The Infallibility of the Bible, Book of Mormon, other Scripture and the Holy Ghost

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

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

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

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

NM,

WOW! That was beautifully expressed. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

Blessings,
jackg

LikeLike

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry “prophets” 🙂

LikeLike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brooks, I noticed you changed your “photo”. How does one do that? I’d like something different than my geometric pattern.

LikeLike

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