them.
LikeLike
November 27, 2008 at 6:04 am
ama49
Nonconformer,
You’re funny getting all dramatic like that.
I have a couple questions for you.
1. How do you know the Bible is true?
2. How do you know Mormons are going to Hell? I thought God was the judge of that.
LikeLike
November 27, 2008 at 6:05 am
ama49
KingofTexas,
It’s refreshing having your comments on this post. Thanks for stopping by and for also trying to help those who are angry.
LikeLike
November 27, 2008 at 7:36 pm
mormonsoprano
Ama, I enjoyed reading this post. You laid out the article well, and it offers good things for all of us to ponder.
I have no problem with scripture having fallicies and errors and still being gifts to us from God. As you have presented, scripture is writings and words given by men (and women) who are under the divine influence of the Holy Spirit.
However, although the Holy Spirit is infallible, human beings naturally are…well…human. Which means faliible. Errors occur. Anyone must logically admit that the Bible has been through even more modifications and rewrites and changes and deletes and traslations than the Book of Mormon. However, this does not mean that these human offerings are of no worth. On the contrary, the Holy Bible is one of the great gifts from God. A favorite passage of mine from the Book of Mormon states:
“Out of small and simple things, great things are brought to pass”.
Some of those small and simple things, the “weak things of the earth”, are us. However, even with all our weakness, the Lord has the power to mold us in His hands so that we can create good things here on earth which will inspire, motivate and uplift each other. Your article points out that anything spoken by and through the Holy Spirit can be considered scripture. Of course, that is one of the broad interpretations. However we must remember that God’s rules and laws are contained in a “house of order” where priesthood revelation fall under jurisdictions. Thus, when a prophet and apostles of Christ’s church on earth speak by the Holy Ghost, their words apply as scripture to the world. When a Bishop of a congregation speaks by the Holy Ghost, his counsel applies to those within his stewardship, and when a father or mother speak to their children by the Holy Ghost, then their words are “scriptural” to their children, whom they have been given authority over. Thus, we must be cautious when labeling all inspired “scriptural” words to pertainin to everyone as a whole. Just my interpretation of things, of course. Nephi taught that to correctly understand scripture, we must have the “spirit of prophecy” with us, which is the Holy Spirit of truth. Thus, those who are living seeped in anger and resentment and bitterness and hate (as demonstrated above) cannot possibly understand this post. They are filled with a spirit that blinds the mind and keeps someone as far away from knowing truth as possible. This is exactly why we must “walk in truth” as scriptures continually teach us, so we can receive more truth. Grace by Grace, and Line Upon Line, as your site is so aptly titled.
LikeLike
November 28, 2008 at 11:39 pm
jackg
ama49 and soprano,
The problem I have with the LDS version of open canon is that it supposedly builds line upon line and precept upon precept. That is one LDS way of defending the BOM, etc. However, I think the LDS version of ongoing revelation and scripture is actually line upon line, then subract that line when it suits the political needs of the Church. You said, “Basically anything that is spoken by someone under the influence of the Spirit can be interpreted as scripture.” When we look at some of the horrific things Brigham Young taught, and even point out that he said that God would never lead the LDS faithful away from truth, and that there was never a doctrine he taught that wasn’t true, we have to conclude that the Church doesn’t really believe this; otherwise, you would still be teaching the Adam/God and blood atonement doctrines. However, what has happened is that the Church dismisses those teachings as uninspired and not “official” Church doctrine.
Another problem with the LDS position is that it works from the premise that the role of the Holy Spirit, today, is to inspire “writings” that are new doctrine. However, one of the roles, today, of the Holy Spirit is to “illumine” God’s truth for us.
Also, the subject of “salvation history” is inerrantly found in the pages of the biblical text. There is no need for “new” revelation and “new” scripture because everything one needs to know in order to be saved into the kingdom of God is found in the pages of the Bible. I understand that Mormons argue for the “new” covenant of marriage; however, the new covenant is Jesus Christ, and the sign of the covenant is baptism. The old covenant was the Abrahamic covenant with the sign of circumcision. So, to work from a premise of a “new” covenant in marriage has to be dismissed as a faulty premise. Also, the idea that a wife is dependent on her husband to call her by a new name through the veil so she can be saved in God’s kingdom is not in harmony with the Good News of Jesus Christ.
All this “stuff” that is considered to be LDS doctrine and new revelation does not stand the test of being measured against the Bible.
I understand the focus of the LDS testimony is “feelings,” as you so aptly state in your closing paragraph. I can say that I have “felt” the Spirit telling me the LDS Church and all its “new” scriptures are false. Where does that leave us? We both have “feelings” about our experiences. Can we both be right? You see, one has to acknowledge that there are false spirits always trying to mislead us, and they come in the form of “good” feelings. Perhaps, you will, at this point, make an appeal to Hinckley’s comments: “How do we know the things of the Spirit? How do we know that it is from God? By the fruits of it. If it leads to growth and development, if it leads to faith and testimony, if it leads to a better way of doing things, if it leads to godliness, then it is of God. If it tears us down, if it brings us into darkness, if it confuses us and worries us, if it leads to faithlessness, then it is of the devil” (Jordan Utah South regional conference, 2 Mar. 1997). Well, there are a lot of false religions that do contain some grain of truth and can actually fulfill all the requirements of Hinckley’s comments, especially if we consider “godliness” good works or just being good people. Often, when something leads one down the path of darkness, etc., we refuse to see the road we are actually on. Therefore, anything “new” must be tested against the Bible. So, how do you and I solve the problem regarding our different spiritual experiences and from what spirit they actually generate: we go to the Bible. When we do that, one will see how Mormonism goes to great lengths to manipulate the biblical text to fit its “new” scriptures. Eternal marriage sounds good, but it’s not biblical. The necessity for a wife to be dependent on her husband instead of Jesus Christ alone for her salvation is not biblical. Eternal families is, again, not biblical. You see, we are presented to Christ as His bride, and we become one family in God’s kingdom–not smaller units. This, again, is not a biblical viewpoint.
Thanks for allowing me so much space, ama49. I do not doubt that your heart is gold, and that you believe you are following the Holy Spirit. However, an appeal to the biblical text (without the filter of the 8th Article of Faith) can only lead one to conclude that the Bible is sufficient in containing the salvation message, and that God is Sovereign enough to protect His message of “salvation history.”
To mormonsoprano, the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus Christ. I struggle to see how you are using this terminology in this context. Also, it seems a bit like you’re going out on some limb to argue your broad interpretation of “scriptural.” From your description, it seems that you might believe that anything a parent tells their children is scriptural even if it goes against God’s divine truths. I know you don’t mean that, but this might put you in a position to say that for a child to receive instructions from their parents and to view them as scriptural, that the parents would actually need to be teaching them spiritual truths. When we understand this dynamic, it comes down to the fact that parents aren’t truly speaking scripturally as ama’s inferred intention for this thread. With that said, I think the only logical conclusion is that breathing new scripture is not what the Holy Spirit does today but, rather, He illumines the established canon to highlight the sinfulness of humanity and the Way to salvation, which is Jesus Christ Himself. That is the whole of the message of Good News. We don’t need any modern revelation to define that for us. Thank you for your time, as well.
Blessings,
jackg
LikeLike
November 30, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Mormon Heretic
JackG,
I get your point, but why do you imply that mormons are the only ones who rely on feelings? What about Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists? All say they believe in the Bible, yet they must all be led away by false spirits, according to your logic. The Catholics and Protestants of Europe have fought wars for centuries, yet you seemingly forget about those atrocities of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Hundred Years War, or even the current tensions in Northern Ireland.
While I admit that the mormons emphasize the spirit more than most other denominations, let’s leave the mormons out of the equation for a minute. How does one decide if Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Branch Davidians, Methodist, or other denomination really follow the Bible? After all, they all claim to follow the Bible. Can they all be right, or are the all wrong together? BTW, what is the true denomination, or do you think there are many paths? Has the spirit told you the Greek Orthodox is wrong too?
You have a problem with the LDS canon. You are probably aware that the Catholic Bible is different from the Protestant Bible. Which one of these canons are wrong? Are you aware that the Pope’s proclamations are practically scripture? The Greek Orthodox rely on the ancient Councils (like Nicea) and treat those as basically scripture as well. Do you have a problem with this? Why is it that the protestants all claim to worship the Bible, yet can’t seem to agree on simple things like baptism?
LikeLike
November 30, 2008 at 10:31 pm
ama49
Jack,
I appreciate you thinking things through and leaving a thoughtful comment,even if I don’t agree with everything you say.
Let’s address some of your comments.
You said:
“You see, one has to acknowledge that there are false spirits always trying to mislead us, and they come in the form of “good” feelings.”
There is a very major difference in having “good” feelings and one in having a witness from the Holy Spirit as to spiritual truths. Sure I’ve felt “good” feelings when I serve others, say a prayer, think good thoughts, etc. and I do believe those are fruits of the Spirit because everything good comes from God. A witness from the Spirit as a result of study, humility, faith, and prayer is something totally different than a normal “good” feeling that you talk about.
Also, you mention that the devil goes around with evil spirits trying to tempt us and how he can immitate “good” feelings. These “good” feelings you discuss are counterfeits and in the long run their fruits show themselves. Examples I think of include using drugs, compromising and breaking God’s law of Chastity, lying, cheating, really any of God’s commandments. If the Bible and the Book of Mormon both testify that the Spirit of the Lord will show us the truth of ALL things we must believe this and learn to recognize the Spirit speaking to us.
You also said:
“So, how do you and I solve the problem regarding our different spiritual experiences and from what spirit they actually generate: we go to the Bible.”
Going to the scriptures are a very good source and as Mormon Heretic points out, it is important to have another source than just the Bible. The Bible has contradictions within it as it was written by men. Furthermore, why should the Bible be the end-all source of spiritual knowledge? What did the Saints do during the times of the apostles and for the 300 years before other men at the Nicen Creed decided that those certain writings should be cannonized? Also, the Book of Mormon is written by man and isn’t flawless either. How are we to know if what is written in that book is God’s will?
The whole point to this post is to point out exactly what Jesus taught and that is that when He is gone, the Holy Spirit, or Comforter, is what we should trust and rely on. We need to learn to recognize the Holy Spirit and follow it’s promptings.
LikeLike
November 30, 2008 at 11:23 pm
jackg
Thanks for your response, ama. Wow, what can I say? I really struggle with what I perceive to be your low view of the Bible. Therein lies the big difference between Christianity and Mormonism. It comes down to whether or not you believe the Bible was actually inspired by God through the Holy Spirit or not. To make the statement that it was written by men is to reveal a misunderstanding of how God works: He works through a broken humanity. So, when you make this kind of comment, it shows me that you think the BOM was not written by men. Am I correct in assuming this? I think the contradictions you see in the Bible aren’t as drastic as you might think them to be–especially with regard to salvation history. Here’s a question: from reading the Bible, is it not clear that the condition of man is depravity, and that we are in need of a Savior? Is it not clear that Jesus Christ is the Messiah? Is it not clear that we are justified by faith? You see, the Bible indeed answers these questions, which is what we need to know concerning salvation. I wish you could see that when you relegate the Bible to a mere work of man that you are actually saying that God is not Sovereign or Powerful enough to protect His word. I think this is critical in anyone’s theology with regard to the character of God. As I see it, this is a problem that arises from a theology that teaches that God was once a man, meaning that He has not always been God; it leaves room for God to be fallible and lacking in Sovereignty. Just my view, ama. But, I think I am working from the proper premise that God has always been God, and that He is indeed Sovereign and able to preserve His message of salvation as revealed in the biblical text.
Thanks for your time, and have a blessed day!
jackg
LikeLike
November 30, 2008 at 11:45 pm
jackg
mormon heretic,
Thanks for responding. I don’t think I implied that only Mormons go by feelings. It’s just that this is a Mormon blog. This is the context of the conversation. As for the atrocities perpetrated against the world by those who claimed to be Christian, I think you are introducing a red herring into the conversation as we are not discussing behaviors exhibited by those who claim to be Christians, but we are discussing the infallibility of scripture; therefore, the topic you want to introduce lies beyond the scope of this thread.
Every Bible-based group you mention works from within the parameters of the Bible. JS worked from outside those parameters, which I think is very significant to the discussion. Before we could discuss this further, I need to know your understanding of the three categories of theology: dogma, doctrine, and opinion.
As far as “worshiping” the Bible, we worship God. So, I’m confused what you’re trying to say here. But, as far as baptism is concerned, it is basically a nonessential. It is the sign of the new covenant, but it is not regenerative. Christ saves us, not baptism. There are some Christians who believe it to be regenerative. And, it really doesn’t matter if they do or don’t. What matters is whether or not a person believes that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the son of the Living God, and that we are justifed by faith and not by works. This is what the Bible teaches. The addition of the apochryphal writings in the Catholic Bible does not alter this basic fact.
There is no single denomination that one can consider to be true. You want to make this a bigger issue by introducing the idea of “different paths.” A different denomination does not make a different path. The path is still Jesus Christ. When one can understand this basic dogma of Christianity, it brings everything else into proper perspective, and then we can understand the proper understanding of baptism.
Again, thanks for your response.
Grace and Peace!
jackg
LikeLike
November 30, 2008 at 11:51 pm
jackg
ama49,
I said, “So, when you make this kind of comment, it shows me that you think the BOM was not written by men.”
Sorry, I missed where you said the BOM was also written by men and not flawless. My bad.
So, how do we know if what is written in the BOM is God’s will? We go to the Bible. We will disgree because we have different views of the Bible. For me, I discount the BOM because it teaches that God responds to our good works with grace. The Bible teaches that we respond to God’s grace with good works. The Bible gives the message of Good News that we are justified by our faith in Jesus Christ; the BOM gives the message that we earn our way into God’s presence. It’s that simple for me, ama.
Peace,
jackg
LikeLike
December 1, 2008 at 7:15 am
ama49
Jack,
You said:
“It comes down to whether or not you believe the Bible was actually inspired by God through the Holy Spirit or not.”
The Bible is inspired by God and I can see your concern with having God preserve it throughout the ages. However, if you believe that Jesus is the way, then you must believe in baptism. Jesus was baptized. He also instituted the sacrament and established his church. The importance of the Book of Mormon is that it clarifies salvation. It doesn’t say anywhere that you earn your way to heaven. It says you will be saved after all you can do and teaches that faith, repentance, baptism, and baptism by fire by the Holy Spirit are essential for salvation. No matter what we do though we will come short of the glory of God. “All you can do” varies from person to person as well because we all have different gifts. However, if one truly believes in Jesus and has faith the works will naturally show themselves.
Also, do you honestly believe that all God’s works and inspiration to His apostles are only contained in the Bible? What about all the other acts and teachings of the apostles? Also, what do you think the apostles and early Christians used as their scriptures? The Bible is mainly writings from the apostles to the Saints as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore the writings of the apostles at that time fit into the category of what Mormon’s believe to be scripture and what Mormon Soprano said about those having authority over the church being the ones who could write scripture.
LikeLike
December 1, 2008 at 4:34 pm
jack
ama,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
You asked, “do you honestly believe that all God’s works and inspiration to His apostles are only contained in the Bible?”
Yes, I do. And, I have to disagree with your claim that BOM doesn’t teach a works-righteousness doctrine. You don’t have to see it, but I do believe it’s there.
Regarding baptism, it is not a requirement for salvation. The beauty of Jesus being baptized is that He identified Himself with us in our sinfulness and suffering. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant just as circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant.
I will say that I absolutely agree with you when you said, “if one truly believes in Jesus and has faith the works will naturally show themselves.” And, that’s what our works do, they show evidence of genuine faith. They are in no way a prerequisite for salvation because we are justified by faith.
If you would do me one favor, I would ask that you read Romans 10:1-4. I see that this really pertains to the Mormons, as well.
From my perspective, the problem is that Mormons want to use the Bible when it suits their purposes, like the doctrine of baptism for the dead (though it’s a stretch to build a doctrine on such a slim passage0; then, when it doesn’t suit their purposes, they’re inclined to relegate it to a piece of literature that doesn’t contain enough about salvation for a man to understand what it means to be saved and how God accomplishes that.
If we were to take the Mormon reasoning that the Bible doesn’t contain the fulness of the gospel to the next logical step, one would have to say that nobody before 1820 could learn about salvation and how God accomplishes it. You might disagree with me, but I think this is where Mormon logic takes you. It is simply illogical. The truth of the matter is that everything one needs to know to be saved is found in the Bible. As for arguing about those who never read the Bible, I really don’t have an answer. But, what I do know is that you and I have the Bible, now it’s up to us to accept it as God’s word or not. In my opinion, Mormons do not really accept the Bible as God’s inerrant word. It’s used when it’s convenient, then pushed aside for the BOM, D&C, PGP when it’s not. When Christians talk to Mormons about grace, it seems that Mormons are generally repulsed by the word. When Christians talk about being made righteous because Jesus’ righteousness is imputed to us, Mormons have to argue for how valuable their works are–and not within the context of works being evidence of faith, but within the context of works earning something or making them “worthy” of something. When Christians teach that God has always been God, Mormons want to cling to the argument that God lived on an earth as a man just like us, which means that the Mormon must hold to the fallicy that God was not always God. This is what Mormon scripture teaches. And, yes (this is for Mormon heretic, especially), these are heretical teachings.
I really need to say something to Mormon Heretic right here and now, and I am trying to be as gentle as possible. You think it’s a joke to take on the name of Mormon Heretic because Christians charge that Mormons teach heresy. I just hope you would humble yourself enough to ask the tough questions. Believe me, I know the process is very humiliating and difficult, but at the end of the process there is freedom from the bondage that Mormonism enlsaves its members. You really might want to rethink your nickname.
I hope all the Mormons who read this post will have the courage to examine what I’ve written and ask the hard questions. My conscience is clear that I have spoken God’s word to you, but I’m not going to put in the category of scripture. Also, I have peace in knowing that the Holy Spirit will do His work in the process of revealing truth and illuminating the biblical text for those who sincerely seek truth. I’m just witnessing of the truthfulness of the Good News of Jesus Christ as revealed through the salvation history of God’s people as found in the biblical text. I am not trying to be offensive, but just to be as plain and truthful as I can. I don’t doubt any of your sincerity and desire that all people believe in the veracity of the LDS Church as you do; after all, because you all truly believe the LDS Church to be the true church of Jesus Christ, it only stands to reason that you would all witness for it. I can respect that. I can embrace that. I know that you all have a true and sincere love for people. I hope you understand that my motivation is the same.
Peace and Grace!
jackg
LikeLike
December 1, 2008 at 6:44 pm
ht
Aaron,
Why is it that when someone doesn’t agree with your views they are cast as angry. I read Eric Zacharias’ comments and thought they were not in an angry tone at all. I think LDS people have a persecution complex and always take things defensively.
You and king of texas need to take a step back from your personal feelings and see the big picture. He is just giving facts/opinions like the rest of your readers.
I have a feeling you will think I am angry too. I know my heart and so does God and that is all that matters.
As for who will be going to hell. I do believe God is the end all be all judge. He says in Matthew “judge not or you shall be judged”.
But God does say in the Bible the right way to go and the pitfalls to watch out for so that you don’t end up in HELL. I got off track, but oh well.
Hope you had a great Thanksgiving. We all so much to be Thankful for.
LikeLike
December 1, 2008 at 8:25 pm
ama49
Jack,
Thanks for stopping by and for your thoughtful comments. I realize we don’t agree with everything, but I appreciate you sharing what you’ve learned.
I really appreciate your following comments:
“When Christians talk to Mormons about grace, it seems that Mormons are generally repulsed by the word. When Christians talk about being made righteous because Jesus’ righteousness is imputed to us, Mormons have to argue for how valuable their works are–and not within the context of works being evidence of faith, but within the context of works earning something or making them “worthy” of something. When Christians teach that God has always been God, Mormons want to cling to the argument that God lived on an earth as a man just like us, which means that the Mormon must hold to the fallicy that God was not always God.”
I can have seen how many Mormons fall into the trap of thinking that it is their works that save them. The famous scripture that comes up is “faith without works is dead…” and I will agree with you that many LDS people feel that they have to be busy in a calling or trying to save the world themselves or else they won’t be saved. This leads to feelings of inadequecy and frustration as no one will come close to being able to save ourselves. Those who believe works will save us are wrong and you and I see somewhat eye to eye on this doctrine.
Also, the issue of God being once a man is another Mormon “doctrine” that is not exactly clear in the Bible one way or the other or in Mormon scripture. That, however would be a whole other conversation on a different post.
The final thing I would like to say and that was the purpose of the post was that the Bible and Book of Mormon are collections of writings from apostles and prophets. Are they inspired? Absolutely! Is it a miracle that they were preserved throughout the ages? Yes! Are they the end-all source of spiritual knowledge? No. The Holy Ghost is.
Once again, I respect your approach to these topics and how you take time to think things through and I have learned from your comments…especially on the grace and works issue.
LikeLike
December 1, 2008 at 8:43 pm
ama49
ht,
It’s been awhile. I hope your Thanksgiving was good too. Mine was except for the Seattle Seahawks loss : (
Maybe I’m reading things wrong, but the way I read the first two comments were that they didn’t really care about an open discussion on the subject. They seemed to just stop by and say their thoughts combined with “Mormons…go to Hell!” I think anyone in any religion would view them as either angry or closed-minded.
If you look at Jack’s comments on the other hand, he actually took time to think things through and give an honest answer from his heart. I have no problem with people disagreeing as long as they’re respectful.
LikeLike
December 1, 2008 at 10:24 pm
KingOfTexas
I have always wondered why some who search don’t see. Why do some like myself keep getting guided back when I have been truly unworthy. It makes me feel ashamed and sorrowful for those that do not know the truth.
LikeLike
December 1, 2008 at 10:32 pm
jack
ama,
To be fair, it’s not only Mormons who struggle with works-rightousness issues–a lot of “religious” people do. 🙂
Thanks for the kind words, and I admire the fact that you never come off as angry or perturbed. Your patience astounds me! It’s okay that we have to agree to disagree. We don’t have to understand or agree with each other to respect each other.
Blessings!
Jack
LikeLike
December 1, 2008 at 11:02 pm
NM
Hi Aaron,
Once again, I have ventured into your neck o’ the woods…
As a reformed evangelical, I have often wondered about the strong stance that evangelicals take toward the Bible. Perhaps, we will never truly appreciate the lengths taken to defend it; defend it from (at the time) the ‘church’ who wished to use religion only as a banner for continued greed, war etc.
Personally, I look at the Bible as a set of love letters =)
The OT points to a person. And the NT describes the massive effects of this person….the whole Bible points to Him. And all that we are left with now, are a set of letters describing Him and His perfection, the work that He has accomplished when He propitiated all of my sin and at the same time, imputes all the necessary righteousness that I don’t deserve =)
Would it be ok if I could point you to Carl Trueman? I think he has a better way of describing just how precious these love letters are….
LikeLike
December 2, 2008 at 4:34 pm
jack
NM,
WOW! That was beautifully expressed. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Blessings,
jackg
LikeLike
December 3, 2008 at 12:32 am
ama49
NM,
That’s a great perspective. I feel mostly the same way about the Bible as well. We see clips from apostles like James, John, Peter, and a lot from Paul in the New Testament and how they lived their lives. What they share is certainly inspired and a great example of how to live life as a disciple of Jesus.
I also agree with you in that the purpose of the Bible is to point people to Jesus and salvation.
Thanks for stopping by again!
LikeLike
December 3, 2008 at 5:03 am
Mormon Heretic
Jack,
I don’t get to stop by and comment as frequently as you do, but I would like to address a few points. Regarding atrocities, it seems I misread something you said, regarding the “horrific” things of blood atonement and Brigham Young. As I read it now, it appears I misread your comment. I thought you were referring to something else. Sorry about that. I have to say that I’m not a fan of blood atonement, which would make me a heretic among mormons.
As for my nickname, you will find that it is probably more appropriate than you think. Yes, many non-mormons think that mormons are heretics. I think the title fits. However, I am a little more liberal than your typical mormon, and have some ideas not considered mainstream by more orthodox mormons, or other christians. So, many mormons would consider me to be a heretic as well. You will often find that I agree with certain things you say. Let me give you an example.
I agree that mormons get all worked up about grace. I believe in grace. Now it seems that Luther is the one who really put grace in the forefront. When you say, “is it not clear that the condition of man is depravity?” Yes it is. I believe Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and Mormons all believe this.
“…and that we are in need of a Savior?” Yes again for all the same groups.
“Is it not clear that Jesus Christ is the Messiah?” Yes again for all groups.
“Is it not clear that we are justified by faith?” Ok, here’s where people try to argue, but really I think we all believe the same thing. It comes down to a chicken or egg thing. “Faith without works is dead.” (according to James.) Luther did a great job of showing how important grace is, and there are plenty of scriptures supporting this idea. The Book of Mormon tries to bridge the gap by saying “For it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”
Now Luther says that when we have grace in our lives, then we will have good works. I agree. Luther was reacting to the Catholic belief that we could work our way into heaven. A person who believes that they are saved by grace, and can go out and rob a bank is simply deluding themselves. Too often, mormons, catholics, and protestants get all in a huff about which is more important: grace or works.
My heretical answer is that they are both important. One without the other will simply not work. Jesus said there will be many who say “Lord, Lord, did we not cast out devils in thy name?” Jesus will say, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” This proves that works alone will not save a soul. And anyone who thinks that works will save a person without grace is deluding themselves.
The converse is also true. I can’t tell you how many people think they only need to say a prayer and they are automatically saved. It does not matter what one does after that. This is also poor logic. Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”
I will agree with you that mormons get too hung up on the idea of grace, and try to work their way into heaven. This is wrong. However, there are just as many people who over-emphasize grace, and don’t need to do good to their fellow man. This is just as wrong.
I think the Book of Mormon does a wonderful job of showing how both are needed. God expects us to be righteous, and do much good among mankind. Of course, without his grace, it would be completely worthless. Really, I think there is entirely too much arguing over grace and works, and I think when it gets right down to it, most people will recognize that works and grace are equally important. When one over-emphasizes one over the other, one gets into trouble. The Good Samaritan showed us he was saved by the grace of God by the kindness he showed. But if he thought that by showing kindness, his good work would get him into heaven, he would have been doing it for the wrong reason.
Now, you’ve introduced many things that Ama didn’t include in his original post: godhood, faith/works, blood atonement. Many of these are red herrings, and I’d prefer to get back to the original topic.
When Joseph was first looking for a church to join, he was somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and many of his family attended other denominations. He records in the Pearl of Great Price that “the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. ”
Now you say that you believe the Bible. So does every Christian denomination. We argue over baptism, grace, and many other topics. If one could simply appeal to the Bible, then the Catholic and Orthodox churches never would have split, nor the Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Pentocostals, etc. All make the same claims that you make about only following the Bible. You say baptism is not necessary. Yet Christ said that “ye must be born again to enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But the Mormons, Baptists, Catholics, and Orthodox are going to strenuously disagree with you on this topic. I’m sure you have your scriptural justifications, and I have heard many before. Leaving the mormons out of the equation once again, there are many other denominations that believe only in the Bible that have a major problem with your position.
Now, let me show you how heretical I can be, as I doubt that AMA will agree with me on what I’m about to say. In regards to the Bible, I have a real hard time with many of the strange things in the Bible. I have a problem with David and Solomon’s polygamy. I have a problem with Jacob stealing the birthright from Esau. I have a problem with Abraham attempting to perform human sacrifice. I have a problem with Joshua committing genocide. I have a problem upholding the 10 tribes of Israel as a wonderful group when they wanted to kill Joseph, sold him into slavery, killed people after circumcising them, commit incest, and other things that I know Christ teaches against. I have a problem with Abraham throwing out his wife Hagar and son Ishmael to die in the wilderness. I have a problem calling Jonah a prophet knowing he wanted God to drop an atomic bomb on the city of Nineveh. I could go on.
Now, these are wonderful stories, and they all teach great lessons. The Bible is full of flawed individuals, and it is through these flaws that God’s grace is manifest. When you say that the Bible is inerrant, do you really think that God wanted to curse the seed of Cain to become servants of the white man until Abraham Lincoln unleashed the Emancipation Proclamation? It seems that Christian leaders in the North and South had some different interpretations on this curse. I submit to you that God never wanted slavery, and that was a mistake by early biblical writers, carried on for a few thousand years too long. Do you believe God wanted slavery until 1863?
I think the Bible is often misused by those professing to have a monopoly of truth. Every denomination is guilty of this. Scriptures defending slavery, or women should be silent in church, or polygamy are in error. I do not believe the Bible is inerrant. As recently as the 1990’s, christians in Bosnia misused the story of Joshua to justify committing atrocities against muslims to do ethnic cleansing just as Joshua did. I think Joshua should have used missionary efforts, not violence in Jericho. I know people justify Joshua, but I don’t think he was really different than the Bosnians of today.
Some of these stories aren’t exactly love letters. Do you really believe that women should be silent in church? Could it be that Paul was reacting to Mary Magalene, Apostle of the Apostles? It is quite apparent that many revered her, and she was considered a leader of the early church. Was this an attempt to discredit her? Certainly, the Catholic church tried to stain her calling her a harlot. Isn’t it interesting that Christ first appeared to a woman? What’s the significance?
LikeLike
December 4, 2008 at 3:53 pm
NM
Mormon Heretic,
It sounds like you’ve been reading a few Dan Brown novels. Either that or a few Gnostic-type material. It all sounds Valentianism-ic to me =)
If you think there’s a problem with all those OT stories, then wait till you get to the peak of all tragic and audacious stories in the NT: with an eternal and explosively holy God venting ALL of his righteous WRATH against His only (and sinless) begotten Son! What on earth happened there?!
LikeLike
December 4, 2008 at 7:16 pm
jack
mormon heretic,
Thank you for clarifying your nickname. Maybe “rebel” might serve you better. Just a thought. 🙂
I appreciate your well thought-ouot response. I just want to say that I do not agree that the BOM bridges the gap between faith and works. By reading the BOM, I do not get the picture that works are “evidence” of our faith, but that God’s grace is in response to our works. That’s a huge difference in my opinion, which is why I can’t agree with you on this point.
I find it interesting that there are more Mormons who are professing faith in grace and not works, which is getting away from historical Mormon doctrine. I know, that’s just my opinion. Now, the issue with this is that you have to start asking questions about the reality of LDS “prophets.” There’s still too much LDS literature from the General Authorities that basically teach a works-righteousness doctrine and faith as an appendage to our works. That’s the issue I have MH.
As far as different denominations deriving at different doctrines is not really as big an issue as Mormons want it to be. I say this because we are generally dealing with theologocial doctrine and not dogma.
As far as your statement referring to the black people as descendants of Cain, I think you’re working from the faulty premise that a black skin is a sign of sin or something.
As for your other claims regarding the people and occasions in the Bible that you struggle with, I also think that you are working from the premise that man has to be perfect to be used by God. Heck, God used Cyrus of Persia to free the Israelites from their Babylonian captivity. In the past, God had raised up judges to liberate them, and most of them were not the type of people one would expect God to use. You see, the beauty and majesty of God is that He works through a broken humanity to redeem His people. That’s all we really need to understand with regard to salvation: God does it inspite of ourselves. It’s all about what God does, not what we do. So, again, this just brings me back to why I believe the BOM to be a mere work of fiction. Just so you know, I have prayed for God to reveal to me that the BOM was true if indeed it was. Well, He responded with proof that it wasn’t. And, the biggest proof has to do with how it relegates His grace to an appendage to our works.
As far as others focusing too much on grace, I can see your point. But, then, we have to understand God’s grace in all its manifestations. Common grace is the grace that we all receive regardless of whether or not we believe in Jesus Christ. Saving grace is what we respond to by believing in Jesus Christ. Sanctifying grace is the grace that empowers us to live lives of obedience. And, this is the point I have been trying to make, even our obedience is not of ourselves but because of the Holy Spirit living within us.
All I could ever merit for myself by my works is death. That’s it.
As for the inerrancy of the Bible, you can know all you need to know about salvation by reading it. The situations you described have nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is inerrant, but merely shows the depravity of man. Just because the Bible is misused does not mean it’s NOT inerrant. Just because people have different views and opinions about such things as baptism, and that each side can support their view with scripture, only shows that the Bible is held in tension and that such things are not salvific in nature. Believing that Jesus Christ died on calvary and rose again is the Good News we proclaim, and that we are saved by grace and not by works. Works only prove an authentic faith. This is what’s salvific in nature.
And, again, you bring issues such as women being silent in church without understanding the context in which it was written, and then you follow that by wild accusations.
Also, my references to some of the early LDS teachings were not red herrings, but in line with the idea of “scripture” as perceived by the Mormon thinker. When you understand that this is the context of this post, you will see that I was merely pointing out that Mormons like to use “modern revelation” in their arguments to prove they are the true church of Jesus Christ, but that this belief only goes so far as the doctrine can be palatable to a mainstream audience. Blood atonement is not palatable, as even you comment. But, it is in line with being called scripture because it was supposedly breathed by a prophet of God to the supposed people of God, making it scripture. So, you see, it wasn’t a red herring. I will only use this as my example.
Thanks again for responding. Also, thank you for your tone of respect. I hope that even though I spoke rather plainly, that I was still respectful in my presentation. Have a blessed day!
Peace,
jackg
LikeLike
December 6, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Mormon Heretic
NM,
I read many things–Dan Brown, The Gnostic Gospels, even some Presbyterian seminary materials. Religion fascinates me. I have blogged about Gnosticism, Arianism, Theosis, Montanism, and many other topics on my blog, and perhaps you would find it interesting. It appears I need to learn about Valentinism, as I am not familiar with that.
I’m a big fan of John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar,which is definitely a heretical group as well. While I don’t necessarily always agree with the conclusions some of these scholars come to, I find there point of views fascinating. Crossan talks about apocalalyptic prophecies, and how God will destroy all the evil in the world by killing them. It seems the early Christians and Jews at the time of Christ had some similarities with the Jihadists of today. I don’t believe that God will act this way, and I have a real hard time with the Book of Revelations. Is this what you were referring to? Or are you saying that it is incongruous that God would punish a sinless Savior?
Jack,
Rebel has its own connotations, and I’m not really a tattooed biker type, or confederate flag-waving type either. I like heretic, but rebel is probably an appropriate title as well. I would like to be thought of more along the lines of Luther or Galileo, who were more heretics than rebels.
Thanks for clarifying the types of grace: common, saving, sanctifying. I can’t disagree with your reasoning much. It seems to me that you are coming at sanctification from a different point of view than a mormon, catholic, or orthodox believer, rather than that you are saying anything truly different. Did the chicken come first or the egg? You say chicken, mormons say egg. I don’t really see that the answer matters very much. Both came from God–the nuts and bolts of which came first doesn’t really matter to me. For me, it’s not really worth arguing.
I don’t believe that man has to be perfect to be used by God. I guess what bothers me is when others point to Joseph and Brigham and say, “see they were sinners. God would never use them.” One need look only at the Bible to see that God used some pretty vile characters. Now, you didn’t make this argument, but many do. I believe that prophets can make big mistakes. When I think of Abraham sending out Hagar & Ishmael into the desert because Ishmael made fun of Isaac, part of me says, a man of God shouldn’t do such a terrible thing to a wife and son.
I can see we have different meanings of the word inerrant. I would call Abraham in error in the situation above. It seems you are only applying inerrancy to the Gospel of Christ. Obviously, you think the Bible is sufficient; mormons do not. We’ll have to agree to disagree here.
Regarding modern revelation, can I ask you a question? It seems to me that grace is a relatively modern concept. Luther was the first to really emphasize it in the 1500’s. There are prior church fathers (Augustine I believe, though I might be mistaken–I get them mixed up) who talked about grace.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Christ doesn’t talk about grace the same way you do, as in the Lutheran concept of grace, or even the Pauline concept of grace. If you had lived in the Old Testament times, would you have had a problem accepting Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos, and others who were giving (at the time) modern revelation? It seems to me that all 3 of these I have just mentioned were much more concerned with taking care of the poor, social equality, and justice, much more than the modern concept of grace embraced by Luther. I’m not trying to re-hash a grace/works argument here, but rather trying to understand why you have a problem with modern revelation. What makes Joseph any different than Amos?
LikeLike
December 7, 2008 at 4:52 am
jackg
Mormon Heretic,
You ask some questions that I just can’t answer. I don’t know if I would follow the ancient prophets. I would have to have been Jewish, and so I don’t know how my perceptions would be. As far as Jesus and grace, He IS grace. That’s all I can really say about that. I don’t know if I have a problem with “modern” revelation as I have a problem with JS as a prophet. Because of that, I reject his message to the world as revelation. God reveals things to me everyday, and He will continue to do so. However, what He reveals to me does not fall under the category of scripture or new revelation; it’s really an illumination of what is already in the Bible. Anything God reveals to me has a redemptive quality to it; I mean, that’s the business of God: to redeem us from our sins and from our sin nature. Through His redemptive work, we are reconciled to Him. So, everything God reveals to me is for these purposes: redemption and reconciliation. The dynamic in all this is that of relationship with the Living God through the Person of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. So, we have the three Rs of what I consider to be the focus of theology: redemption, reconciliation, relationship. There is nothing new that anybody can bring to the table that the Bible doesn’t already address and reveal than these purposes of God’s work. That is why I reject Joseph Smith. To reject JS is not to reject revelation. To say that I don’t accept modern revelation because I reject JS is to force upon me the presupposition that JS was a prophet. I hope this makes sense.
As for your statement regarding BY, it really has nothing to do with how he behaved; however, as a true believer in Jesus Christ, our behavior will change. The bigger issue is what he taught. Do you believe that he spoke scripture to the church members when he taught blood atonement and Adam-God doctrines? If you don’t, then I think it puts you in the position of questioning this idea of modern prophets. The “modern” prophets of the LDS Church are not prophets to me because they brought into the discussion doctrines that work outside the parameters of the Bible. God was once a man? Sorry, but I see such a statement as ludicrous and a lie brought into the world by Satan. The couplet was made famous by Lorenzo Snow, but he just put the thoughts of previous prophets into a formula that is easy to memorize. So, within the context of scripture, I can’t accept the BOM, D&C, and PGP as inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. Their messages are different from the Bible, and from it all is created a god who had a beginning, who was not always God.
I hope this answers your questions.
Peace and Grace!
jackg
LikeLike
December 7, 2008 at 9:44 pm
NM
Mormon Heretic,
Hi. I used the fact that God punished His only begotten Son to contrast against some of the negative reactions you stated toward the OT characters and their acts of deceit/evil etc. I was merely trying to get a ‘YOU WHAT?! God did THAT to His only begotten Son?!” reaction…
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement (as well as a few other things) is something I personally hold dear to =) The teaching that Jesus absorbed all of God’s wrath that was meant for me and at the same time imputes Jesus’ righteousness to me (found in Romans) is something that keeps me from spiralling into despair and depression…Past sins have a nasty habit of coming back to haunt you…but thank God that before the foundation of the world, it seems He wrote my name in the book.
God is good, He is merciful…
I’d love to know more about Motanism; I know next to nothing about this. I’ll be hovering around your site…
LikeLike
December 8, 2008 at 12:27 am
Mormon Heretic
Jack,
It seems I may have stumped you. 🙂 Thank you for your “I don’t know” response. I’m used to people blathering on and making poor justifications for their position. I’m glad to see that you’re confident to admit an “I don’t know.”
Your response about not knowing how you would react to Isaiah, Jeremiah and Amos is rather interesting to me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you want to ignore much of the Old Testament since it does not fit with your theology. For example, you have such a big emphasis on grace, while the OT doesn’t that emphasis. It seems to me that you would rather set the OT aside and that you would rather ignore these old prophets since they don’t talk about grace. Is this true?
I’m not sure your exact problem with Joseph, (I’ll get to Brigham in a bit), but I would venture to guess that it has something to do with (1) grace and (2) his sinfulness. Regarding (1), by your comments I can see an overwhelming emphasis on grace. As I said before, I believe in grace, and I believe Joseph did too. I wouldn’t let this be a deal breaker for me, as I think the whole grace/works argument is much ado about nothing. I understand that you disagree with me here.
Regarding (2), one need only look at the Bible to see some sinful prophets: I’ve previously mentioned Abraham, Jonah, Jacob. I see Elijah’s commanding Jezebel to be trampled under hoof as troubling as well. I think all of mankind could do a better job of trying to work out religious differences instead of resorting to war. I see many prophets guilty of war fervor.
As for Brigham, let me answer your questions.
“Do you believe that he spoke scripture to the church members when he taught blood atonement and Adam-God doctrines?” No.
“If you don’t, then I think it puts you in the position of questioning this idea of modern prophets.” It certainly does. However, I think I have made it abundantly clear that I question ancient prophets as well. It also seems to me that you question ancient prophets when you say you are unsure how you would react to Jeremiah and Amos. I don’t believe that Elijah was correct in his dealings with Jezebel. Abraham was wrong with Hagar. Jacob was wrong with Esau. Paul was wrong in saying women should be silent in church. Peter was wrong for denying the Christ (unless one believes that Christ told Peter to deny him–in that case Peter would be following orders. That’s a topic for another time.) Joshua should not have commit genocide in Jericho, and I do not believe God commanded this horrible act.
Yes, I question many things, both in and outside mormonism. Yes, I am certainly not a typical mormon.
Let me ask AMA’s question again: “Why are such scriptures as the Song of Solomon considered to be considered infallible scripture?” After all, there is nothing from the 3 R’s: redemption, reconciliation, relationship in that book of scripture. Would you be an advocate of ditching the Old Testament and just following the New Testament?
Since you brought up the couplet, I blogged recently about the Lorenzo Snow couplet. Suffice it to say, that while many mormons believe that God was once a man, it seems that no other prophet is willing to make that statement. So in my view, that part of the couplet is quite speculative in nature, and not necessarily authoritative. Even though many mormons like to believe this, it is not “set in stone.” I also have a link on Theosis, which is similar to the Mormon view of Exaltation, which you and NM may find interesting. I want to point out that the ancient church father Ireneaus said something quite similar to Lorenzo Snow: “the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.” It seems these teachings were prevalent in the early church, and are still prevalent in the Eastern Orthodox churches of today. There are definite similarities with the mormon view of exaltation, though I admit the stark differences in the nature of God between mormons and other christian denominations.
NM,
Yes, I believe Jesus atoned for our sins, and was a substitute for our punishments. My point about these OT prophets had more to do with their sinfulness, in spite of their callings as a prophet. Here’s a link to Montanism, if you are interested.
LikeLike
December 8, 2008 at 12:28 am
Mormon Heretic
AMA,
Can you rescue my post? It is in moderation.
LikeLike
December 8, 2008 at 3:55 am
Curtis
Wow, what a discussion. I am a member of the LDS faith and feel that I have received answers to my questions I have posed to God. I have also had good friends that have claimed that I am going to hell because of my beliefs as a mormon. I understand that our understanding of Christ is somewhat different than mainstream Christianity in that we believe Christ to be the literal Son of God and a different Person.
I have often wondered why the Bible would refer to Christ as the Son of God if in reality He was God. Why would God try to deceive us in this way? If Christ truly is God, why even bring up this Son of God stuff? Would God really send me to hell if I was actually wrong on this. I would be places in the same category as Hitler, or a rapist? Wow!! What kind of God would that be?
If I pray about something and God reveals to me that my LDS beliefs are what I should follow, how can someone say I am going to hell. I do not believe anyone is going to hell if they are not causing harm to another person and they have prayed and received an answer to their prayer.
All this I am right, you are wrong stuff. Let’s be a little tolerant and discuss why we believe what we believe and keep our minds open to the reason one believes in what he/she may believe.
LikeLike
December 10, 2008 at 4:21 am
KingOfTexas
Faith and belief too often are used as the same word. I think “faith”; in many cases is misused or not understood. Faith is a gift from God. I have heard it said, everyday things we do are done in faith. The act of opening a door is done in faith. We push knowing it will open. Well; we have all walked into a door that said “pull” instead of “push“ (or have seen it done.) If we had pushed the door in faith; the door would have opened even if it said “pull” and we pushed. It would have opened if it was locked.
We must remember faith is a gift from God. We know there is a God. No matter what anyone says; we know. We also know Jesus is the Christ. These are gifts of faith, gifts from God. If you have a testimony by faith that Joseph Smith was a profit; that the Book of Mormon is true and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true church you have been given a gift from God. Not all people know these things. I didn’t say not all people believe these things. I said not all people know these things. That is a gift from God.
The rest is belief. Believe all things spoken by the profits.
LikeLike
December 10, 2008 at 4:24 am
KingOfTexas
Sorry “prophets” 🙂
LikeLike
December 10, 2008 at 5:59 am
Mormon Heretic
AMA must not be reading his blog, so I will re-post my response without the links so it doesn’t get “moderated”. AMA, no need to rescue my old post–it is mostly here, with some slight revisions.
Jack,
It seems I may have stumped you. 🙂 Thank you for your “I don’t know” response. I’m used to people blathering on and making poor justifications for their position. I’m glad to see that you’re confident to admit an “I don’t know.”
Your response about not knowing how you would react to Isaiah, Jeremiah and Amos is rather interesting to me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you want to ignore much of the Old Testament since it does not fit with your theology. For example, you have such a big emphasis on grace, while the OT doesn’t that emphasis. It seems to me that you would rather set the OT aside and that you would rather ignore these old prophets since they don’t talk about grace. Is this true?
I’m not sure your exact problem with Joseph, (I’ll get to Brigham in a bit), but I would venture to guess that it has something to do with (1) grace and (2) his sinfulness. Regarding (1), by your comments I can see an overwhelming emphasis on grace. As I said before, I believe in grace, and I believe Joseph did too. I wouldn’t let this be a deal breaker for me, as I think the whole grace/works argument is much ado about nothing. I understand that you disagree with me here.
Regarding (2), one need only look at the Bible to see some sinful prophets: I’ve previously mentioned Joshua, Abraham, Jonah, Jacob. I see Elijah’s commanding Jezebel to be trampled under hoof as troubling as well. I think all of mankind could do a better job of trying to work out religious differences instead of resorting to war. I see many prophets guilty of war fervor.
As for Brigham, let me answer your questions.
“Do you believe that he spoke scripture to the church members when he taught blood atonement and Adam-God doctrines?” No.
“If you don’t, then I think it puts you in the position of questioning this idea of modern prophets.” It certainly does. However, I think I have made it abundantly clear that I question ancient prophets as well. It also seems to me that you question ancient prophets when you say you are unsure how you would react to Jeremiah and Amos. I don’t believe that Elijah was correct in his dealings with Jezebel. Abraham was wrong with Hagar. Jacob was wrong with Esau. Paul was wrong in saying women should be silent in church. Peter was wrong for denying the Christ (unless one believes that Christ told Peter to deny him–in that case Peter would be following orders. That’s a topic for another time.) Joshua should not have commit genocide in Jericho, and I do not believe God commanded this horrible act.
Yes, I question many things, both in and outside mormonism. Yes, I am certainly not a typical mormon.
Let me ask AMA’s question again: “Why are such scriptures as the Song of Solomon considered to be considered infallible scripture?” After all, there is nothing from the 3 R’s: redemption, reconciliation, relationship in that book of scripture. Would you be an advocate of ditching the Old Testament and just following the New Testament?
Since you brought up the couplet, I blogged recently about the Lorenzo Snow couplet. (Please check my blog for the exact link.) Suffice it to say, that while many mormons believe that God was once a man, it seems that no other prophet is willing to make that statement. So in my view, that part of the couplet is quite speculative in nature, and not necessarily authoritative. Even though many mormons like to believe this, it is not “set in stone.” I also have a link on Theosis, which is similar to the Mormon view of Exaltation, which you and NM may find interesting. I want to point out that the ancient church father Ireneaus said something quite similar to Lorenzo Snow: “the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.” It seems these teachings were prevalent in the early church, and are still prevalent in the Eastern Orthodox churches of today. There are definite similarities with the mormon view of exaltation, though I admit the stark differences in the nature of God between mormons and other christian denominations.
NM,
Yes, I believe Jesus atoned for our sins, and was a substitute for our punishments. My point about these OT prophets had more to do with their sinfulness, in spite of their callings as a prophet. Check my link about Montanism, if you are interested. It is interesting to me that Tertullian, the man who coined the concept of the trinity was a convert of Montanus–an ancient version of Joseph Smith.
LikeLike
December 10, 2008 at 11:23 pm
KingOfTexas
mormon heritec,
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Romans 5:15
For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Romans 6:15
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?
LikeLike
December 11, 2008 at 1:16 am
Mormon Heretic
King,
I’m not trying to get into a debate about grace. The topic is infallibility of scriptures. I believe in grace too. I’ve said that many times.
LikeLike
December 11, 2008 at 3:05 am
KingOfTexas
Sorry Heretic. Infallibility? If and when we need to know something we will be told. What about something being in the scriptures that you never see. Some plain and simple things. Are we talking about our infallibility?
LikeLike
December 11, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Mormon Heretic
King,
My question was directed at Jack, but you’re welcome to join the conversation. The Bible isn’t exactly clear on many subjects–hence there are countless denominations. Since you and Jack are so into grace, I’m picking that topic, but there are many other subjects where different denominations disagree (baptism, theosis, grace, to name a few.)
It appears to me that many Christians call the Bible infallible, but ignore scriptures that don’t agree with their position. For example, the Old Testament has few (if any) references to grace, particularly the grace of Christ. Prophets like Jeremiah and Amos talked more about works: helping the poor and widows, being equitable with fellow men, etc. For that matter, the 10 commandments is an explicit direction of works we need to do, not grace.
If the Bible is infallible, how do you and Jack explain this lack of continuity regarding grace? It seems to me you would prefer to ignore prophets like Amos and Jeremiah who do not really talk about grace as you do.
I have previously stated that both works and grace are important. I think that people who emphasize grace over works/works over grace as wrong. Since I believe that both grace and works are important, I don’t have a problem with these ancient prophets. However, it seems to me that you and Jack would prefer to ignore or greatly de-emphasize any scripture that has an emphasis on works because of your preoccupation with grace. Therefore, how can you really support the idea that the Bible is infallible, when you so heavily discount anything emphasizing works? It seems to be a major contradiction to me.
We are interchanging inerrant/infallible quite a bit, and it is apparent to me that our definitions, while similar, are causing the real disagreements here. I want to ask AMA’s question again, as nobody has even attempted any sort of a real explanation:
“Why are such scriptures as the Song of Solomon considered to be infallible scripture?”
Perhaps a definition of infallible is in order?
LikeLike
December 11, 2008 at 10:23 pm
jack
Mormon Heretic,
Sorry I haven’t got back in a while, and don’t have much time to respond appropriately, now. I just want to say that you misunderstood my response regarding the ancient prophets. When I said I don’t know if I would have followed them then, it is because I would have to assume that I would be thinking the way I think, today. Our perceptions and beliefs are guided by culture and circumstance. But, if you’re asking if I would follow them, presupposing that I would have been the same, then I would have to say that because I believe them today, I would have believed them then. However, there are too many assumptions to answer that question accurately. As far as the OT goes, it is nothing but a story of grace. When we look at “salvation history,” we can’t help but notice that God’s grace was working even during the time of retribution dogma. You need to remember that the Israelites were living in a time when the Messiah had not yet come to fulfill the promises of salvation. To assume that I put aside the OT is absolutely false, and it is in harmony with the NT message of grace.
As for JS, his teachings are false teachings, and that’s why I reject him as a prophet. To discuss his character is a peripheral topic for me and highly subjective. But, it’s easy to dissect what he and the other LDS leaders have taught to see their teachings for what they are, which, in my opinion, point to heretical teachings.
As for the three Rs, remember that they are my presentation of theology in a very simple form. Again, I am not for ditching any of the scriptures–even the parts I might not quite understand. As for Song of Solomon, that’s a great book for a newly married couple to read..and a couple who’s been married for years and need to spice up their intimate relationship. 🙂
As I said, I am short on time…have tons of homework.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, MH. I’ll try to finish addressing the rest of this sometime this weekend if I have time. The discussion on the couplet might be for another thread. It is provocative, though. I think ama might have a say on how far this might drift off topic. I don’t know, would going there really be off topic? I mean, we’re still talking about scripture, and I believe what Lorenzo Snow is scripture by definition as set forth by ama. We’ll see. Gotta go!
Peace and Grace!
jackg
LikeLike
December 12, 2008 at 3:48 am
Mormon Heretic
Jack,
Good luck on the homework. I do my thesis defense on Monday, which is why I haven’t posted on my own blog this month. I’ll finally graduate after next week!!!!
I agree that theosis is off topic here; you’re welcome to revive my old post if you like, as I would like to discuss it further, and am curious about your opinions if you don’t mind posting those on my blog. My bringing it up here was merely to show further biblical disagreements among christian denominations, just like baptism has no uniform agreement. (It sounds like since baptism is a “work” it is not necessary in your theology. I know Baptists, Mormons, and Catholics vehemently disagree with you here.)
I look forward to your more detailed response. I don’t think there was much of God’s grace in the story Joshua and the city of Jericho–perhaps you can explain that to me. Yes, Song of Solomon is interesting reading, but it seems quite tangential and of much less spiritual worth compared to pretty much every other book in the Bible.
I know Martin Luther didn’t like the Book of Esther, and considers much (if not all) of it as fiction. The Catholics have several books not in the protestant bible. Apparently, the protestants feel that the Catholic Bible is full of fallible books, which is why the Bible isn’t the same.
If I may play devil’s advocate a little more. While you say that the Old Testament is full of grace, I find it interesting that muslims and jews believe the OT is scripture, yet do not come to the conclusion that it reveals that Christ is the Redeemer. Now obviously, you and I disagree with jews and muslims. But how do you explain why we (christians, muslims, and jews) can all read the same OT, and come to such divergent conclusions regarding Christ?
Don’t forget to tell me how grace is in Song of Solomon, and why you think that particular book is infallible…
Good luck in your studies! I enjoy “talking” with you.
MH
LikeLike
December 12, 2008 at 4:58 am
KingOfTexas
Heretic
I agree about works.
Romans 6:15
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?
Why is it always false teachings, false scriptures. Where? What?
LikeLike
December 12, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Mormon Heretic
King,
I don’t understand what you are talking about. Can you please elaborate?
LikeLike
December 12, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Mormon Heretic
King,
Please tell me of what value Song of Solomon adds to any belief in Christ. Does Songs specifically address any of the following: redemption, grace, sin, baptism, works, immaculate conception, sanctification, virtue, charity, faith, hope, concern for the poor, equality, reconciliation, reform, relationship to Christ, atonement, trinity, forgiveness?
Yes Songs does talk about love, but the love is quite different than Christ’s admonition, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” Specifically, what theological value does Songs add? Why is it infallible? Why is it in the Bible at all? Would you read it to a five year old as a bed-time story? Ten-year old? Fifteen year-old?
Yes it is a nice love letter. Yes we should cherish our wives. What theological value is Songs?
LikeLike
December 12, 2008 at 11:23 pm
KingOfTexas
Mormon Heretic What theological value is Songs?
PSALM 105
2 Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him: talk ye of all his wondrous works.
PSALM 98
1 O sing unto the Lord a new song; for he hath done marvelous things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory.
4 Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.
I think praise to Him that created us and Him that saved us would be a start.
Some time it’s not all about us. We need to remember to rejoice, and sing praise.
LikeLike
December 14, 2008 at 5:47 am
Mormon Heretic
King, I was talking about Songs of Solomon, not the book of Psalms. Did you read what I wrote? Where did I ever talk about Psalms?
LikeLike
December 17, 2008 at 11:05 pm
NM
“There are two ways to read the Bible. The one way to read the Bible is that it’s basically about you: what you have to do in order to be right with God, in which case you’ll never have a sure and certain hope, because you’ll always know you’re not quite living up. You’ll never be sure about that future. Or you can read it as all about Jesus. Every single thing is not about what you must do in order to make yourself right with God, but what he has done to make you absolutely right with God. And Jesus Christ is saying, “Unless you can read the Bible right, unless you can understand salvation by grace, you’ll never have a sure and certain hope. But once you understand it’s all about me, Jesus Christ, then you can know that you have peace. You can know that you have this future guaranteed, and you can face anything.” Tim Keller
LikeLike
December 18, 2008 at 2:26 am
Mormon Heretic
NM,
That’s a great quote.
The topic is not grace, as you and others seems to want to steer the topic toward, it is about infallibility of the Bible. Can you address that topic please? (Or does your lack of addressing the topic mean you don’t know what to say about it?)
LikeLike
December 18, 2008 at 8:28 pm
NM
Sorry =/
I got a little carried away!
LikeLike
December 23, 2008 at 6:15 pm
brooksrobinson
Mormon Heretic:
Sorry to pop into a current conversation like this, but I couldn’t help but read all these responses without leaving some sort of comment. Upfront I share similar views of Jackg, that way theres no confusion…but I also would be where different denominations yet share the same views.
“It sounds like since baptism is a “work” it is not necessary in your theology. I know Baptists, Mormons, and Catholics vehemently disagree with you here.)”
Well first off I’m not 100% sure that all Baptist’s would agree that baptism is a requirement. I know that there are a few various Baptist groups out there (as if Protestantism couldnt get more diverse) and some of them differ in views. I fully agree with Jackg (and I bet we’re different denominations), baptism is not a requirement of salvation. I would merely ask those Baptists and Catholics where baptism fit in John 3:16 or Paul’s confession creed in Romans 10 .
“I don’t think there was much of God’s grace in the story Joshua and the city of Jericho–perhaps you can explain that to me.”
But there was, look at the story in a 3D way. Remember in Exodus where God said to Moses and the Hebrews that his work in Egypt would demonstrate to the world that he is the Lord of Lords. Go to Joshua and note that Rahab, when the Jewish spies come to her, almost repeat that statement. They heard about God’s mighty works in Egypt, but Jericho evidently did not repent of their evil ways. If Rahab, a prostitute, out of fear of the Lord was willing to aid the Hebrews, I see no reason as to why the rest of the inhabitants of Jericho could not do the same. Not necessarily hide the spies, but come out and ask the Hebrews to spare them, thus repenting. I would even bet that Rahab even quit prostitution when she was taken into the Hebrew people. Also notice, the King of Jericho requested the spies….surely he would have killed them, another sign that they probably did not want to repent.
There are many stories like that if you read carefully you see God gives the people a chance before judgement. That or the people are just so vile there is no hope for their repentance. Sodom and Gamorrah are a perfect example, as God personally inspected these cities as if he were saying “I want to give them one more chance” (also note the barginning with Abraham). Jonah is another prime example of God offering chances to a vile people. Also one has to accept that God knows the hearts of men, knows who will accept if presented with a specific option…so those he offers no grace to perhaps already lived past their oppurtunities of grace, and where just so vile they had no hope.
“The Catholics have several books not in the protestant bible. Apparently, the protestants feel that the Catholic Bible is full of fallible books, which is why the Bible isn’t the same”
Not all Protestants feel this way… I believe the Lutherans contain the Apocyrpha. Many do not feel they are as legit as they come off to be. A few of them seem to “finish” books present in the OT scriptures. The problem is they do not appear in the Hebrew Bible, just in the Greek translation. The author’s of the books also seem to be in question (which would make sense when you have “endings” of books that were written before the age of Hellenism, which would have been when the Septugiant was written). Thus, they do not appear in many Bibles…however I would recommend them to Christian’s who are intersted in the scholarly side of the Bible. I’ve read many of them and they just seem to have a different feel then the Bible itself…even the ones that claim to be the 2nd part of a book in the Bible.
“While you say that the Old Testament is full of grace, I find it interesting that muslims and jews believe the OT is scripture, yet do not come to the conclusion that it reveals that Christ is the Redeemer.”
Well first the Muslims take a view similar to Mormonism, but they go a step beyond it. Mormonism feels (correct me if I’m wrong) that the Bible is correct so long as it is translated correctly. Muslims go to the point that the Bible HAS been changed, thus cannot be fully trusted. You say Jews do not believe the OT like Christians do…but may I remind you that it was Jews, thousands of them, that started Christianity…and theres a movement of former Jews today, that believe Jesus to be the Messiah known as Messianic Jews. Another interesting note is that Jews generally don’t read Isaiah, and make up excuses for what the suffering servant is that did not exist in Jewish theology at the time of Jesus or before(such as the suffering servant is Israel, when it wasn’t considered Israel then, plus Isaiah usually identifies Israel withhimself by saying “us”). In otherwords, some Jewish theology has changed slightly since the 2nd Temple days.
“Don’t forget to tell me how grace is in Song of Solomon, and why you think that particular book is infallible…”
I won’t answer for Jackg, but I will say that Song of Solomon has been looked at two different ways. The obvious, a love poem of a royal marriage, the 2nd, a divine allegory between the love of God and his people the Hebrews…which can easily be carried over to the love of Christ and the new line of Abraham’s children. If truly an allegory, showing the love of God and his people, grace would be self evident in that.
I hope I did not overstep any bounds in the conversation.
In Christ,
Brooks
LikeLike
December 25, 2008 at 4:22 am
Mormon Heretic
Brooks,
Thanks for commenting. I don’t want to get into too many specifics like baptism and grace, but just want to make sure you understand why I’m picking those as examples. Regarding baptism, Jesus told Nicodemus that “Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ”
If the Bible is truly infallible, why is it that Christians can’t even come to the same conclusion as to whether baptism is a requirement to enter the Kingdom of God? Once again, I’m not here to debate whether baptism is/is not a requirement, but rather just using this as an illustration into the problems of referring to the bible as “infallible.” You and I can both find bible scriptures supporting our position, and say we both believe the bible. Of course, every denomination emphasizes scriptures in support of their theology, so of course, this is not unique to you an I alone.
As to your explanations of grace in Song of Solomon, Joshua, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc, I find those examples as stretching the concept of grace too much. I highly doubt that Joshua, for example, believed in grace the same way Paul did. I believe there are some fundamental differences between the Exodus story and Jericho. I have blogged frequently about Joshua, and don’t want to get side-tracked there, but let me just say I will disagree with your assessment of grace in that particular story.
Regarding the Bible, even if there are protestants that hold the Apocrypha in higher esteem than others, that doesn’t explain what is meant by infallible. What does that mean? Regarding Song of Solomon, you have given the classic definition of how to “properly” interpret that book. I find these 2 propositions lacking in substance. I would say that there are some books in the Apocrypha of more spiritual worth than Song of Solomon.
I would also state that I believe that Song of Solomon is the least quoted book of scripture in any church or theological discussion. In fact, I can’t think of a single reference to that book in any church service I have attended. I’ve never even heard it quoted as weddings, where it presumably might be appropriate to mention. Instead, there are references from many other books of obvious superiority. Even when a teacher/priest mentions Christ as the bridegroom, Song of Solomon is NEVER mentioned. Do you disagree?
Yes, a small minority of Jews recognize Jesus, but as I said before, the majority of Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah, and highly dispute Christians’ Old testament assertions that prophesy of Christ.
LikeLike
December 25, 2008 at 11:42 am
brooksrobinson
Mormon Heretic,
Thanks for the response back.
“Regarding baptism, Jesus told Nicodemus that “Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. ”
Let me explain this verse a bit, those who use it for baptism are completely wrong (as I never really had a dialogue with one who is baptism=salvation I couldn’t tell you if they use this verse anyhow). First, when Jesus is referencing born of water, he is referencing a natural human birth. As human fetus’ we are enclosed in liquid as you know. Before we can be born of the Spirit we have to be born…literally, which makes sense. Also why its clear he’s talking about natural birth is because baptism is not a Jewish ritual, thus Nicodemus would have to be explained not only the Spiritual rebirth (like Jesus does) but also this “water birth.” It is also at this same point Jesus gives the famous 3:16 speech. So if Jesus just got done giving a speech about how one must be baptized by water before entering heaven, and then later he says its just believing in him that saves a man, we have some confusion. In Christian thought, once a man accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior one experiences that Spiritual rebirth.
“If the Bible is truly infallible, why is it that Christians can’t even come to the same conclusion as to whether baptism is a requirement to enter the Kingdom of God?”
I don’t think fallibility of a document has anything to do with how a man may interrpret something. Especially when dealing with the known fallibility of man.
“You and I can both find bible scriptures supporting our position, and say we both believe the bible. Of course, every denomination emphasizes scriptures in support of their theology, so of course, this is not unique to you an I alone.”
That is why RIGHT interrpretation is needed. One can do this in many ways, going to the original language, studying those who wrote these documents, the writings of the early church fathers etc etc. Let me give you an example…. If I say “you must be born again to see the kingdom of God” to a Buddhist, he may think of reincarnation. However, that concept would be completely false in the Christian understanding. In other words, if he truly wanted to understand what a Christian meant by a “born again experience” he needs to put himself in the mindset of a Christian. However, I can assure you that majority of the Evangelical side shares one common bond and that is absolute faith in Christ… many throw away the small side stuff when it comes to unitywith those of other denominations (sadly some don’t).
“As to your explanations of grace in Song of Solomon, Joshua, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc, I find those examples as stretching the concept of grace too much.”
Its not, the only thing keeping me from feeling the wrath of God on judgement day is faith in Christ. These men of the places God told the Hebrews to wipe out knew what is right and wrong, and those so dilutted by evil that had no concept of right and wrong needed to be wiped out. There is a purpose as to why God had the Hebrews destroy those people and it ultimately adds up to grace, cause it paved the way for Grace, Christ.
“I find those examples as stretching the concept of grace too much. I highly doubt that Joshua, for example, believed in grace the same way Paul did.”
Depends what you mean by grace…Grace through Jesus? Yes Paul’s and Joshua’s concept would be different since Joshua would not of known about Jesus. However, I think the holy men of the OT knew full well they were sinners and were kept alive merely through the Grace of God…same thing I believe…faith in Christ, which is God. Remember Paul teaches about how its faith and not works and the book of Hebrews teaches about how these mighty men of faith (Abraham, Moses, etc etc) did things in faith.
“I would say that there are some books in the Apocrypha of more spiritual worth than Song of Solomon. ”
Like which books? Also not every book in the Bible has to be “spiritual”, there are other reasons as to accept them as good books…some of them shed insight into various historical things, or places, or the burden the Hebrews had to carry to fulfill their end of the bargin (the exactness of the tabernacle, the cups, the altar, the priest garbs etc etc.).
“I would also state that I believe that Song of Solomon is the least quoted book of scripture in any church or theological discussion.”
Perhaps you should bring it back into the lime light ;). I’ll admit I’ve heard like one or two services on this book.
“Even when a teacher/priest mentions Christ as the bridegroom, Song of Solomon is NEVER mentioned. Do you disagree?”
I might of even heard a sermon based off this idea (Christ the Bridegroom… I will agree that not a lot of people quote it. I don’t think it should be quoted at weddings…it seems like a book you’d want to read alone with your spouse :). I know my uncle and aunt, while my uncle is away, they do a Bible study together (probably talk about it over email) and they were doing it on Songs of Solomon. So don’t discount a book that you see no reason to have, just cause your thinking deep theological reasons to have certain books.
“but as I said before, the majority of Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah, and highly dispute Christians’ Old testament assertions that prophesy of Christ.”
The Jewish idea and interpretation of the OT has changed over the years…like i said the suffering servant in Isaiah has morphed from potential Messiah to Israel. I also believe the OT reveals Israels disbelief many times through out the prophets. I mean lets get real the “annointed one” was predicted in Daniel when he was going to walk the face of the earth…who else could that be (especially considering the years add up to around Jesus’ lifetime). Pinchas Lapide believes Jesus rose from the dead, performed all these miracles, and Jesus probably fulfilled some of the OT prophecies etc.etc. he just thinks Jesus was a precourser to the Messiah. Lapide was a Jewish theologian of the 20th century.
In Christ,
Brooks
LikeLike
December 26, 2008 at 5:50 am
Mormon Heretic
Brooks,
I don’t want to get into a Bible Bash. I’m not here to debate grace or baptism. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it seems that “correct” biblical interpretation is also in the eye of the beholder. That has been my point all along, and you are simply reinforcing that idea by your disputing my points regarding grace and baptism.
Please check my blog at http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/07/17/history-of-baptismmikvah/ regarding a jewish practice called “mikvah” which is very similar to christian baptism. Certainly Christians adopted this mikvah practice, changed some things, called it baptism, gave new meaning and made it their own. Jesus instituted the Last Supper and Baptism, so it seems quite important, and was incredibly important to first and second century christians. To summarily dismiss this practice goes against ancient traditional Christianity.
If you want to interpret baptism differently, that’s certainly your prerogative, but it is arrogant to assume that your interpretation is the “correct” interpretation, and that everyone else is wrong. I admire your devotion, and I suppose I could give an arrogant response back, but I’d prefer to discuss theology, not argue it. I’m sure you didn’t intend to come across as arrogant.
I’m tired of discussing grace and baptism, let’s get back to the real topic. Please answer this question: What does “the bible is infallible” mean? Perhaps we can come to some sort of consensus here.
LikeLike
December 27, 2008 at 12:29 am
ama49
MH
I appreciate you bringing it back to the topic on hand. That’s a great question that you ask: “What does the Bible is infallible mean?”
I just got an interesting scholarly book for Christmas about the history of the bible and why some books “made the cut” while others didn’t. I’ll have a much more educated answer on that question hopefully in the next month or so as I read the book.
However, my whole point to this post was the Holy Ghost trumps all scripture in the sense that if it is inspired from God and points to Jesus the Holy Ghost will confirm truth to our hearts. That’s the point of this post. The Bible was written by man. The Book of Mormon as well and so on. However, a witness from the Holy Spirit can not be denied and will confirm the truth of all things.
LikeLike
December 27, 2008 at 1:11 pm
brooksrobinson
MH:
I believe infallibility means that the originals are 100% to what God has passed to man. This does not mean the copies are perfect… I believe that the copies have flaws…however textual critics will gladly say that the translations we hold today are roughly 99.5% to the original’s, this according to such great textual critics such as Bruce Metzger, and as even the critics suggest, such as Bart Ehrman, that with enough copies we can successfully construct the originals. The Bible has enough early copies (infact outnumbering any other book of its era) that textual critics can do a knock up job on creating the translations we have today. Bart Ehrman can attest to this as well, there are only four sections of the Gospel’s that scholar’s do not think are original (and none of these area’s affect Christian doctrine).
ama49:
“However, my whole point to this post was the Holy Ghost trumps all scripture in the sense that if it is inspired from God and points to Jesus the Holy Ghost will confirm truth to our hearts.”
And how do you know that its the Holy Spirit that’s leaving you with this feeling of truth?
In Christ,
Brooks
LikeLike
December 27, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Mormon Heretic
Brooks,
Your definition is quite general. How does it apply to these specific situations: Do you believe that God commanded polygamy (Abraham, David, Solomon)? Does God want women silent in church? Did God tell the Israelites that slavery was ok if they won the war? Did God really want the descendants of Cain to be slaves until Abraham Lincoln? Did God really want Jezebel trampled by horses?
You also need to answer your question to AMA. Let me rephrase it in your own terminology: how do you know that your interpretation of the bible is correct?
LikeLike
December 28, 2008 at 6:57 am
ama49
Brooks,
You ask a very great question and I appreciate you asking. There is spiritual knowledge and there is also knowledge and wisdom given to us from man that you have pointed out about the Bible. The dilema is how do we know if what is written in the Bible is true and as MH has pointed out, there are many varying forms of Christian doctrine that have stemmed from the Bible. Yes Jesus is the way and the truth but is baptism essential? Is making covenants essential for salvation? Works and grace?
The Book of Mormon clarifies many of these questions and also serves as a second witness to many of the doctrines that Jesus originally taught. At the end of the Book of Mormon there is a promise that tells us:
1. When you receive these things (the teachings of the Book of Mormon) remember the mercy of God (be humble)
2. Ponder this in your heart (take time to really reflect on how these teachings may help you draw nearer to God)
3. Ask God if these things are true.
4. If you ask with a sincere heart (you really want to know the truth and are not acting with deception)
5. With real intent (you are willing to do whatever God commands you to do)
6. With Faith in Christ
7. He will manifest the truthfulness of it to you by the Holy Ghost
8. By the power of the Holy Ghost you will know the truth of ALL things.
This is the formula I’ve used with many decisions I’ve made in my life and when you receive a witness from the Spirit you know without a doubt it is from God. I feel the spirit in many ways. When I read scripture about Jesus I feel the spirit speak peace to my soul. When I applied this promise and prayed I felt an overwhelming feeling of love and desire to share the message about the full gospel of Christ with everyone. When I fasted and prayed about the woman who is now my wife, God gave me a very powerful witness through the spirit to my mind in a vision and also to my heart similar to when I prayed about the Book of Mormon. Sometimes in church words come to my mind and I feel love in my heart as well and I get up and share these feelings with others.
All of these feelings are essential. One can not merely “reason” through historical evidence about the Bible, Book of Mormon, or any other book and have a witness from the Spirit. One needs to study things out first and ponder in their hearts the meanings and implications. Then pray and ask God for a witness and if it is true He has promised the Spirit will let us know. However, if we do not ask with sincere desire or intent we will not receive the witness. We need to be ready to act on the revelation we recieve.
In turn I ask you the same question that MH asked you. How do you know the Bible is true?
LikeLike
December 28, 2008 at 11:16 am
brooksrobinson
MH:
“Your definition is quite general. How does it apply to these specific situations: Do you believe that God commanded polygamy (Abraham, David, Solomon)?”
From what it says in the text…. just because these men took many wives (like David) or slept with a handmaiden (Abraham had one wife, slept with Sarah’s handmaiden) and its written in the Bible, does not mean God condoned it( I see no instances where it says God says take more then one wife). There seems to be a misconception (and I’m not pointing at you, but for just generalities here) amongst many folks that because something’s recorded in the Bible that means that God condoned it. I did not see God say to David, go and take Abigal as your second wife (technically third but David never officially married Saul’s daughter). Rather, the Bible records an honest history of the Jews(not painting Jewish hero’s as mythical almost perfect beings), their prophecies, and their laws.
“Does God want women silent in church?”
I believe many of the letters of Paul were situational, as each one is specified for a specific church to deal with specific issues. However, that’s not to say you cannot get a good message out of it or that none of his words are relevant for today (as I believe many of them are still relevant)…for instance Paul told the women of one particular city to dress a certain way. He told them what not to wear and he did this to keep Christian women from looking like temple prostitutes of that city. What we can get out of that is simple, Christian women or men, should dress modestly. If we examine why Paul told women to be silent in one particular church, we might find that perhaps they were gossiping…or something else to that nature (not saying this was it but simply throwing this out there).
“Did God tell the Israelites that slavery was ok if they won the war?”
Slavery was much different in the ancient Middle East then it was in the 1800’s. Slave’s in the ancient Hebrew culture were almost considered part of the family. They had Sabbath’s off and they participated in Jewish fesitivals. The Jews also protected slaves from brutality. As far as the NT is concerned, slavery was a part of life during the Roman era, so Paul needed to address it. Slave’s were directed to to obey their masters as if working for Christ, and masters were to respect their slaves and not treat them inhumanly.
” Did God really want the descendants of Cain to be slaves until Abraham Lincoln?”
I don’t remember reading this in the Bible(not refering to Abraham Lincoln, but Cain’s ancesters being slaves).
” Did God really want Jezebel trampled by horses?”
I’d think He would have rather of had choose to be a righteous woman that followed him. “While Jezebel was killing off the LORD’s prophets,” 1Kings 18.
“how do you know that your interpretation of the bible is correct?”
The Holy Spirit, the Scripture’s divine author, both authenticates it to me by His inward witness and opens my mind to understand its meaning. As I listen to the Holy Spirit, I compare various English translations for word usage; I also use Greek and Hebrew lexicons, to include a Greek Bible to get the original wordage used. I read various commentaries to see what the scholar’s say, and I read early church letters from those shortly after the Apostles, such as Ignatius, Clement, etc.etc. I read scholarly books from various theologians, historians, and Bible scholars (to include skeptics), to get insight in the beliefs of the early church and to gain a full understanding of everything I am reading. In shorter terms, I compare my “authentications” to those of others, going all the way to the beginning of the Christian church… to see if it’s a similar view with the majority of Christians out there. I find that it often is, and that I disagree with few Christians on issues. I can tell you the majority of times I have seen issues with are predestination/eternal security believers vs. freewill/grace believers.
Ama:
I will respond to your response in a separate answer. I did not get it until I was about to post this.
In Christ,
Brooks
LikeLike
December 29, 2008 at 12:44 am
Mormon Heretic
Brooks,
It seems to me that you have all the answers. You have some very interesting responses.
You appear to be throwing Abraham, David, and Solomon under the bus by not following God’s will in marriages. I suppose Jacob (Israel) and all the other Old testament prophets are under equal condemnation.
I think Paul’s response about women being silent in church is a response to Mary Magdalene. If you’ve really read Bart Ehrmann, you would know that Bart tells us that Mary was a teacher in the early church. Mary is “apostle of apostles.” This seems to me like an attempt to discredit and silence her, as well as all women.
You’re description of slavery almost makes me want to become a slave. I feel pretty confident that most slaves did not enjoy being slaves. To quote Patrick Henry, “give me liberty or give me death.”
It is well known that many churches in the Civil War era taught that slavery was ok. When people are talking about ‘curse of Cain, curse of Canaan’, it is being used to justify why blacks have it so hard. A lot of protestant ministers were trying to keep the Civil War from happening, and were saying ‘this is God’s design’, and these are the curses that support the way things ought to be.
The case regarding Jezebel is an interesting one. The King of Israel/Judah was counseled not to take a foreign wife. But due to political expediency, he chose Jezebel. Now, we all believe in religious freedom today. Of course in ancient times, it was a “convert or die” type of mentality. Now Jezebel was simply trying to maintain her religious heritage. Of course, Elijah had other ideas. It is quite unfortunate that this turned into a religious war. I believe Elijah was as guilty for inspiring religious hatred as Jezebel was. In this case, clear heads did not prevail. I think God was extremely disappointed in both Elijah and Jezebel. Of course, in the Bible, we only get one side of the story.
Brooks, for all your reading scholars and theologians, it seems to me you are not looking deeply into these issues, but merely parroting what you have been told. It seems to me you have a rather juvenile grasp of the issues, in spite of your proclaiming to be well-versed in experts. I do not hold your opinions in high esteem.
It is interesting to see that you do agree with AMA–the holy spirit confirms the truth to you.
LikeLike
December 29, 2008 at 3:55 am
jackg
Brooks,
You’re doing a great job, brother!
ama49,
You said, “However, my whole point to this post was the Holy Ghost trumps all scripture in the sense that if it is inspired from God and points to Jesus the Holy Ghost will confirm truth to our hearts. That’s the point of this post. The Bible was written by man. The Book of Mormon as well and so on. However, a witness from the Holy Spirit can not be denied and will confirm the truth of all things.”
I would say that the Holy Spirit trumps all FALSE scripture. If scripture is true, it is the product of the Holy Spirit working through man, so your claim that scripture comes from man discounts the role of the Spirit in bringing God’s Word to the world. This is a shaky premise at best, ama49.
Grace and Peace!
jackg
LikeLike
December 29, 2008 at 4:54 am
ama49
Jack,
Good point. I appreciate your clarification. I agree with you that the Holy Ghost trumps false scripture and confirms to our hearts truth from the scriptures.
LikeLike
December 29, 2008 at 5:02 am
ama49
Brooks,
Thank you for sharing your testimony about the Bible with us. In your testimony, or witness of the Bible you share that
1. The Holy Spirit has spoken to you
2. You’ve researched and studied it out in your heart and mind as well.
It’s amazing how the Spirit will speak to us through scripture and I have felt the same feeling as I read in the Bible that you describe as well. Also, the Spirit not only speaks to us through scripture, but confirms truthfulness found in scripture to our hearts, which you’ve shared with us as well.
I would say that all of us in this discussion agree on this right? Should we end the discussion on this common ground or are there other questions?
LikeLike
December 29, 2008 at 8:35 am
brooksrobinson
MH:
“You appear to be throwing Abraham, David, and Solomon under the bus by not following God’s will in marriages. I suppose Jacob (Israel) and all the other Old testament prophets are under equal condemnation.”
I don’t think any of these men followed God’s will 100% of the time… they were human and various actions that are recorded in the scriptures will show that. That’s why I love the Bible…God can use anyone for His will if they allow him. You could probably find faults in every prophet of the Bible if one searches the scriptures close enough(faults in the person not the prophecy).
“I think Paul’s response about women being silent in church is a response to Mary Magdalene. If you’ve really read Bart Ehrmann, you would know that Bart tells us that Mary was a teacher in the early church. Mary is “apostle of apostles.” This seems to me like an attempt to discredit and silence her, as well as all women.”
I do not think its about Mary Magdalene… I have read Bart Ehrman and where I think he gets this notion that Mary was the “apostle of apostles” is from the Gospel according to Mary. This is a gnostic gospel coming 150years or so after the events actually took place and like all the other gnostic gospels, they should be taken with a grain of salt. Another reason why I do not take this to mean “silence all women” is because Paul has praised some women in his letters (Priscilla is one I can think of right now).
“You’re description of slavery almost makes me want to become a slave. I feel pretty confident that most slaves did not enjoy being slaves. To quote Patrick Henry, ‘give me liberty or give me death.'”
I never said slavery was to be idolized or the ideal lifestyle. Much of the slavery was more like an indentured servatude…those captured in war obviously were permenant slaves. However, its clear in Jewish customs that slaves were a valued life and the killing of one would result in some sort of punishment. Were they treated differently then everyday citizens? Yes…where they treated as bad as African slaves were between the 1600s and 1800s? In most cases no. In fact African tribes taught the Europeans the method of slavery (in that fashion).
“Of course, in the Bible, we only get one side of the story.”
The Bible has been somewhat unbiased towards its own people. What I mean by this is simple, from other ancient annul’s when a king losses a war or a battle, most of the time its side stepped (take for instance the Assyrian seige of Jerusalem). Or the King isn’t recorded as being evil and unkind, or immoral but is made more like a god. In the Bible, it has no restraint on painting a Jewish King as being evil or immoral.
“It seems to me you have a rather juvenile grasp of the issues, in spite of your proclaiming to be well-versed in experts. I do not hold your opinions in high esteem.”
I have looked at the issues…and I do not think my understanding of them is juvenile (I’ll look over the ad hominem). I do not expect you to take my opinions in high esteem…based on your interpretaion of events, and how you present your ideas, we are on opposite ends of the scholarly spectrum. It would be like comparing the idea’s of John Dominic Crossan and Craig Blomberg.
I would be interested in finding out what sort of historical proofs you have for the Book of Mormon MH?
Ama:
I think we could agree on the Holy Spirit’s guidence….Just like we could agree that Jesus is the Savior. However, the deeper meat of those ideal’s are different when comparing them between our two faiths. I do not think I have any other questions for you brother.
In Christ,
Brooks
LikeLike
December 29, 2008 at 2:41 pm
brooksrobinson
MH:
I just want to let you know I’m looking into why Paul wrote the silence of women in church. If I find anything I’ll add that in. As I have never done a study on that particular area of Paul’s letter, I have begun a small one now.
LikeLike
December 29, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Mormon Heretic
Brooks,
I do not believe the gnostic gospels should be taken with a grain of salt. While I do not agree with their theology, they are an incredibly useful treasure trove of Christian thought, and can give us some useful insights about the diversity of Christianity. For that purpose alone, they are incredibly valuable. In some areas, the gnostics greatly outnumbered traditional christians, and certainly they were instrumental in helping define traditional christianity. Indirectly, they helped shape the bible we have today by their heretical gospels and beliefs. Often, Paul’s letters, as well as the gospels, were responses to gnostic beliefs. I believe these gospel can give us further information into the first centuries after Christ.
For the record, like you, I enjoy reading Bart Ehrmann. I also enjoy John Dominic Crossan. I don’t always agree with their conclusions, but I respect and admire their scholarship greatly. William Dever is another of my favorites.
One of the things I love about William Dever is that he shows both the good and bad of the Bible. For instance, he shows that the stories of Samson and Jezebel could be plausible stories. For example, he says the story of Samson could be true. A discovery of a Philistine temple shows it has 2 support pillars. If these were to collapse, the temple would crumble. There is also some evidence showing a man holding 2 pillars which could reference Samson. He also uses the Tel Dan Stele to say that David could have been a real person (contrary to others who say he was a myth.) There is an interesting artifact which could reference Jezebel as well.
Yet, Dever also tells us that the exodus didn’t happen the way it says in the bible. Rather, he believes the Canaanites were actually related to the Israelites, and the Israelites may have embellished (or even invented) the Exodus Story. (I have a link on my blog if you want to check out Dever’s most recent PBS documentary.) Also, there is no evidence of Noah’s ark. There is no evidence of Abraham. Evidence of Joseph is suspect, but the slave trade routes have been discovered.
Why do I bring all this up? The Bible has had people scouring the middle east since Constantine’s mother Helena, looking for Christian and Jewish artifacts to support the bible. In some cases, they have been successful–in others we must rely on faith that Abraham did exist, that Noah did exist, Adam and Eve, etc. Certainly the Bible has many artifacts found which seem to corroborate many stories, but not every story is without critics.
LikeLike
December 29, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Mormon Heretic
Ama,
I had to split up my comment–I got a message saying “Discarded”.
Brooks, here’s the rest.
Regarding the Book of Mormon, archeaology is in infant stages in comparison. Helena had no proof that Jesus existed in the 4th century, but in the next 1700 years, plenty has been found. Please give the Book of Mormon 1700 years before passing judgment.
You might want to check out nephiproject.com There seems to be growing evidence of Nephi’s journey in the Arabian peninsula. George Potter believes that Khor Rhori in Yemen was the harbor in which Nephi built his boat. Ishmael (in the Book of Mormon–not Isaac’s brother) was buried in a place called Nahom. An area was found called NHM (Hebrew does not have vowels) that Potter believes is the area where Ishmael was buried. The river Laman, Valley of Lemuel, Bountiful all have great candidates in the Arabian peninsula.
I will agree the New World archeology is insufficient regarding the Book of Mormon; but I want to remind you that not a single artifact has been found supporting the Exodus. Just because evidence is not there does not mean the story is false. I believe the Exodus is true, in spite of the lack of evidence. (Once again, Potter has some really interesting information on the Exodus–so he’s not just a mormon scholar.) Questar Entertainment has a fascinating documentary The Exodus Revealed” about the Exodus, and believes that the real Mt Sinai is in Saudi Arabia, and is called by the muslims Jebel-Musa (or Mount of Moses.) Unfortunately, the Saudi government hasn’t allowed archeologists to check out the site.
Once again, there was plenty of evidence the earth was flat until Columbus voyage. Also humans have been around 20,000 years which would seemingly discount Adam and Eve as the original humans. Regarding the lack of archeaology, where do you stand on the Exodus, Adam/Eve, Noah, etc?
LikeLike
December 30, 2008 at 1:25 am
jackg
MH said, “I do not believe the gnostic gospels should be taken with a grain of salt. While I do not agree with their theology, they are an incredibly useful treasure trove of Christian thought, and can give us some useful insights about the diversity of Christianity.”
Doesn’t this raise a red flag for you that you don’t believe in the word of God. Your comment about this sounds very post-modern. It seems to me that this entire post is marred by the LDS 8th Article of Faith filter, which is a faulty filter. It seems that the Bible is not authoritative for you, MH. Do you not see that as a problem with regard to your relationship with the God of Israel?
Grace and Peace!
jackg
LikeLike
December 30, 2008 at 1:50 am
jackg
MH,
My bad, I read your post in too much of a hurry to realize you were not talking about the “synoptic” gospels. 🙂 I really feel foolish about now. Please forgive me and disregard the other stuff I said. You know, making mistakes isn’t so bad. 🙂
Grace and Peace!
jackg
LikeLike
December 31, 2008 at 12:56 pm
brooksrobinson
MH:
“I do not believe the gnostic gospels should be taken with a grain of salt. While I do not agree with their theology, they are an incredibly useful treasure trove of Christian thought, and can give us some useful insights about the diversity of Christianity.”
I think, when it comes to historical traditional Christianity they should be taken with a grain of salt. The only thing those gospels are good for are showing the beliefs of Gnosticism and how historical events can possibly become legendary over time( I say possibly because there has been cases, especially in Jewish oral tradition to show very little if any legendary development). Anything else, such as taking early traditional Christian doctrine or practices from those gospels should be avoided (which means to assume Mary was an “apostle of apostles” and that Paul’s silencing of women is a result of that… one will have to do better then using the later Gnostic gospel’s as evidence for those situations). Also correction on the Gospel of Mary’s date…it was found in a papyrus dating to the 5th century. It’s even later then what I projected.
“The Bible has had people scouring the middle east since Constantine’s mother Helena, looking for Christian and Jewish artifacts to support the bible. In some cases, they have been successful–in others we must rely on faith that Abraham did exist, that Noah did exist, Adam and Eve, etc. Certainly the Bible has many artifacts found which seem to corroborate many stories, but not every story is without critics.”
I understand and accept that not everything in the Bible is going to have artifacts or evidence to back it up… the Exodus, for instance would be a difficult event to find anything on. Biblical Historian’s are still not in agreement on the possible route that could have been taken(I think there are like two routes that are for the most part universally agreed on, or at least they show up in all the commentaries and Bible’s I’ve seen). However, I also understand that an event that took place 3200 years ago will be difficult to find anything on. Especially considering how the Hebrew’s probably lived in mud huts in Egypt. Although the things the archaeologists do find are rather fascinating. Even little details in the Bible, that aren’t even meaningful in the grand scheme of things, have been found. For instance there was a certain Babylonian advisor to the king mentioned in the Bible and last year I believe it was, they found a Babylonian tablet with this advisor’s name written on it…and sure enough he was some sort of advisor to the king (it was reported on some news source I do not remember it at the moment though). Biblical archaeology has never caused damaged to the Bible, and has only reinforced what was written in the Bible.
“Please give the Book of Mormon 1700 years before passing judgment”
Serious Biblical archaeology hasn’t been fully established till just recently, in the last maybe 200years, (like I said archaeology became an official science in roughly the 1700’s). With our increased technology, we should have found something revealing the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. With all the digs that BYU and other organizations have done (whether it was looking for BoM artifacts or not) I find it hard to believe that they would turn up nothing, especiall with the descriptions of massive cities of millions that are found in the BoM. I have four quotes from four different BYU Archaeologists that state they’ve found nothing to support the BoM claims. I also have non-Mormon quotes, such as a letter from the Smithsonian that reveal they have found nothing supporting BoM claims. I find it interesting that Mormons often throw many doubts on the Bible (whether its just trying to make a point or their honest belief) yet the unwillingness to accept the zero evidence that supports the BoM. The bottom line is this…if it’s a historical book claiming to be a record (like the BoM does) there should be something found, and there hasn’t regarding the BoM.
“Once again, there was plenty of evidence the earth was flat until Columbus voyage”
Not true, many in the science field knew it wasn’t. The Ancient Greeks new the Earth was a sphere shape based off the reflection in the moon, and in the Bible it mentions the Earth as a sphere. What happened was the Catholic Church must have read something like “the four corners of the Earth” in the Bible and using its forced Christianity, they tried to force everyone to believe that. So I wouldn’t compare that evidence to the BoM unless your willing to accept the Mormon church is forcing its believers to believe the BoM as having evidence for it somewhere.
“Also humans have been around 20,000 years which would seemingly discount Adam and Eve as the original humans. Regarding the lack of archaeology, where do you stand on the Exodus, Adam/Eve, Noah, etc?”
I stand in faith with these events. I can do this because there has been overwhelming finds to back up the Bible thus far. Nothing has proved it otherwise wrong, so until a find can show without a doubt the Bible as false (in other words not some guys sketchy interpretation of a find) I can take these events in faith without a doubt. As far as Adam and Eve are concerned I don’t honestly have a clue. Augustine believed in not talking about Genesis because he wasn’t present during creation. I’ll give you some thoughts I’ve sort of weighed out…Perhaps some humans were around during their days (where did Cain get his wife?). At the same time I’m skeptical of the dating methods of human kind. I find it fascinating that humans within 6000years can go from stone age to space age…so what where they doing in that first 13,000years or more? We can go from a total earth population of like a couple million to 8billion in that time period…so what was going on during the 13000 or so years to keep the earth population from growing fast?
It’s been great talking to you MH and for the most part having a calm discussion with you.
In Christ,
Brooks
LikeLike
December 31, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Mormon Heretic
Brooks,
It’s been good talking to you too. You seem rather selective on your choice of experts–on the one hand backing up claims of Bible advocates, while discounting Bible critics. If you’re going to choose science to trash the BoM, you should use it to trash the Bible as well. Picking and choosing your science experts is not consistent, and shows bias. If faith is your guide for Moses (for which there is “zero evidence”), then why can’t it be your guide for Lehi (for which there is “zero evidence”)?
I am quite confident that many of the experts who doubt the Book of Mormon, doubt the Bible as well, especially in reference to Adam, Noah, Moses (whether LDS or non-LDS scholars). Please remember that when Joseph claimed to have found Gold Plates, most experts considered this a ridiculous claim. Now metal plates have been found, so Joseph’s golden plates aren’t so outlandish any more. Yes, it’s not proof that Joseph had plates, but it shoots down some of the critics’ arguments that plates were never used.
Regarding the Exodus, if 700,000 – 1,100,000 people left Egypt, there should be trash left behind, among other artifacts. If we can find cities like Jericho, Nineveh, or Sodom and Gomorrah, which were much smaller (like 20,000) certainly the Exodus should have left a better trail. In the video I mentioned earlier, they believe the city of Goshen has been found in Egypt due to it’s Hebrew architecture. I encourage you to view that video–I found it compelling. (And it’s put out by non-LDS scholars if that puts your mind more at ease.)
I’m not sure which of the 2 Exodus routes you are referring to–I am aware of at least 13 theories. The one I like most uses a trade route across the central part of the Sinai peninsula, and leads to the land of Midian in Saudi Arabia where Moses fled after he killed the Egyptian. This is also the one Potter likes. (My guess is your 2 theories follow a northern route, or a southern route, not a central route.)
I agree that we must rely on faith for Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, etc, and I do not see a contradiction in relying on faith for Nephi and Lehi as well. I encourage you to check out NHM (Nahom) and other info at nephiproject.com. You bring up a good point that humans go from Stone Age to Space age in 6000 years, but I think it is pretty shaky ground to declare carbon dating/geological dating as suspect.
Finally, Carol Myers (Duke), Michael White (Texas), Helmut Koester (Harvard), Mimi Bonz (Harvard), Elizabeth Clark (Duke), talk about women in early Christianity being teachers, and it is a much different picture than Paul’s “women should be silent in church.” It’s not simply the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Women were deaconnesses, didn’t have the priesthood, but established monastic orders, which wouldn’t always make them silent partners.
Here’s a quote from Elaine Pagels: We know that Tertullian, one of the leaders of the church in Africa, spoke about a woman he called simply, “that viper,” because she was baptizing people. And he said, “These heretical woman, how audacious they are. I mean they, they teach, they baptize, they preach, they do all kinds of things they shouldn’t do. It’s horrible, in short.” And so we know that there was a great deal of ferment in these communities about the role of women.
Check out http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/roles.html
Do a google search for “the first christians”, and there is a ton of great info at PBS.
LikeLike
January 1, 2009 at 9:52 am
brooksrobinson
MH:
“You seem rather selective on your choice of experts–on the one hand backing up claims of Bible advocates, while discounting Bible critics.”
I find that many Biblical critics do studies solely based on personal philosophies. Granted Christian’s have personal biases to, and of course everyone does. However, what I don’t like is critical ones who state they’re not biased, yet go into trying to prove what was a true Jesus statement was, but throwing out miracles cause they don’t believe in miracles (aka the Jesus Seminar). At least the Christian’s I read have good and non-biased reasons to lend support as to why Jesus must have done something miraculous (i.e. outside sources that are non-Christian), or anything else they try and present. They’ll even admit to the things they don’t know or could be iffy. There are some critical scholars also like to date the four gospels extremely late and the Gnostic gospels extremely early, without any good rhyme or reason but personal philosophical biases. I’ve even heard critical scholars try and say it was the four gospels that contain the legendary development and some of the Gnostic gospels as not containing this legendary growth. Let me tell ya…if you think the Four Gospel’s are legends and not the Gnostic Gospels… there is something extremely wrong in your scholarship. Here are 4 BYU scholars who state that they have found nothing supporting the BoM: Dr. Ray Metheny, Dr. Dee Green, Dr. David Johnson, and Dr. John Clark, I’m actually relying on Mormon scholarship for this one. I’ve used Bart Ehrman to defend some Christian beliefs and I’ve used Gerd Ludemann to defend some Christian beliefs. It’s hard to take Bart Ehrman’s views seriously when he states on page 10 of his book “Misquoting Jesus” that the majority of errors in the gospels are immaterial and meaningless. Then he gives the four major errors in the gospel’s…eluding to the possibility of more, yet there isn’t, but writes that there’s always that probability. Those four issues are essentially the four biggies that scholars are still trying to figure out. Everything else is…well as Bart Ehrman states, meaningless. I have fully accepted that the 5000 Greek copies of the gospel’s contain roughly 300,000 plus errors, I haven’t denied that once. I also fully accept that there are parallel’s between some OT stories in comparison with other ancient eastern stories (I have a couple of large books waiting for me at home to research this). I will admit my OT scholarship is lacking in comparison to NT scholarship. It’s harder to find good OT scholarship books, it seems the writers are more obscure because of the popularity of NT scholarship.
“If faith is your guide for Moses (for which there is “zero evidence”), then why can’t it be your guide for Lehi (for which there is “zero evidence”)?”
I use a reasonable faith, in other words, the Bible has yet to be wrong (once again I’m not talking about peoples various interpretations of what they think has happened), but in actual finds. There has been no finds that have disproved the Bible. Because of this I can put faith that it is probably right in capturing various moments that cannot be proven. On the other hand, the Book of Mormon has nothing reasonable to back it up. Since I cannot trust it in historical facts I cannot trust it in events that would be difficult to prove. Sort of like trusting a close friend with a prized possession over a complete stranger that you have no relationship with.
“I am quite confident that many of the experts who doubt the Book of Mormon, doubt the Bible as well, especially in reference to Adam, Noah, Moses (whether LDS or non-LDS scholars).”
You may want to double check on your experts then and how they view their evidences, the Smithsonian Institute doubt’s the claims of the BoM, the National Geography Society does, and the Archaeology Dept. of Boston University does as well. Four Mormon scholars have not found anything that supports the BoM, and three prestigious organizations/colleges have nothing that supports the BoM either. On the opposite side, the Smithsonian Institute Dept of Anthropology states this about the Bible, “much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used, as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed.” The famous archaeologist and once skeptic Sir William Ramsey wrote this about Luke, “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” A. N. Sherwin-White writes, “ . . . for Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming . . . any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” What I can see the critics rejecting are things like Adam and Eve, Noah, miracles, and God men such as Jesus…and that’s fine, but no other theory of the empty tomb makes sense accept for a miracle. As far as the Exodus is concerned I often wonder if the Hyksos were kicked out of Egypt at the same time as the Hebrews, or if the Hyksos were the Hebrews, or some sort of connection. One things for sure, the Hyksos came during a time when many ancient Middle Eastern people where moving into Egypt.
“I’m not sure which of the 2 Exodus routes you are referring to”
I refer to the Northern and Southern route as the most popular because if one looks at commentaries, Bibles, or non-religious books that depict possible Exodus routes, it seems those two are always on the map (sometimes I see the central route to).
“and it is a much different picture than Paul’s ‘women should be silent in church.’”
Is it different? Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11 “And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head–it is just as though her head were shaved.” Paul also writes about how two females were used by God to convert a man, and he praises women in one of his letters. I don’t claim to have the answer as to women being silent in church, but Paul most certainly didn’t silence women throughout the entire church service so perhaps he’s referring to the just a teaching part.
In Christ,
Brooks
LikeLike
January 1, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Mormon Heretic
Brooks,
It was good talking with you. I can see neither one of us is making headway. It seems we have now come to a battle of experts. Obviously, we’ll agree with the ones that support our positions, so I don’t see the point in going further in this circle. I stand behind what I’ve said, and I’m sure you stand behind what you’ve said.
May God bless you, and may all of us become more Christlike each day.
LikeLike
January 2, 2009 at 5:47 am
brooksrobinson
MH:
I enjoyed it, I haven’t had a discussion that stimulating in awhile. I do urge you to put feelings aside… I know Mormons seek the truth with the feelings they feel in their heart, as do many other religions. Christianity is not a feeling confirmed experience. The early Christian’s did not rely on feelings, but rather on a lifechanging physical experince that Jesus rose from the dead and physically revealed himself. May God bless you and your family, and as you have said, “may all of us become ore Christlike each day.”
In Christ,
Brooks
LikeLike
January 4, 2009 at 6:18 am
MH
Brooks, I noticed you changed your “photo”. How does one do that? I’d like something different than my geometric pattern.
LikeLike
January 5, 2009 at 12:58 pm
brooksrobinson
MH:
In the “My Account” option you should see it. It’ll be off to the right side, saying “Change my Gravatar.” It’ll then open up the “open file” option allowing you to pick any pictures you have available. 🙂
LikeLike
January 6, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Mormon Heretic
Hmmm, I’m not seeing either of these options. Is this something in WordPress, Blogspot, or somewhere else? Do I need to subscribe/follow this blog first?
LikeLike