| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 60.2 | Cults: New Truth | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Feb 01 1988 12:15 | 57 |
|
Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.1 By Jeff Benson
>Many cults promote the false idea that God has revealed something special
>to them. This is usually truth that has never before been revealed and
>supersedes and contradicts all previous revelations.
While God is able to make new truths known through revelation, God
will not contradict previous revelations in so doing. The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes that new revelation
will support and agree with previous revelations, and will often
add to our understanding of them.
>The Mormon church teaches that Christianity was in apostasy for some 18
>centuries until God revealed new "truth" to Joseph Smith, Jr., restoring
>the true gospel that had been lost. Today the Mormon church has its living
>prophets who receive divine revelation from God, continually bringing new
>"truth" to the world.
God did, in fact, restore His church to the earth through Joseph
Smith. There are living apostles and prophets in the church today,
who receive revelation from God, to guide His church, just as the
apostles and prophets in the Bible did.
>These and other cults justify their existence by claiming they have something
>more than just the Bible and its "inadequate message." (note Mormon Topic
>in this conference).
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not characterize
the Bible as having an "inadequate message". We believe it to be
the divine Word of God, and strive to live by it's precepts. We
*do* believe that God has also revealed other things, not contained
in the Bible.
>The cults have no objective, independent way to test their teachings and
>practices. It's almost as though they FEEL JUST A FIRM ASSERTION OF THEIR
>OWN EXCLUSIVITY IS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THEIR ANNOINTING BY GOD. However,
>as members of the universal Christian church, we can and should test all
>of our teachings and practicies objectively and independently by God's
>infallible Word, the Bible, and HISTORY.
We believe that there is an independent way to test our teachings
and practices. The way is to study them out and to ask God if they
are true. He has promised that He will reveal the truth through
the power of the Holy Ghost, to them that are sincere and ask in
faith. I have done this. I know it is true.
Testing teachings by the Bible is a good practice, but we need to be
careful of testing teachings and practices based on "HISTORY".
Sometimes this means testing them based on *traditions*. Jesus
chastised the Jews for many of their incorrect traditions. If
traditions are based on incorrect doctrine or understanding of the
scriptures, and we cling to them, we will be deceived by them.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 60.36 | Cults: Non-Biblical authority | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Feb 01 1988 12:39 | 65 |
|
Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.3 By Jeff Benson
>Some cults have sacred writings or a source of authority that supersedes
>the Bible. The Mormon Church says, "We believe the Bible to be the Word
>of God in so far as it is translated correctly... (Articles of Faith of
>the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Article 8). Although this
>sounds like the Mormons trust the Bible, they, in fact, believe it has been
>changed and corrupted. Listen to what the Mormon apostle Talmage has said:
>
> There will be, there can be no absolutely reliable translation
> of these or other Scriptures unless it is effected through the
> gift of translation, as one of the endowments of the Holy Ghost...
> Let the Bible then be read reverently and with prayerful care,
> the reader ever seeking the light of the Spirit that he may discern
> between the truth and the errors of men (James E. Talmage, The
> Articles of Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1968, p.237).
>
>Such a statement opens the door for their additional sacred books, i.e.,
>THE BOOK OF MORMON, THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE and DOCTRINE AND CONVENANTS,
>as greater authoritative sources. Thus, the Bible is NOT TRULY their final
>source of authority.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints accepts the Bible as
the divine Word of God. We accept what the authors wrote as the Word of
God. However, the Bible we have today comes from ancient manuscripts
that were not the original ones written by the apostles and prophets,
but are copies of copies. Sure the copies may agree with each other,
but that says nothing about whether they agree with the originals.
Since we don't have the original ones, we have no way of saying the
Bible is accurate in terms of what the apostles wrote, except tradition
which says the Bible is correct. The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that
when the Bible went forth, it went forth in purity, but that some of
the truths had been corrupted over time. He also revealed that one of
the purposes of the Book of Mormon is to reestablish these truths in
their plainess.
We do not believe the Bible is the source of authority. We believe that
God is the source of authority. God gives us understanding of truth in
His scriptures, including the Bible, as well as the Book of Mormon,
Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.
Christ called his apostles anciently, and ordained them. He gave this
authority to his apostles to call and ordain others. One who claims to
have authority from God must have received it from one who has
authority to confer it on him, in order for it to be valid. We believe
this authority was lost through apostasy, and has been restored
in our time by heavenly messengers.
>Regardless of whether the
>Bible is superseded by other works or reinterpreted by a cult leader, a sure
>mark of a cult is that the final authority on spiritual matters rests on
>something other than the plain teaching of Holy Scripture.
The problem with resting solely on the Holy Scriptures for authority,
is that each person can interpret them differently. Look at the many
Christian sects that believe so differently on many doctrines. Each of
them appeals to the Bible as their source of authority. In Bible times,
when such disagreements arose, it fell to the apostles to clarify God's
will. It is the same today in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 60.4 | Cults: Another Jesus | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Feb 01 1988 12:47 | 59 |
|
Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.4 By Jeff Benson
>One characteristic that is found in all cults is false teaching about the
>person of Jesus Christ in light of historical biblical Christianity. The
>Apostle Paul warned about the following after "another Jesus (2 Corinthians
>11:4) who is not the same Jesus who is revealed in Scripture. The "Jesus"
>of the cults is always someone less than the Bible's eternal God who became
>flesh, lived here on earth, and died for our sins.
>
>The Bible makes it clear that Jesus was God in human flesh, second person of
>the Holy Trinity, who lived a sinless life on earth and died as a sacrifice
>for the sins of the world. Three days after His crucifixion, Jesus rose
>bodily from the dead. Fifty days afterward He ascended into heaven, where
>He now sits ar the right hand of the Father, interceding on behalf of
>believers. He will, one day, return bodily to planet earth and judge the
>living and the dead while setting up His eternal Kingdom.
>
>The Mormon Church does not accept the unique deity of Jesus Christ.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does in fact accept
the unique deity of Jesus Christ. We accept him as the Only Begotten
Son of the Father, as our Savior, as the Creator, and as the second
member of the Godhead, which includes God the Father, His Son, Jesus
Christ, and the Holy Ghost. We do believe that these are three separate
beings, who are ONE in purpose. We believe the concept of a trinity,
in the sense that many Christian sects accept it, is a doctrine
of men, and not of the Bible.
>He is
>to them one of many gods, the "first-born spirit child" spiritually conceived
>by a sexual union between the heavenly Father and a heavenly mother. He
>was also the spirit-brother of Lucifer in His preexistent state. His
>incarnation was accomplished by the physical union of the heavenly Father
>and the human Mary.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes that Jesus
Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father. He was born of a virgin,
Mary, who conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost and not by the
"physical union of the heavenly Father and the human Mary". Please see
this conference, note 4.3, and the Christian conference, notes 241.3,
242.55 and 242.58 for a more complete discussion of this topic.
We do believe that God the Father is the father of each of our spirits,
Jesus being the first born among the spirits. This is why we refer to
him as our Father in Heaven. He is also the spirit father of Satan, who
was cast out of heaven because of rebellion against God.
>No matter what the particular beliefs of any cult may be, the one common
>denominator they all possess is a denial of the biblical teaching on the
>deity of Jesus Christ.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not deny the
Biblical teaching on the deity of Jesus Christ. Instead we most
assuredly reaffirm it.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 60.22 | Cults: Reject Christianity | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Feb 01 1988 12:51 | 36 |
|
Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.5 By Jeff Benson
>Characteristic of many cultic groups is a frontal attack on orthodox
>Christianity. They argue that the church has departed from the true
>faith.
>
>Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism, said he was given this
>assessment of the Christian Church when he inquired of the Lord as to
>which church to join:
>
> ...I was answered that I must join none of them, for they
> were all wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that
> all their creeds were an abomination in His sight; that those
> professors were all corrupt; that "they draw near to Me with
> their lips, but their hearts are far from Me, they teach for
> doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness,
> but they deny the power thereof" (Joseph Smith, Jr., THE PEARL
> OF GREAT PRICE, 2:18-19)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does believe that
there was an apostasy from the truths that Christ taught. The Biblical
apostles prophesied that this would happen. They also prophesied
that there would be a restoration. While there are many good people
in the various Christian sects, we believe that these churches lack
the authority that Christ gave to the leaders of his church in the
Bible, and they lack an understanding of many of the truths of Christ's
Gospel. This is why the Savior told Joseph Smith to join none of
them.
Please note that we do not say that Joseph Smith arrived at this
conclusion that "orthodox Christianity" had departed from correct
principles on his own. It was Jesus Christ himself who told him this.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 60.24 | Cults: Double-talk | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Feb 01 1988 12:53 | 38 |
|
Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.6 By Jeff Benson
>A feature of some cultic groups is that they say one thing publicly but
>internally believe something totally different. Many organizations call
>themselves Christians when in fact they deny the fundamentals of the faith.
It depends on what is meant by "fundamentals". Some Christians have
come to regard some of the teachings of men as fundamentals. We deny
the teachings of men, but we do not deny the teachings of Christ and
his prophets and apostles.
>The Mormon Church is an example of this kind of double-talk. The first
>article of faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reads,
>"We believe...in His Son, Jesus Christ." This gives the impression Mormons
>are Christians since they believe in Jesus Christ. However, when we understand
>the semantics of what they mean by Jesus Christ, we discover they are far
>removed from orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, the impression the
>Mormon Church gives from their advertising is that they are another
>denomination or sect of Christianity. One, therefore, must be on the alert
>for organizations that advertise themselves as "Christians" but whose
>internal teachings disagree with Scripture.
The first article of faith reads: "We believe in God, the Eternal
Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." Some may
chose to judge us on "semantics", but the Jesus that we accept as our
Savior is the same one spoken of in the Bible. He is the divine Son of
God who was crucified and resurrected and who offers salvation to them
that will come unto Him.
We do advertise that we are Christians. We do not advertise that we are
"another denomination or sect of Christianity". Instead, we say that we
are the only true church of Christ, and that other sects who call
themselves Christian may have a form of Christianity, but lack the full
authority and understanding of the gospel.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 60.26 | Cults: Non-Biblical views of God | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Feb 01 1988 12:54 | 17 |
|
Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.7 By Jeff Benson
>Another characteristic of all non-Christian cults is either an inadequate
>view or outright denial of the Holy Trinity. The biblical doctrine of the
>Trinity, one God in three Persons, is usally attacked as being pagan or
>satanic in origin.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes that God
the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three
distinct personages, who, united in purpose, are one Godhead. The
Bible does not use the term Trinity, and this doctrine is a doctrine
of men. This topic is discussed further in this conference, Topic
4, and in the Christian conference, topic 241.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 60.28 | Cults: Changing Theology | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Feb 01 1988 12:57 | 33 |
|
Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.8 By Jeff Benson
>Cult doctrines are continually in a state of flux and have now sure
>foundation on which to anchor their hope. Adherents of a particular cult
>will learn a doctrine only to find that doctrine later changed or contradicted
>by further revelation. Most cults will deny this...
>
>The Mormon Church is equally guilty of changing doctrine. The most famous
>is its belief and practice, later prohibited, of polygamy.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does believe in
continuing revelation, in the same way that Peter received revelation
in the Bible, instructing him that the time had come for the Gospel
to go to the Gentiles. Previous to this, the belief in the church
was that the gospel was for the Jews only.
We do not believe that doctrine changes. Practices change, and God's
specific instructions for His people change, but underlying doctrines
do not change. For example, God gave the Law of Moses to the Israelites
to prepare them for Christ's coming. When Christ came, the Law of Moses
was done away, it's purpose having been fulfilled.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes that if
and when God deems it necessary he commands his people to practice
polygamy. That is why ancient prophets, such as Abraham and Jacob
had multiple wives. When it is not necessary, the Lord so instructs
his people. That is why it is not practiced today. This has been
more fully discussed in the Christian conference, topic 242.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 60.30 | Cults: Strong Leadership | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Feb 01 1988 12:58 | 28 |
|
Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.9 By Jeff Benson
>Cults are usually characterized by central leader figures who consider
>themselves messengers of God with unique access to the Almighty. Since
>the leader has such a special relationship with God, he can dictate the
>theology and behaviour of the cult. Consequently, he exercises enormous
>influence over the group.
God has always provided strong leaders for his people. Consider
the strength of Jesus, and of His apostles. That is why the Bible
teaches that God's church is built on a foundation of apostles and
prophets, so that His people will not be tossed to and fro by every
wind of doctrine.
One result of lack of such leadership is a myriad of Christian faiths,
each disagreeing with the other, being tossed to and fro by their
differing winds of doctrine.
It is true that many false prophets are also strong leaders. It is
important to verify that the church is indeed being led by one who has
divine authority. For example, we believe that each person can know for
himself whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God by praying to
God and sincerely asking Him, believing that He will reveal the truth
of this to you. I have done this, and know it to be true.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 60.34 | Cults: Salvation by Works | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Feb 01 1988 13:01 | 37 |
|
Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.10 By Jeff Benson
>One teaching that is totally absent from all the cults is the gospel of
>the grace of God. No one is taught in the cults that he can be saved from
>eternal damnation by simply placing his faith in Jesus Christ. It is always
>belief in Jesus Christ and "do this" or "follow that". All cults attach
>something to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. It might
>be baptism, obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, or something
>else, but it is never taught that faith in Christ alone will save anyone.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes that it is
*only* through the grace of Jesus Christ that we can be saved. No act
of ours can save us.
We do, however, believe that Christ clearly taught: "Not every one that
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but
he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt 7:21)
Thus, we see that Jesus will apply his salvation to those that *do*
"the will of my Father". He also taught: "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
(Mark 16:16). James also taught: "But know thou, O vain man, that faith
without works is dead?" Faith that is dead (without works) cannot save
us.
The notion that the grace of Christ applies to us, even if we do not
keep his commandments is a doctrine of men, and not of God. Some people
make reference to the apostle Paul's statements that the works of the
law cannot save us, as a basis of this doctrine. Paul was specifically
trying to teach the saints that the law of *Moses*, and the works of
the law of *Moses* were no longer needed. Paul also clearly taught that
we must be baptized and keep the commandments of Christ.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 60.5 | References for additional study | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 01 1988 13:02 | 38 |
| Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.4 By Jeff Benson
>One characteristic that is found in all cults is false teaching about the
>person of Jesus Christ in light of historical biblical Christianity. The
>Apostle Paul warned about the following after "another Jesus (2 Corinthians
>11:4) who is not the same Jesus who is revealed in Scripture. The "Jesus"
>of the cults is always someone less than the Bible's eternal God who became
>flesh, lived here on earth, and died for our sins.
>The Mormon Church does not accept the unique deity of Jesus Christ.
>No matter what the particular beliefs of any cult may be, the one common
>denominator they all possess is a denial of the biblical teaching on the
>deity of Jesus Christ.
See Note 4.1 and 4.2 (this conference) for a detailed discussion of the LDS
belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God.
>The Bible makes it clear that Jesus was God in human flesh, second person of
>the Holy Trinity
See note 4.13 for a discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity.
>He is
>to them one of many gods, the "first-born spirit child" spiritually conceived
>by a sexual union between the heavenly Father and a heavenly mother. He
>was also the spirit-brother of Lucifer in His preexistent state. His
>incarnation was accomplished by the physical union of the heavenly Father
>and the human Mary.
A detailed discussion of our spiritual pre-earth life will be added to note 4
at a later time.
Allen
|
| 60.23 | References for additional study | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 01 1988 13:04 | 23 |
| Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.5 By Jeff Benson
>Characteristic of many cultic groups is a frontal attack on orthodox
>Christianity. They argue that the church has departed from the true
>faith.
>
>Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism, said he was given this
>assessment of the Christian Church when he inquired of the Lord as to
>which church to join:
>
> ...I was answered that I must join none of them, for they
> were all wrong; and the personage who addressed me said that
> all their creeds were an abomination in His sight; that those
> professors were all corrupt; that "they draw near to Me with
> their lips, but their hearts are far from Me, they teach for
> doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness,
> but they deny the power thereof" (Joseph Smith, Jr., THE PEARL
> OF GREAT PRICE, 2:18-19)
See Notes 4.11 and 4.12 (this conference) for a detailed discussion of
the apostasy.
Allen
|
| 60.25 | References for additional study | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 01 1988 13:07 | 21 |
| Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.6 By Jeff Benson
>A feature of some cultic groups is that they say one thing publicly but
>internally believe something totally different. Many organizations call
>themselves Christians when in fact they deny the fundamentals of the faith.
>The Mormon Church is an example of this kind of double-talk. The first
>article of faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reads,
>"We believe...in His Son, Jesus Christ." This gives the impression Mormons
>are Christians since they believe in Jesus Christ. However, when we understand
>the semantics of what they mean by Jesus Christ, we discover they are far
>removed from orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, the impression the
>Mormon Church gives from their advertising is that they are another
>denomination or sect of Christianity. One, therefore, must be on the alert
>for organizations that advertise themselves as "Christians" but whose
>internal teachings disagree with Scripture.
See Note 4.* for detailed discussions of Mormon beliefs.
Allen
|
| 60.27 | Reference for additional study | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 01 1988 13:08 | 10 |
| Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.7 By Jeff Benson
>Another characteristic of all non-Christian cults is either an inadequate
>view or outright denial of the Holy Trinity. The biblical doctrine of the
>Trinity, one God in three Persons, is usally attacked as being pagan or
>satanic in origin.
See Note 4.13 (this conference) for a discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Allen
|
| 60.31 | Reference for additional study | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 01 1988 13:12 | 12 |
| Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.9 By Jeff Benson
>Cults are usually characterized by central leader figures who consider
>themselves messengers of God with unique access to the Almighty. Since
>the leader has such a special relationship with God, he can dictate the
>theology and behaviour of the cult. Consequently, he exercises enormous
>influence over the group.
See note 4.8 (this conference) for a discussion of leaders in the New
Testament church.
Allen
|
| 60.35 | Reference for additional study | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 01 1988 13:16 | 15 |
| Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.10 By Jeff Benson
>One teaching that is totally absent from all the cults is the gospel of
>the grace of God. No one is taught in the cults that he can be saved from
>eternal damnation by simply placing his faith in Jesus Christ. It is always
>belief in Jesus Christ and "do this" or "follow that". All cults attach
>something to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. It might
>be baptism, obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, or something
>else, but it is never taught that faith in Christ alone will save anyone.
Detailed discussions of faith, faith and works, grace, repentance, and baptism
are available in note 241 of the CHRISTIAN conference and will be added to
note 4 of this conference.
Allen
|
| 60.29 | Reference for additional study | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 01 1988 13:37 | 12 |
| Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.8 By Jeff Benson
>Cult doctrines are continually in a state of flux and have now sure
>foundation on which to anchor their hope. Adherents of a particular cult
>will learn a doctrine only to find that doctrine later changed or contradicted
>by further revelation. Most cults will deny this...
See note 4.9 (this conference) for a discussion of Revelation in the
New Testament church.
Allen
|
| 60.37 | Invalid points of argument | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Where'er you go,there you shall be! | Mon Feb 01 1988 17:05 | 58 |
|
RE: 10.0 <RIPPLE::KOTTERRI>, Rich;
>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints accepts the Bible as the
>divine Word of God...HOWEVER (emphasis mine TB), the Bible we have today
>comes from ancient manuscripts that were not the original ones written by
>the apostles and prophets, but are copies of copies....Since we don't have
>the original ones, we have no way of saying the Bible is accurate in terms
>of what the apostles wrote, except tradition which says the Bible is
>correct.
Do the Mormons have in their possession the ORIGINAL plates discovered
by Joseph Smith? If not (then by using your own logic of reasoning) the
book of Mormon must be considered to contain possible error due to
translation.
As a Christian, I believe that God who created the heavens and the
earth is all powerful and is able to sustain His Word, the Holy Bible,
through centuries of time with out error and therefore makes the Bible
qualified to be the Authority for which we as Christians can depend on and
base our lives from.
>He also revealed that one of the purposes of the Book of Mormon is to
>reestablish these truths in their plainness.
The book of Mormon is as unreliable as you say that the Bible has
become.
>The problem with resting solely on the Holy Scriptures for authority, is
>that each person can interpret them differently. Look at the many
>Christian sects that believe so differently on many doctrines. Each of
>them appeals to the Bible as their source of authority.
Again, the same argument can be made against Mormonism. After the
death of Joseph Smith, Sidney Ridon, who had become a member of the church
in Kirtland, Ohio and had worked in close association with Joseph Smith
since that time, first presented his claim to be the new "guardian" of the
church, basing his claim on the fact that he had been named the first
counselor to President Smith. At a later meeting, however, Brigham Young
claimed that the authority of the presidency now rested with the twelve
apostles of which group he was the president. The Mormons accepted his
leadership and thus Young became the second president of the Mormon church.
Since that time, at least five groups have split off from the Mormons,
of these, the largest is the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints, which has its headquarters in Independence, Missouri. This
body, which broke away from the other Mormons when the followers of Brigham
Young moved to Salt Lake City, claims to be the real and legal successor of
the church founded by Joseph Smith.
The Mormon church is not with out it's own divisions.
(Also...) witnessing for Jesus,
Tony Balsamo
|
| 60.32 | By their fruits ye shall know them. | USADEC::HANSEN | | Tue Feb 02 1988 01:19 | 70 |
| RE: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.9 By Jeff Benson
>Cults are usually characterized by central leader figures who consider
>themselves messengers of God with unique access to the Almighty. Since
>the leader has such a special relationship with God, he can dictate the
>theology and behaviour of the cult. Consequently, he exercises enormous
>influence over the group.
Joseph Smith was once asked how he was able to govern such a large
and diverse and widespread group of people. His answer: "I teach
them correct principles and they govern themselves."
He also said, "It is the first principle of revealed religion to
know for a certainty the character of God, and that a man may come
unto Him and speak with him face to face, as did Moses." Joseph
Smith continually pleaded with all who heard him to NOT take him
at his word, but to ask GOD if what he was teaching, saying, and
doing was true. All who will do so with hearts open to conviction
will be answered by God through the Holy Ghost. I have been.
Are these the words of one who acts dictatorially, as Mr. Benson
suggests:
"...the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected
with the powers of heaven, and the powers of heaven cannot
be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of right-
eousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but
when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride,
our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or com-
pulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree
of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves;
the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn,
Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature
and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little
authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to
exercise unrighteous dominion.
"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue
of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by
gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness,
and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without
hypocrisy, and without guile--reproving betimes with sharpness,
when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth after-
wards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved,
lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; that he may know that
thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death."
Doctrine and Covenants 121:36,37,41-44
None of this should be taken to imply that Joseph Smith was not
a man of great influence on those who knew him, nor that he did
not possess a great deal of charisma. Of course he did. He was a
very strong personality. Even in a land where freedom of religion
is guaranteed to every citizen, the persecution, hatred, ridicule,
and physical deprivation that followed him from the time he was
an obscure youth until he was murdered in cold blood at age 39
required such a strong (and strong-willed) individual. Even a cursory
study of the life of this man will reveal a truly remarkable and
rare individual. Certainly he was strong. Most assuredly he was
influential. But he lived what he preached, and that includes his
teachings of leadership and governance. He never used his position
or his authority to exercise control over people. Nor did he ever
even hint that his relationship with God was in any way different
(i.e., special) from that possible between any other person and
God. He went to great pains to teach and convince people that God
is no respector of persons, and that NO ONE has "unique access to
the Almighty."
David H.
|
| 60.33 | Thanks | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Tue Feb 02 1988 07:25 | 7 |
| RE: Note 16.2 by David Hansen
Hi David,
Thank you for that insight. I very much enjoyed it.
Rich
|
| 60.38 | Authority from God | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Tue Feb 02 1988 08:27 | 61 |
|
Re: Note 10.1 by NRPUR::BALSAMO
Hi Tony,
Glad to converse with you again!
> >The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints accepts the Bible as the
> >divine Word of God...HOWEVER (emphasis mine TB), the Bible we have today
> >comes from ancient manuscripts that were not the original ones written by
> >the apostles and prophets, but are copies of copies....Since we don't have
> >the original ones, we have no way of saying the Bible is accurate in terms
> >of what the apostles wrote, except tradition which says the Bible is
> >correct.
>
> Do the Mormons have in their possession the ORIGINAL plates discovered
> by Joseph Smith? If not (then by using your own logic of reasoning) the
> book of Mormon must be considered to contain possible error due to
> translation.
It is true that we don't have the original gold plates and hence we can
not rely upon the knowledge of *men* to verify the translation of the
plates. Instead, we must rely upon personal prayer to God in asking if
the Book of Mormon is true. We do affirm that the Book of Mormon was
translated from the original documents by the Gift and Power of God. We
also affirm that it is the Word of God, as is the Bible. The challenge
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is this: Read the
Book of Mormon, sincerely looking for truth, and ask God in prayer if
it is true.
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. (Moroni 10:4)
> >The problem with resting solely on the Holy Scriptures for authority, is
> >that each person can interpret them differently. Look at the many
> >Christian sects that believe so differently on many doctrines. Each of
> >them appeals to the Bible as their source of authority.
>
> Again, the same argument can be made against Mormonism.
> ...The Mormon church is not with out it's own divisions.
Just as the Biblical Apostles had to fight apostasy within the ancient
church, it is no different today. Some people have apostasized from the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. But, one cannot take upon
himself authority to act in God's name, or to start up a new church. It
must come from God. Those who choose not to follow his apostles, either
ancient or modern reject the foundation of His church.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners,
but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household
of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner
stone (Eph 2:19-20)
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 60.3 | References for additional study | CACHE::LEIGH | | Tue Feb 02 1988 08:39 | 24 |
| Re: IOSG::CHRISTIAN Note 389.1 By Jeff Benson
>Many cults promote the false idea that God has revealed something special
>to them. This is usually truth that has never before been revealed and
>supersedes and contradicts all previous revelations.
See note 4.9 (this conference) for a discussion of revelation in the
New Testament church.
>The Mormon church teaches that Christianity was in apostasy for some 18
>centuries until God revealed new "truth" to Joseph Smith, Jr., restoring
>the true gospel that had been lost. Today the Mormon church has its living
>prophets who receive divine revelation from God, continually bringing new
>"truth" to the world.
See notes 4.11 and 4.12 (this conference) for a discussion of the apostasy.
>These and other cults justify their existence by claiming they have something
>more than just the Bible and its "inadequate message." (note Mormon Topic
>in this conference).
See notes 4.* (this conference) for a discussion of Mormon beliefs.
|
| 60.39 | Standing on Uncertainty | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Where'er you go,there you shall be! | Tue Feb 02 1988 12:05 | 46 |
|
re: 10.2 <RIPPLE::KOTTERRI>
>We do affirm that the Book of Mormon was translated from the original
>documents by the Gift and Power of God. We also affirm that it is the
>Word of God, as is the Bible.
How do you "affirm" that? And if it was translated by the "gift and
power of God", than how can it contain errors? Does the power of God
inspire errors?
>The challenge: ...Read the Book of Mormon, sincerely looking for truth,
>and ask God in prayer if it is true.
Again, if the Book of Mormon was translated from the original by the
Gift and Power of God: Does God inspire error that one must pray to ask
God if it is true?
>Instead, we must rely upon personal prayer to God in asking if the Book of
>Mormon is true.
I submit that this is an unreliable way of verifying truth. Two will
pray to God asking to know the truth and one will come away with the
feeling that it is truth, and the other will come away with the feeling
that it is not truth. Which one is correct? Both can not be correct,
which one did God speak to? And how can you tell?
It is a different matter to pray to God for Him to open you eyes to the
truth of the Bible than it is to pray to God to know if what it says is
true or not. The former assumes the authority and inerrency of the Word
and the latter stands on uncertainty.
I bare witness that the God of heaven, who created the heavens and the
earth and all things in them by the utterance of His Word, IS capable of
seeing His Divinely Inspired Holy Bible translated from generation to
generation without error.
In Christ,
Tony
P.S. By the way, I have prayed to God in the name of Jesus and with a
sincere heart concerning the truth of the Book of Mormon and He has
manifested to me by the power of the Holy Spirit that the things
written within it are not true.
|
| 60.40 | Let a man ask of God to know for himself | FSTRCK::RICK_SYSTEM | | Tue Feb 02 1988 14:05 | 77 |
| re: note 10.3 by NRPUR::BALSAMO
>> Instead, we must rely upon personal prayer to God in asking if the Book of
>> Mormon is true.
> I submit that this is an unreliable way of verifying truth. Two will
> pray to God asking to know the truth and one will come away with the
> feeling that it is truth, and the other will come away with the feeling
> that it is not truth. Which one is correct? Both can not be correct,
> which one did God speak to? And how can you tell?
Obviously, If two people come to me claiming they are speaking the truth,
and are saying different things, they cannot both be telling the truth
[at least not the complete truth]. For example, when I was a sophomore
at Yale, I had no religious beliefs which I accepted as truth. I didn't
necessarily reject any particular belief, but I did not hold any as
truth, either. I was interested in religion, however. I went to
meetings of Catholics, various Protestant churches, Moonies, Mormons,
and various eastern religions as well. Each taught different things, and
all claimed what they taught was true. There is know way on my own I
could distinguish amongst them who, if any, was telling the truth.
Nor could I tell, on my own, whether the Bible is totally true,
partly true, wholly false, etc.; similarly regarding the Book of Mormon,
Koran, etc.
> It is a different matter to pray to God for Him to open you eyes to the
> truth of the Bible than it is to pray to God to know if what it says is
> true or not. The former assumes the authority and inerrency of the Word
> and the latter stands on uncertainty.
I am not sure I understand your reasoning here. Why should anyone assume
the Bible is inerrant ? Why should anyone assume the Book of Mormon is
inerrant ? Why should anyone assume the Koran is inerrant ?
> I bare witness that the God of heaven, who created the heavens and the
> earth and all things in them by the utterance of His Word, IS capable of
> seeing His Divinely Inspired Holy Bible translated from generation to
> generation without error.
I also bare witness that the God of heaven is capable of seeing the
Bible translated from generation to generation without error. I also
bear witness He has all power to do anything. He has power to save men
without any written "documentation" at all. He has power to save men
without accepting Christ as their Savior. However, even though he has
the power to do so, does not mean He has chosen to do so.
These were the feelings I felt when I was studying the various churches/
religions that were available to me when I was in college. [I still
feel the same way today.]
> Tony
> By the way, I have prayed to God in the name of Jesus and with a
> sincere heart concerning the truth of the Book of Mormon and He has
> manifested to me by the power of the Holy Spirit that the things
> written within it are not true.
Such things are between a man and his Creator. If you have done so,
and God did reveal this to you, He will judge you by what He revealed to
you.
Likewise, I have done so as well. He told me by the power of the
Holy Spirit that it is of Him. Since I consider only His word, His works,
and His judgment infallible, I accept it as truth.
I recommend this procedure to everyone. I wouldn't want anyone else's
faith to be based on what I say, what you say, what Rich says, what
Confucius said, what Buddha said, what Isaiah or John the Baptist said.
It should be based on what God has said, and what He tells you is true.
If he should say the Bible is true, believe it. If he should say the
Bible is false, believe that as well.
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men
liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." James 1:5
I would echo these words: ask of God.
Rick Rollins
|
| 60.41 | Where does error come from? | USMRM7::KOSSLER | | Tue Feb 02 1988 16:00 | 61 |
| RE: 10.3
> If it was translated by the "gift and
> power of God", than how can it contain errors? Does the power of God
> inspire errors? ... Does God inspire error that one must pray to ask
> God if it is true?
Anytime anyone, including Deity, tries to explain Truth to mortals, an
imperfect understanding on the part of the receiver is very possible.
Moreover, when the receiver of such revelation tries in turn to explain
these concepts to other mortals, both persons' inadequacies will be further
involved. That just makes sense. Even if God gave a perfect understanding
to the original receiver of revelation, when that person tried to put that
understanding across to others, the human to human communication would be
imperfect. God does not err, but humans usually do.
I believe this explains 1) how there could be errors in the various
editions of the Book of Mormon, as well as 2) how there could be dozens of
well meaning Christian denominations all contradicting each other.
1) There are several 'editions' of the Book of Mormon, but only one
original manuscript. The 1981 edition, for example, corrected many errors
made by the printer of the first edition, which were perpetuated in
subsequent printings. The 1981 edition is closer to the manuscript than any
previous printing. This is an example of how error could creep into an
otherwise correct revelation from God. Yes, God will let printers make
mistakes. He lets all of us make mistakes. He always has.
2) If the above could happen over the course of a century and a half, then
how much more could happen to the various translations, editions, and
versions of the Bible over several millenia? As we all know, even small
doctrinal differences can lead to schisms with each party vehemently
believing they have the Truth. God does let this happen among His children.
In either case, we are left with only one alternative: Go To God And Ask!
It is my personal belief that this is what He wants us to do more than
anything. It is my personal belief that this why He permits confusion about
the Written Word. We are NOT supposed to be content with just reading a
Bible and/or a Book of Mormon. Those Books are not God, and we should not
substitute what they say for what God has to say to each of us. Yes, He
gave us the Bible to teach and encourage us and lead us to salvation. The
Bible is very important. But I believe that nothing is more important than
directly going to God for a personal witness of the Truth.
Yes, we must rely upon personal prayer to God in asking if the Book of
Mormon is true. We must rely on personal prayer to God for everything! If
we believe that each of us has equal access to God, and if we believe that
He has answers for us, and if we believe that He does not lie, then it is
imperative that we go to Him with our prayers for understanding. Going to
any Book, whether Scripture or not, cannot give you the kind of
understanding that a sweet, honest answer to a prayer can.
God has answered my prayer, and confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon is
truly Scripture, that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, and that there are
many important truths God would have us learn in addition to what is
contained in the Bible. Now. Today.
In the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I hope and pray that we
may all come to greater understanding.
/kevin
|
| 60.42 | The need for a standard still exist. | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Where'er you go,there you shall be! | Tue Feb 02 1988 16:43 | 41 |
|
re: 10.4 <FSTRCK::RICK_SYSTEM>
Greetings, Rick;
>Why should anyone assume the Bible is inerrant ? Why should anyone assume
>the Book of Mormon is inerrant ? Why should anyone assume the Koran is
>inerrant ?
Because we must have a standard of truth. Truth, if it is truth, is a
constant. It does not vary from person to person. That is what the world
does with morality. If you want to do something that is considered to be
immoral, you lower you standard of morality and now it becomes OK. You
can't do that. We need a standard. I submit that the Bible is that
standard from which we get truth, not a varying feeling that we get when we
pray.
>Such things are between a man and his Creator. If you have done so, and
>God did reveal this to you, He will judge you by what He revealed to you.
Is there no universal truth? It is not a matter between man and his
creator. We can know beyond a shadow of a doubt what is truth by reading
and studying God Word which is the standard by which we will be judged.
If anyone hears my says, and does not keep them, I do
not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world,
but to save the world. He who rejects Me, and does not
receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I
spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
[John 12:47-48]
The Bible is our standard to base our life on. If it is unreliable,
them we are with out hope, because it (the words of Jesus) is what shall
judge us on the last day.
In Christ,
Tony
|
| 60.43 | | FSTRCK::RICK_SYSTEM | | Tue Feb 02 1988 17:31 | 28 |
| re: .6
First, I apologize if this seems argumentative. I have no desire to cause
disputations. I just am trying to find out why Tony believes as he does.
>>Why should anyone assume the Bible is inerrant ? Why should anyone assume
>>the Book of Mormon is inerrant ? Why should anyone assume the Koran is
>>inerrant ?
> Because we must have a standard of truth. Truth, if it is truth, is a
> constant. It does not vary from person to person. That is what the world
> does with morality. If you want to do something that is considered to be
> immoral, you lower you standard of morality and now it becomes OK. You
> can't do that. We need a standard. I submit that the Bible is that
> standard from which we get truth, not a varying feeling that we get when we
> pray.
Why do you believe that the Bible is the standard for truth, rather than
the sacred writings of any other religious faction ? I have done so
because the Lord Himself told me that the Holy Scriptures are true.
If He had not done so, I would not believe in them. There are many other
books which claim that they also contain the truth, which I believe do not.
The fact the authors of the Biblical writings claim them to be true does
not make it so, for they were men. The fact that God independently
verifies the scriptures make them of worth to me.
I would also disagree that we necessarily get a varying feeling when we
pray. In my experience with prayer, that has not been the case.
|
| 60.44 | Let he who has ears... | USADEC::HANSEN | | Tue Feb 02 1988 18:23 | 63 |
| RE: 10.6 by NRPUR::BALSAMO
I also am trying to understand why Tony believes as he does.
> The Bible is our standard to base our life on. If it is unreliable,
>them we are with out hope, because it (the words of Jesus) is what shall
>judge us on the last day.
I agree 100%. THE WORDS OF JESUS are the standard by which all mankind
will be judged. ALL of his words. Please enlighten me as to where
in the Bible it says that all of His words are contained therein.
John 10:16 states:
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also
I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
one fold and one shepherd."
For emphasis, "THEY SHALL HEAR MY VOICE!" I take this to mean that
he will speak words to them. These other people then, knowing that
they would be judged by the words which he spoke to them, would
certainly record these words. The records of His teachings could
then be passed down from generation to generation just as the Bible
has been. If a time came when the population in possession of the
records of the Saviour rejected his teachings (an occurrance not
unique in world history), those sacred records would either be
destroyed or lost by the wickedness of the people, or else they
must in some way be preserved by the hand of the Lord or His servants.
We submit that such was the case. The record of SOME of the words
which Jesus has spoken to "other sheep" were contained on the gold
plates buried in a hill in upper state New York by the last remaining
prophet of a once-great (and once-righteous) civilization in the
Americas. The record was thus preserved and brought forth by the
miraculous power of the Lord.
Over 1500 Christian sects use the Bible as their "standard". What
makes your sect any "truer" or more accurate than the other 1499?
Why would God speak words only to the portion of his children who
happened to live in a narrow strip of land about the distance from
San Diego to Los Angeles and remain so tight-lipped forever more
to the other teeming billions who have inhabited the planet. By
what authority do men "close" the mouth of God? Certainly He is
free to speak at will whenever and to whomever he chooses. No man
can convince another of the truthfulness of the Bible. No man can
convince another of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. No man
can convince another of the truthfulness of the words of Christ.
The final authority on the words of Christ is Christ himself. And
why would he not answer anyone who sincerely asked in faith with
real intent? Has He no mouth now? Has He no ears? Has He no compassion
for those who are confused by the myriad interpretations of each
minute detail in the Bible? The same unchangeable God who spoke
to Moses out of the burning bush and who also spoke to him "face
to face, as one man speaks with another," is just as eager to reveal
truth in this day as in Moses' time.
The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ, as does the Bible. There
are no contradictions between the books. There are many, many instances
in which they support, verify, enhance, and uphold each other. Yet,
Christ has not spoken all that He will ever speak. He has never
said that He is finished telling us all we need to know. Man shall
live (and be judged, as you stated) by EVERY word that proceeds
forth from the mouth of God.
David H.
|
| 60.45 | The Bible is accurate | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Where'er you go,there you shall be! | Wed Feb 03 1988 09:56 | 76 |
|
re: 10.5 <USMRM7::KOSSLER>
>Anytime anyone, including Deity, tries to explain Truth to mortals, an
>imperfect understanding on the part of the receiver is very possible.
I agree that "an imperfect understanding on the part of the receiver"
is quite possible...in fact in did happen.
As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of
the grace that would come to you made careful search
and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the
Spirit of Christ within them was indication as He
predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories
to follow.
[I Peter 1:10-11]
Here, we see that the prophets who were receiving the prophecy from the
Spirit of Christ within them did not have a perfect understanding of what
they were predicting. But that has no bearing on the Authority or accuracy
of the message. Why? Because, men wrote what the Holy Spirit within them
was telling them to write.
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of
Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human
will, BUT MEN MOVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT SPOKE FROM
GOD.
[2 Peter 1:20-21]
The Scriptures are 100% accurate today. In the same way the the
originals are accurate because of the moving of the Holy Spirit, so God's
Spirit is also able to preserve His Word as reliable and without error
today.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in
righteousness so that the man of God may be
thoroughly equipped for every good work.
[2 Tim 3:16-17]
>Moreover, when the receiver of such revelation tries in turn to explain
>these concepts to other mortals, both persons' inadequacies will be
>further involved. That just makes sense.
The reception of the messages is based on the condition of the heart of
the person doing the receiving. Read the Parable of the sower. I have
already proven that the message that has been written is inspired by the
Holy Spirit and therefore is completely trustworthy and accurate. The
problems comes with getting the message from the written word into our
hearts....and that depends on the condition of our heart as to weather or
not we will be receptive. This is where we must pray for an open heart to
allow God's Word to cut us and convict of sin, righteousness, and the
judgment to come.
For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than
any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division
of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able
to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
[Hebrews 4:12]
I can not give clearer testimony that this. The Word has been exposed
for all to see. What is left is for you to pray along with me that your
heart will be open to the truth of God's Word. The Word stands; it is
living and active, and if applied to your life, the Word is able to
distinguish between your soul and your spirit; and is able to distinguish
between your good thoughts and your bad one; and the Word is able to judge
the intentions of your heart, weather good or bad.
In the love of Christ,
Tony
|
| 60.46 | All you have is BELIEF | CACHE::LEIGH | | Wed Feb 03 1988 10:54 | 46 |
| Re .9
Hi Tony,
> The Scriptures are 100% accurate today. In the same way the the
> originals are accurate because of the moving of the Holy Spirit, so God's
> Spirit is also able to preserve His Word as reliable and without error
> today.
You are certainly free to believe that the Bible is 100% accurate today, but
that belief is belief only. All Biblical references to the scriptures being
inspired of God apply *only* to the original manuscripts since the Bible
was canonized afterwards. That is, when the original manuscripts were written
by the inspired men, the Bible as we know it did not exist, and Biblical
statements relating to inspiration apply only to the original manuscripts
*not* to the Bible as we know it.
There is nothing in the history of the canonized Bible nor in the history of
the Christian churches after the New Testament era that indicates that the
Bible today is 100% accurate. Even though the manuscripts used in Biblical
translations are old and agree reasonably well with themselves, they are not
the original records penned by the inspired writers. Thus, there is no way
that we can authoritatively say that the Bible is 100% accurate today. People
are free to believe that, if they wish, but it is only their belief.
So, Tony, it seems that your attitude toward the Bible being 100% accurate
today is based on faith and belief, and because of this you are in the
same situation we are in. Since we do not have the original gold plates,
and since you do not have the original Biblical manuscripts, we both have
faith and belief that the books are accurate today. Please keep in mind that
I am not talking about the fact that the original records were inspired of God.
I am talking about the accuracy of the records that have been preserved and are
available today.
> The reception of the messages is based on the condition of the heart of
> the person doing the receiving. Read the Parable of the sower. I have
> already proven that the message that has been written is inspired by the
> Holy Spirit and therefore is completely trustworthy and accurate.
Again, to emphasis the point, all you have proven, Tony, is that the original
Biblical records were inspired and that you have *faith* and *belief* that
the manuscripts which are available today are 100% accurate.
Allen
|
| 60.47 | Try it, you'll like it! | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Where'er you go,there you shall be! | Wed Feb 03 1988 15:02 | 41 |
|
re: 10.7 <FSTRCK::RICK_SYSTEM>
>Why do you believe that the Bible is the standard for truth, rather than
>the sacred writings of any other religious faction ?
It is a matter of faith. Here I am, Joe Nobody, living my life as best
as I know how....Unhappy, unfulfilled, not going anywhere, without hope in
life, when God allowed me to hear the message of the Gospel preached. That
message planted a seed of faith in my heart.
How then shall they call upon him in whom they have
not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom
they have not heard? And how shall they hear without
a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are
sent? ....So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by
he word of Christ.
[Rom 10:14-15a, 17]
If you want to know whether or not the Bible is true....do it and see
that it works, then you will know.
If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know
of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I
speak from Myself.
[John 7:17]
To the Jews who believed Him, Jesus said, "If you
hold to my teaching, then you will know the truth
and the truth will set you free".
[John 8:31]
That is why I believe in the Authority of the Bible....I have tried it
and seem it work.
In Christ,
Tony
|
| 60.48 | Thin Thread! | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Where'er you go,there you shall be! | Wed Feb 03 1988 16:25 | 54 |
|
re: 10.8 <USADEC::HANSEN>
>ALL of his words. Please enlighten me as to where in the Bible it says
>that all of His words are contained therein.
>John 10:16 states:
> "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also
> I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
> one fold and one shepherd."
Ah yes, the often quoted "sheep of another fold" Scripture. Be
serious, will you! Jesus is talking to Jews about the Gentiles. He made
references many times that the kingdom which He had come to establish was
going to be a kingdom containing peoples of all nations, not just Jews.
Jesus never come out and said it plainly because the Jewish mind-set would
not be able to comprehend a kingdom of God's people containing anything but
Jews. Up until this point, the Jews were the only people considered God's
people. Jesus was saying that there will be one fold with one shepherd
containing both Jews and non-Jews.
In Matt 28:18-20, Jesus tells His disciples to go and make disciples of
ALL NATIONS. In Luke 21:33-END, Jesus tells a parable about the
"Vine-growers", that because the Jews and refused to listen, he was taking
the kingdom away from them and giving it to another.
This is the only Scripture (Jn 10:16) that the Mormons can point to
from the Bible that would seem to support their existence....and it is
quoted out of context.
>Why would God speak words only to the portion of his children who happened
>to live in a narrow strip of land about the distance from San Diego to Los
>Angeles and remain so tight-lipped forever more to the other teeming
>billions who have inhabited the planet.
Can you say words like "Missionary", "Great Commission"?
>By what authority do men "close" the mouth of God?
God's mouth is not closed! His word is living and active (Heb 4:12)
and still speaks to us today.
>The final authority on the words of Christ is Christ himself.
This is true. What has Christ Himself said about His Word? Read
John 7:16-18.
In Christ,
Tony
|
| 60.49 | See the difference? | NRPUR::BALSAMO | Where'er you go,there you shall be! | Wed Feb 03 1988 17:11 | 25 |
|
re: 10.10 <CACHE::LEIGH> Allen,
>All Biblical references to the Scriptures being inspired of God apply
>*only* to the original manuscripts since the Bible was canonized
>afterwards.
Surely, you don't believe that. Do you think that they had the
original book (or scroll, if you will) of Genesis, or Leviticus as they
were penned from the hand of Moses? Of course not. Scribes were men who
made copies of the original. Surely, if Paul or Peter can make the claims
that they did concerning the copies of Scriptures that they had in their
day, we can say the same about todays Scriptures.
>Since we do not have the original gold plates, and since you do not have
>the original Biblical manuscripts, we both have faith and belief that the
>books are accurate today.
But we BOTH do NOT have faith that the books are accurate. You do not
have faith that the books are accurate, that is why you must pray is see if
what you are reading is true. Me, I have faith that they are accurate and
accept what I read as truth. See the difference?
In Christ,
Tony
|
| 60.50 | No thread required. Have Firm Foundation. | USADEC::HANSEN | The healing can begin. | Wed Feb 03 1988 19:48 | 75 |
|
RE: 10.12 by NRPUR::BALSAMO
> Ah yes, the often quoted "sheep of another fold" Scripture. Be
>serious, will you!
I am serious.
> Jesus is talking to Jews about the Gentiles. He made
>references many times that the kingdom which He had come to establish was
>going to be a kingdom containing peoples of all nations, not just Jews.
>Jesus never came out and said it plainly because the Jewish mind-set would
>not be able to comprehend a kingdom of God's people containing anything but
>Jews.
Uh, yes He did come out and say it plainly. I'll quote you on this:
> In Matt 28:18-20, Jesus tells His desciples to go and make disciples of
>ALL NATIONS.
Yes, he did. Are you saying then, that His disciples going into all nations
to preach the gospel constituted the way that those "other sheep" would HEAR
His voice? If that's what you're saying, then I submit that you are the one
who is taking John 10:16 out of context. His words were "THEY SHALL HEAR MY
VOICE." He could have easily said, "They shall hear the voice of my ser-
vants." He could have said, "They shall have my word." He did not. He said,
"They shall hear my voice." Just as the Jews heard his voice, those "other
sheep" would HEAR HIS VOICE. I see no record in the Bible of anyone but Jews
hearing the voice of the saviour as He declared the gospel. Yes, I do be-
lieve that gentiles were included in His meaning of "other sheep." But where
is the record of Gentiles who have heard HIS voice. You claim that mission-
aries who preach the gospel constitute the VOICE of Christ in all nations,
or that the Bible constitutes the VOICE of Christ. I disagree. I do agree
that missionaries who preach and testify of Christ who are filled with the
spirit in gathering both Jews and gentiles to Christ are acting in fulfill-
ment of His command to "go into every nation." The statement of those other
sheep hearing his voice however, is not fulfilled in the Bible.
> This is the only Scripture (Jn 10:16) that the Mormons can point to
>from the Bible that would seem to support their existence....and it is
>quoted out of context.
In your opinion, it is quoted out of context. Please see notes 4.19 and 4.18
for a more in-depth discussion of this particular verse and what the Lord
Himself has to say about it. I can think of several scriptures from the
Bible which "support" our existence. Ephesians 4:5,11-14. Ezekial 37:15-17.
John 1:21. Genesis 49:22-26. Amos 3:7. II Thessalonians 2:1-3. I Corinthians
1:26-29;4:20;14:33;15:29. II Corinthians 13:1. Hebrews 5:4. James 1:5,6.
Revelation 14:6,7. Isaiah 29:11,12. There are more.
> God's mouth is not closed! His word is living and active (Heb 4:12)
>and still speaks to us today.
True, Tony. But it's even better than that. God is LIVING and ACTIVE
AND STILL SPEAKS TO US TODAY. He still speaks to us today. All of His words
are not contained in the Bible. Only men have limited what they are willing
to accept as His word to the Bible. Nowhere in it does He say that it
contains all He has to say, or that it contains ALL truth. Please read note
4.18 in this conference.
>>The final authority on the words of Christ is Christ himself.
> This is true. What has Christ Himself said about His Word? Read
>John 7:16-18.
I read it. I agree exactly. That is not all He has said about His words.
He has also said what is written in 2 Nephi 29:3-14, as contained in note
4.18. And He is willing to say even more to individuals who will ask in
faith and then will listen with faith. He lives today. He works today
in the same manner as He always has in dealing with His children.
Revelation continues today, just as He has always intended it to--just
as in both Old and New Testament times, no matter where people happen
to be born.
David H.
|
| 60.51 | My faith leads me to pray for a witness | CACHE::LEIGH | | Wed Feb 03 1988 19:52 | 54 |
| Re .14
> >All Biblical references to the Scriptures being inspired of God apply
> >*only* to the original manuscripts since the Bible was canonized
> >afterwards.
>
> Surely, you don't believe that. Do you think that they had the
> original book (or scroll, if you will) of Genesis, or Leviticus as they
> were penned from the hand of Moses? Of course not. Scribes were men who
> made copies of the original.
Exactly! That's the point I'm trying to make. And because of that, you have
no assurance other than faith that the copies of copies which became the
manuscripts used in translating the Bible were accurately copied. You have no
assurance other than faith that the scribes were inspired of God. Well, you do
have one other assurance, tradition of the Catholic church.
> Surely, if Paul or Peter can make the claims
> that they did concerning the copies of Scriptures that they had in their
> day, we can say the same about todays Scriptures.
Based on faith, yes you can say anything you want too about todays Scriptures.
Based on real evidence, you can't say anything, because the original copies
aren't available.
> >Since we do not have the original gold plates, and since you do not have
> >the original Biblical manuscripts, we both have faith and belief that the
> >books are accurate today.
>
> But we BOTH do NOT have faith that the books are accurate. You do not
> have faith that the books are accurate, that is why you must pray is see if
> what you are reading is true. Me, I have faith that they are accurate and
> accept what I read as truth. See the difference?
It's because I *do* have faith in the Book of Mormon that I pray for a
witness from the Holy Ghost that it is true. I live the teachings from the
Book of Mormon and find out from my own experiences in life that the teachings
are good, that my faith in Jesus Christ is strengthened, and that I am more
like Christ. My faith in the book is thus increased. Because of my faith in
the book, I pray and ask God if it is true and receive a spiritual witness
from the Holy Spirit that it is true. Now my faith is increased even more
because I have had personal revelation from the Holy Spirit. I did not pray
out of doubt or lack of faith but out of faith, seeking a witness from God
through revelation. Similarly, I have faith in the Bible, live its teachings,
and pray for a witness that it is true.
Tony, please read note 4.7 in which I discuss in detail our getting testimonies
or witnesses of truth via the Holy Spirit; it's all in the Bible! Please notice
as you read 4.7 that I am talking about praying due to *having faith* not
due to a lack of faith.
Allen
|
| 60.52 | Gentiles | IOSG::VICKERS | Il n'y a qu'un dieu | Thu Feb 04 1988 06:14 | 18 |
|
.14
where is the record of Gentiles who heard His voice ?
How about the Roman soldier who's daughter was raised from the dead?
How about the Roman soldier at the foot of the cross ?
How about Pilate ? - Granted, he didn't accept it, but he heard
it.
How about the woman in Tyre who's daughter was delivered from a
demon ?
Interesting discussion this. I would like to put in some notes on
the accuracy of the Old Testament soon. I shall have to go and write
them first, but watch this space ! :-)
God bless you all,
Paul V
|
| 60.53 | "Accuracy of the Bible" has moved | CACHE::LEIGH | | Thu Feb 04 1988 08:14 | 21 |
| This note is beginning to fragment into new topics. One new topic that
has arisen is "The Accuracy of the Bible". I have created note 23 for
a continuation of this new topic. If you wish to discuss the new topic
independently of the Book of Mormon, please use the new note. If you
wish to discuss the new topic in relationship to the Book of Mormon as a
source of authority, please continue to use this note.
Another topic that has arisen in this note is "Prayer to know truth".
So far, the context of this topic has been in relation to the discussion
on the Book of Mormon as a source of authority. Persons wishing to
discuss Prayer independently of this note should create a new note.
Please keep in mind that this note concerns "Non-biblical sources of
authority. Please keep this discussion centered on this topic and use
other notes to discuss the Book of Mormon from other perspectives.
Thanks.
Allen
-- moderator
|
| 60.54 | 10.16 & 10.17 moved | CACHE::LEIGH | | Tue Feb 09 1988 18:41 | 6 |
| Replies 10.16 and 10.17 have been moved to become note 22 because they
have created a new topic on the Holy Ghost.
Allen
-- moderator
|
| 60.1 | Christians | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Feb 10 1988 12:27 | 61 |
| Re: 43.0 by CSTVAX::RONDINA
I respectfully disagree with the statement "Mormonism is not
Christian".
To be a Christian, I believe a person must be a believer in Jesus
Christ and a follower of Jesus Christ. Having been a member of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all of my life, I must say
that I am firmly convinced that all that this church teaches is focused
on persuading people to believe in Jesus Christ and to follow Jesus
Christ. Those who heed the teachings of the church do believe in Jesus
Christ and do follow him: they are Christians.
How do we believe in Jesus Christ?
----------------------------------
We believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, that the
prophets prophesied would come.
We believe that He is the Son of God, miraculously born of the virgin
Mary.
We believe that He performed an infinite atonement for our sins.
We believe that it is only through the grace of Christ that we can be
forgiven of our sins and be saved in the kingdom of God.
We believe that He was crucified on Calvary, and that He was
resurrected on the third day.
We believe that He was exalted, and sits on the right hand of God the
Father.
We believe that He is our Creator and our Redeemer.
We believe all that He taught and all that was taught by His disciples.
We seek to *do* as Jesus Christ and his disciples taught.
We believe that Jesus Christ is our Mediator with the Father.
We believe that we must do all things in the name of Jesus Christ.
We believe that Jesus Christ still lives and that he guides his church
through divine revelation.
We believe that Jesus Christ will come again, in great glory.
It is a very easy thing to *say* that "Mormonism is not Christian".
There are some who believe that. We allow them the privilege to believe
what they will. But I must say that it is wrong, and I think that those
who believe that have allowed themselves to be deceived from the
truth.
Of these truths, I bear solemn witness, in the sacred name of Jesus
Christ.
Witnessing of Christ,
Rich
|
| 60.6 | Who is the Mormon Jesus? | FIDDLE::LEZAS | | Wed Feb 10 1988 15:30 | 5 |
| There has been some very interesting information left out, however,
about who Jesus Christ really is to the Mormons. I will go into
much detail about this in my report in note 38.
Leza
|
| 60.8 | Moved from note 237 | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 227-3299, 223-3326 | Fri May 26 1989 11:12 | 24 |
| Then, what is really meant is that Mormons make Christ out to be
different according to how others interpret the Bible. Keep in
mind that concepts from notes 97 about the Godhead and 201 about
the nature of God are not unique to Mormonism. In fact, I had a
friend recently criticize the Church because many ideas
introduced during the time of the origin of the Church were had
among the Cambellites, the Masons and others. (I find it interesting
that the Church is criticized both for having beliefs like other
churches and for having beliefs that are unlike other churches.
Guess you just can't please everybody ... ;^) ) In fact, many, if not
most, of the differences can be found among the creeds or membership
of other Christian faiths. No?
This begs the question then, why would Mormonism be considered a
cult if many of its beliefs are shared by the members of other
Christian denominations?
By the way, in Danish the term 'cult' has a different meaning than
it does in English. In Danish, Mormonism *is* a 'cult' by their
definition of the word, as I recall. Peter, would you care to
elucidate? Mr. Moderator, feel free to move my notes if better under
another topic.
Steve
|
| 60.9 | KULT in Danish, Please!! | HSSWS1::BRUUN | | Fri May 26 1989 13:08 | 37 |
| Ref:
By the way, in Danish the term 'cult' has a different meaning than
it does in English. In Danish, Mormonism *is* a 'cult' by their
definition of the word, as I recall. Peter, would you care to
elucidate?
Steve,
I gave a call to my parents in Denmark, and had them look up the
definition of "cult". First, In Denmark cult is spelled KULT, second
it comes from the LATIN expression CULTUS which means worship or
culture. It was used both for cultivating crops and worshipping there
gods.
Out of a Danish encyclopedia kult means:
Guds dyrkelse isaer de til tilbedelse knytted cermonier,
boenner med mere.
Overfoert betydning tilbedelse af person eller ting.
In English ( big disclaimer ( good approximation ))
God worshiping, especially the with worshiping cermonies,
prayers et cetera.
Can also refer to worshiping people or things.
Dyrkelse is almost the same as tilbedelse, in fact I not sue that I can
tell you the difference, at any rate, I do not know of any terms
in English that describes it better.
Hope this has help, ooh and by the way my parents say HI. They were
somewhat surprised by my phonecall, especially when they heard the
purpose.
Finally, I kind of suspect that both the word cult in English and
kult in Danish have common ancestry in the LATIN "CULTUS", now
whether our ( in danish ) understanding is different than yours I
don't know.
Peter
|
| 60.13 | Mormonism is a cult | CACHE::LEIGH | Moderator | Fri May 26 1989 13:17 | 28 |
| I've copied a portion of Ed's comments from note 237 to this note to allow a
discussion of Mormonism and Jesus to continue without fragmenting 237.
================================================================================
Note 237.42 Genetic testing of the American Indian 42 of 45
CASV02::PRESTON "Better means to worse ends..." 33 lines 25-MAY-1989 13:41
-< You may have more in common than you thought! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[portions not relating to cults omitted]
BTW, in regards to what is a 'cult' and what isn't, some use, as
a test, what the group in question does with the person of Christ.
If they make him out to be different from the Christ of the Bible,
then the group is regarded as a cult. According to this standard,
the Mormons would be considered a cult, although I'm sure they would
vigorously insist otherwise. As far as Masonry being a cult, I cannot
comment, either according to the standard I just mentioned, or any
other, for I know too little about it. My personal impression of
a cult is a religious organization that holds some sort of strong,
direct influence over it's members, which, to me, is not true of
Masonry, and I don't know enough ex-Mormons to draw a conclusion
in that respect as well...
[portions not relating to cults omitted]
Ed
|
| 60.7 | Elaboration, please? | CACHE::LEIGH | Moderator | Fri May 26 1989 13:33 | 14 |
| I copied Steve's reply as a continuation of the cult discussion.
================================================================================
Note 237.43 Genetic testing of the American Indian 43 of 46
MIZZOU::SHERMAN "ECADSR::SHERMAN 227-3299, 223-3326" 8 lines 25-MAY-1989 22:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed,
How, in your opinion, do Mormons make Christ out to be different from
Chrsit of the Bible? (Probably another topic ...) I think you're
right about 'oriental' referring to language rather than genetics in
the example given. I thought about that, too.
Steve
|
| 60.10 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Come, eat of my bread | Fri May 26 1989 14:02 | 27 |
| I wanted to elaborate a bit on Steve's comment about interpretation of the
Bible. The Bible itself is a physical object that has no meaning. It only
assumes meaning due to our interpretation of the words. Hence, there is
no absolute "Bible Jesus", only one "Bible Jesus" based on your interpretation,
one on mine, one on his, one on hers, and so on.
Mormonism presents an interpretation of the Bible that presents a very
consistent concept of God and Jesus (see note 4 for my understanding of this
Biblical concept), a concept that I believe is consistent with the Bible.
This concept is different from the concepts presented by other denominations
and individuals.
So the question is: who if any has the correct interpretation of the Bible?
We can discuss and debate the issues in this conference for eons of time and
never answer that question, because it is impossible for us to determine the
correct interpretation through intellectual means; it is impossible because
the Bible itself is ambiguous.
That fact that Mormonism has one interpretation of the Bible while other
Christians have another does not automatically mean that they are right and we
are wrong, or vice versa. The fact that sincere people have different
interpretations of the Bible shows that the Bible by itself is inadequate as
an absolute source of truth. People who claim that the Bible is their only
authority are saying, in effect, that they are using an ambiguous book that is
easily misunderstood as their authority.
Allen
|
| 60.11 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 227-3299, 223-3326 | Fri May 26 1989 14:50 | 6 |
|
Thanks, Peter, for the clarification. And, thanks, Allen for your
thoughts on this. And thanks, Ed, for 'stimulating' the conversation!
I'm learning from this kind of discussion! :-)
Steve
|
| 60.12 | Cult defined | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Tue May 30 1989 12:09 | 30 |
| RE : Note 11.4 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN
> Then, what is really meant is that Mormons make Christ out to be
> different according to how others interpret the Bible.
It's not so much the interpretation of the Bible as it is the added
revelations that change what the Bible has to say about God and
Man. Let's look at what those revelations and interpretations
have done.
1. Reduce the character and uniqueness of God.
2. Exaggerate the nature and potential of man.
3. Reduce who Jesus is and what He accomplished.
4. Offer a false hope to those who desire to become righteous
through their own efforts (good works).
What it all boils down to is:
"Whosoever...abideth not in the the doctrine of Christ, hath not
God." (2 John 9).
> This begs the question then, why would Mormonism be considered a
> cult if many of its beliefs are shared by the members of other
> Christian denominations?
It depends on the belief. However, if any of those beliefs fall
into any of the four categories listed above, then that church
falls into the category of a cult.
|
| 60.14 | Chad Speaks! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) (please don't misinterpret this title) | NORGE::CHAD | Ich glaube Ich t�te Ich h�tte | Tue May 30 1989 13:14 | 18 |
| I think rather that the Mormon Views of God and Jesus are ones that
exalt and magnify their positions and power, not diminuate them.
Like humans, Heavenly Father cares more about his children than anything else
in his creations (the human analog being we care for our families than money,
power, fame, fortune -- at least we should). He wants the best for them. He
has provided the means for them to inherit all that he has.
The Bible points this all out vividly. Steve's points about interpretation
are the main key here. How your mind/intellect/brain sees something
is your interpretation. The Bible is just a collection of cloth/paper/
cardboard/vellum/ink/whatever. Without interpretation it is nothing more.
(The same goes for the BoM). The Holy Ghost will guide us in our studies
if we let him. Often our Pride stops us from throwing off our interpretations
and listening to the HG. This is true in varying degrees of everyone, LDS and
non-LDS, scholar and non-scholar.
Chad
|
| 60.15 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 227-3299, 223-3326 | Tue May 30 1989 13:34 | 4 |
| I deleted my last entry. It was too contentious. Suffice it to
say that Ed and I are in disagreement about what Mormons believe.
Steve
|
| 60.16 | INTERPRETATION is THE key. | BSS::RONEY | | Tue May 30 1989 17:39 | 53 |
|
RE : Note 11.8 by GENRAL::RINESMITH
> It's not so much the interpretation of the Bible as it is the added
> revelations that change what the Bible has to say about God and
> Man. Let's look at what those revelations and interpretations
> have done.
>
> 1. Reduce the character and uniqueness of God.
> 2. Exaggerate the nature and potential of man.
> 3. Reduce who Jesus is and what He accomplished.
> 4. Offer a false hope to those who desire to become righteous
> through their own efforts (good works).
>
> What it all boils down to is:
>
> "Whosoever...abideth not in the the doctrine of Christ, hath not
> God." (2 John 9).
If we are to talk about what we believe, then I would like to say a
few words here.
When I was on a Stake Mission, I learned that, even though there is
one and only one Christ, He is worshipped differently through the
different interpretations of who He really is.
The LDS scriptures in no way reduce the character and uniqueness of God.
In fact, I think they give us a BETTER picture of what he is like.
The only people who bother with the nature and potential of man are
those Bible scholars who deny what is in the Bible. Again, the LDS
scriptures shed more light than what is already in the Bible!
To think that the LDS scriptures "reduce who Jesus is and what He
accomplished" is vain indeed. I have read them many times over and
not once have I come to that same conclusion. As with all else, the
scriptures shed more light and expand my knowledge of Him and I have
become more dependent on His grace and mercy than ever before.
To say that the LDS "Offer a false hope to those who desire to become
righteous through their own efforts (good works)" is to outright
deny the Bible and Christ's teachings. Read Matt. 25 and tell me that
Christ did not teach that we are responsible for our actions. Read
1 Cor. 13 and tell me that we do not have to do anything but BELIEVE
and WORD that belief in Christ. THAT is the false hope!
I'm sorry, but it is the interpretations of the Bible that cause so
much contention among the children of men. If the additional light
and knowledge that God wants to shed upon the world is spurned by
those who deny the living God and replace Him with the Bible, then
go and do so, but leave us alone.
|
| 60.17 | a bit presumptious | CACHE::LEIGH | Come, eat of my bread | Tue May 30 1989 18:24 | 32 |
| Re .8
> 1. Reduce the character and uniqueness of God.
> 3. Reduce who Jesus is and what He accomplished.
It seems to me, Roger, that you are assuming a certain concept of God and
Jesus based on your interpretation of the Bible, and since the Mormon
concept of God and Jesus are different than your concept, you say that
Mormonism reduces the character and uniqueness God and Jesus. Keep in
mind, Roger, that the concept of God and Jesus that to you is correct
is only an interpretation of a book. It is not an absolute concept at
all!
There is no absolute basis for Biblical Christianity, Roger! It is all
based on yours and mine and other's interpretation of the Bible, for without
any interpretation at all, there is no information-flow from reading the
Bible. Just as you think it is presumptious of us to claim that we are
the true church, we think it is equally presumptious of you to claim that
your interpretation of the Bible is correct and that we are wrong because
we differ from your interpretation!
> 4. Offer a false hope to those who desire to become righteous
> through their own efforts (good works).
I tried to explain in very great detail in note 4 that Mormonism does not
claim nor teach that the efforts of anyone (Jesus excepted of course) will
make him or her free of sin. We obey God because we are commanded too,
but forgiveness of sin comes 100% from the grace of God and the blood of
Christ!
Allen
|
| 60.18 | | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Tue May 30 1989 23:06 | 31 |
| RE: Last Few
> It seems to me, Roger, that you are assuming a certain concept of God and
> Jesus based on your interpretation of the Bible, and since the Mormon
> concept of God and Jesus are different than your concept, you say that
> Mormonism reduces the character and uniqueness God and Jesus. Keep in
> mind, Roger, that the concept of God and Jesus that to you is correct
> is only an interpretation of a book. It is not an absolute concept at
> all!
Agreed, it is my interpretation/"understanding". And with enough
information I would change my understanding. But, the question
that I was trying to answer, is why are Mormons considered a cult.
> There is no absolute basis for Biblical Christianity, Roger! It is all
> based on yours and mine and other's interpretation of the Bible, for without
> any interpretation at all, there is no information-flow from reading the
> Bible. Just as you think it is presumptious of us to claim that we are
> the true church, we think it is equally presumptious of you to claim that
> your interpretation of the Bible is correct and that we are wrong because
> we differ from your interpretation!
I really don't believe that the Bible is all that hard to
understand. Sure, there are some parts that leave me bewildered,
and some parts that I don't have total confidence that I have the
complete truth in, but I do know that a common thread runs through
the cults and world religions. And that common thread is the
four points that I mentioned in reply 8.
|
| 60.19 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 227-3299, 223-3326 | Wed May 31 1989 13:51 | 12 |
| I really am trying to not be contentious ...
Anyway, I note that the criteria for cults that Roger presents would
put those of the Jewish faith into the set of cults. What I wonder
now is, do the covenants that God made with the Jewish people still
apply? It seems interesting that the covenants would still apply
to the members of a cult. And, if they do not apply, I wonder what
they meant, especially considering the mingling of messianic symbols
and types among the covenents including prophecy that He would be
rejected by them.
Steve
|
| 60.20 | | CASV05::PRESTON | Better means to worse ends... | Wed May 31 1989 17:58 | 13 |
|
� I deleted my last entry. It was too contentious. Suffice it to
� say that Ed and I are in disagreement about what Mormons believe.
Steve, I know we disagree on a lot of things, but I hope you're not
confusing me with Roger again. Since is was clearly important enough
to you to point out that you deleted a reply because it was too
contentious, then it might be of value to whoever inspired this
response in you to know, so that he can re-evaluate what was said
and how it was said, to avoid needless provoking of one another
in the future...
Ed
|
| 60.21 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 227-3299, 223-3326 | Thu Jun 01 1989 00:27 | 4 |
| Yup, Ed, I got you confused with Roger, again. Good thing I ain't
got no pride ... ;-)
Steve
|
| 60.55 | The Bible, our only scripture? Gimme a break! | CACHE::LEIGH | Come, let us eat of His bread | Thu Aug 31 1989 11:31 | 21 |
| I'm enjoying the discussion in note 266, because it is illustrating one
important concept: the Bible is so ambiguous that people can not agree on
what it is saying.
Ed interprets verses to mean one thing, and we interpret them to mean something
very different. Ed's interpretation is very plausible when considered from his
perspective. Likewise, our interpretation is very plausible when taken from
our perspective. History has shown, and will likely continue to show, that a
large group of people will never agree on what the Bible means. Thus, the Bible
by itself is is a necessary source of information, but it certainly is not a
sufficient source of information!
People who say that the Bible is the only book of scripture we have and will
ever have are like the person who has painted themselves into a corner. They
are saying that the only scripture we have now or will ever have is a book that
is so ambiguous that the Christian community can not and will not ever agree on
what it means. This attitude by those who say the Bible is the only book of
scripture must seem pretty amusing to non-Christians. To me it seems
ridiculous.
Allen
|
| 60.56 | Where do you draw the line | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Fri Sep 01 1989 13:55 | 11 |
|
> RE -1 The Bible, our only scripture? Give me a break!
> This attitude by those who say the Bible is the only book of
> scripture must seem pretty amusing to non-Christians. To me it seems
> ridiculous.
Okay, but where do you draw the line as to what is scripture and what
is not? What about the Koran, self-help books, the sayings of
Confusisious (sp). The problem is that they all contradict one another.
|
| 60.57 | | CLIMB::LEIGH | Come, let us eat of His bread | Fri Sep 01 1989 17:23 | 27 |
| Hi Roger,
> Okay, but where do you draw the line as to what is scripture and what
> is not? What about the Koran, self-help books, the sayings of
> Confusisious (sp). The problem is that they all contradict one another.
You've asked the $64 pentillion question that confronts traditional
Christianity! Since there are no books available anywhere in society that
are completely free from ambiguity, I feel that books can not be used as an
exclusive source of religious information. Hence, the Bible by itself is
not a sufficient source, nor are the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great
Price.
The only real solution would be for God himself to come down every so often
and speak directly to the inhabitants of the earth; however, this isn't
likely to occur. We LDS believe that as a substitute, He has chosen certain
men to be latter-day prophets, and that He speaks through them.
I think, Roger, that what it boils down to is that each individual has to
decide what sources of information he or she will accept as scripture. You
have chosen to limit your sources to the Bible. We LDS have chosen to include
the Book of Mormon, D&C, and P of GP with the Bible. Other people choose the
Koran, etc. Some people choose to accept no books. Of course, others will
disagree with our choices, and that is OK. We do what we think is best for
us and let them have the freedom to do what they think is best for them.
Allen
|
| 60.58 | this is where I draw it | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Fri Sep 01 1989 17:57 | 29 |
| re: .22
Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment. Take the 4 gospels
in the NT and their treatment of the Saviour's ressurrection. Try
for a minute to reconcile these accounts with one another, there
is confusing reports to who was there, and to the circumstances
of his appearance Take the account of Judas' suicide. There are 2 accounts
of how it happened in scripture. Contradictions abound in the
Bible. If you study the Bible with an open mind you will indeed
see the contradictions jump out of it. That in itself does not
make the books in the Bible inerrant. We all believe in the
physical resurrection of our Savior, however for me, the Bible
does not make that clear, and it is only through the appearance
in the American continent to the Nephites, as was prophesied,
give us that other witness that washes away any doubt. We have
this testimony that affirms the message that our Lord lives.
This is the way I see it. The Lord has revealed to all people
that indeed he is the saviour. The Book of Mormon gives us this
message as does the Bible. If any work proclaims the divinity
of our Saviour, I dare not reject it. I find it amazing to
see people rejecting the BOM, given it's message that comes
through the Lord. It is my prayer that people will open their
hearts to the Saviour and not reject his word because of where
it is coming from.
Kevin St Thomas
|
| 60.59 | How to tell? | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Fri Sep 01 1989 22:05 | 22 |
| Where do we draw the line between that which is scripture and that
which is not?
According to the D&C, anything spoken by those called by God when
moved upon by the Holy Ghost is the mind of the Lord, the will of
the Lord, and the word of God unto men. It is scripture.
How can we know when a person has been called by God, and that he
is being moved upon by the Holy Ghost to speak the Word of God?
The only way is to know by the power of the Holy Ghost ourselves.
Not always easy. We must pray and ask God, and trust that He will
not fail to answer our sincere plea.
Also, I believe that all true scripture will bear witness to the
divinity of Jesus Christ and will work to persuade all men to look
toward Christ for salvation and to come unto Christ by keeping his
commandments. I believe that this is also true of scriptures given in
the Old Testament times, New Testament times, and today.
Witnessing of Christ's divinity,
Rich
|
| 60.60 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Sat Sep 02 1989 14:09 | 16 |
| Y'all might get a kick out of an experience I had with a young man
training to be a priest in the Danish Folk Church. They have a
school for them in Aarhus. This young man was very friendly and
wanted to debate about our beliefs. Well, we started presenting
one of the lessons and started with some OT scriptures. He told
us that we should limit our discussion to the NT scriptures since
the OT scriptures were fulfilled in Christ. Okay, so we continued
the discussion with some scriptures from 1 Corinthians. Oh no,
he said, Paul was a lunatic. We couldn't use his scriptures. He
told us the only reliable scriptures were from one of the four gospels
(Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). So, we continued our discussion
with scriptures from there. At that point, he told us he didn't
want to hear anymore. He didn't like the fact that we could limit
ourselves to the four gospels and *still* be in disagreement.
Steve
|
| 60.61 | | FRIDAY::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Sun Sep 03 1989 21:41 | 50 |
| RE 10.23
> I think, Roger, that what it boils down to is that each individual has to
> decide what sources of information he or she will accept as Scripture. You
> have chosen to limit your sources to the Bible. We LDS have chosen to include
> the Book of Mormon, D&C, and P of GP with the Bible. Other people choose the
> Koran, etc. Some people choose to accept no books. Of course, others will
> disagree with our choices, and that is OK. We do what we think is best for
> us and let them have the freedom to do what they think is best for them.
Allen, If I am 'hearing' you right, your saying that any book will
do as long as you 'think' your doing the right thing.
I have trouble believing that all these books which dramatically contradict
one another could all lead to eternal life as God has planned. If I have
accurately surmised your position, please let me know how you know this to
be God's will and not a doctrine that has been created by man.
RE Note 10.24
> Contradictions abound in the Bible. If you study the Bible with an open mind
> you will indeed see the contradictions jump out of it.
I'd rather not clutter up the Mormon conference with so-called
contradictions as I am sure these contradictions have been beaten to death
in the Christian Conference. If the answers in the Christian conference did
not totally clear away the contradictions, then at least I believe you have
to admit that none of the contradictions are 'doctrinally significant'.
I'm not against trying to explaining a FEW of these contradictions, but
this could turn into a rathole and after all I am sure that the contradiction
was brought up in the Christian conference and was explained there.
RE 10.25
> According to the D&C, anything spoken by those called by God when
> moved upon by the Holy Ghost is the mind of the Lord, the will of
> the Lord, and the word of God unto men. It is Scripture.
> How can we know when a person has been called by God, and that he
> is being moved upon by the Holy Ghost to speak the Word of God?
> The only way is to know by the power of the Holy Ghost ourselves.
> Not always easy. We must pray and ask God, and trust that He will
> not fail to answer our sincere plea.
And what if we pray and ask God and we feel that the word is
really from God and yet that word contradicts already established
Scripture?
Roger
|
| 60.62 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Mon Sep 04 1989 10:02 | 67 |
| >Allen, If I am 'hearing' you right, your saying that any book will
>do as long as you 'think' your doing the right thing.
>I have trouble believing that all these books which dramatically contradict
>one another could all lead to eternal life as God has planned.
Sometimes I don't put my thoughts into words very well, so let me try and
clarify what I was thinking.
I agree with you, Roger, that all of these books which contradict each other
can not all be true. Truth is consistent and does not contradict itself.
God, being the author of all truth, is consistent and does not contradict
Himself.
God has given us freedom of choice, not just in religious matters but in
all things. Each person has to decide what he or she will accept as
important in life. If people choose to accept things that contain error,
God will allow them that choice even though the errors will lead them away
from Him. My previous comment was directed toward this principle of
free agency. You can't choose things for me nor I for you; we each have
to choose for ourselves. From among all the books in the world that claim
to contain religious truth, we each have to choose which ones we will accept
as binding in our life. Our choices do not influence how much truth or
error the books contain. Our choices do not influence how well the books
will lead us to God. Our choices only indicate which books we are willing
to accept.
> If I have
>accurately surmised your position, please let me know how you know this to
>be God's will and not a doctrine that has been created by man.
You've brought out a very important question: how can we tell what things
are from God and what things aren't. I don't believe the Bible or other
religious books are adequate because they are ambiguous. I don't believe
the statements of any person are adequate, because this important question
applies to people as well as to books. I think we only have one recourse,
and that is to ask God Himself through prayer. I believe that God is real
and will answer us and help us find truth. As one reads through the various
notes in this conference, he or she will realize that we LDS plead with
people to listen to our message and then ask God in prayer if it is true
or not. We don't expect people to take our word that Mormonism is true.
We hope they will take their concerns to the source of all truth.
> And what if we pray and ask God and we feel that the word is
> really from God and yet that word contradicts already established
> Scripture?
It's difficult for us to talk about "established scripture" because of the
ambiguity in the books, as we have discussed in earlier replies. I think
we need to differentiate between what God really said and what we interpret
the Bible or other books to say.
Because God is consistent, He will not contradict Himself. Thus, if a
person feels he or she has an answer through prayer, that answer can not
contradict other things that God has said. If it does, then that answer
is not from God even though the person sincerely believes it is. However,
that answer might contradict our interpretations of the Bible. This is
the situation between you and me, Roger. I have prayed about the Book of
Mormon being true and feel my prayers have been answered that the book is
true true. You think to yourself, "That can't be so because the BoM
contradicts the Bible". However, what you are really thinking is, "That
can't be so because the BoM contradicts my interpretation of the Bible."
I have a different interpretation of the Bible, and to me the BoM and the
Bible are in agreement. So, there is no "established scripture" in the
absolute sense because all books are ambiguous. There is only "established
interpretations of scripture."
Allen
|
| 60.63 | | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Tue Sep 05 1989 12:23 | 50 |
|
RE: 10.28 by CACHE::LEIGH
> You can't choose things for me nor I for you; we each have
> to choose for ourselves. From among all the books in the world that claim
> to contain religious truth, we each have to choose which ones we will accept
> as binding in our life. Our choices do not influence how much truth or
> error the books contain. Our choices do not influence how well the books
> will lead us to God. Our choices only indicate which books we are willing
> to accept.
Well said! And yes, I agree. Your right, we cannot choose for others,
but I believe that people need to be guided to the truth and then it
is up to them. I also believe that 'guidance' has to be more than
just 'well, I prayed and God said this book is okay'.
> Because God is consistent, He will not contradict Himself. Thus, if a
> person feels he or she has an answer through prayer, that answer can not
> contradict other things that God has said. If it does, then that answer
> is not from God even though the person sincerely believes it is.
Then who is that answer from? Is it just that that person wanted to
believe something so much that they thought it was from God? And is
it also possible that someone could pray concerning the BoM (or
anything else for that matter) and sincerely believe that God was
telling them that it is true, and yet they are not hearing from God?
Allen, if the only problem with the BoM were a few contradictions, then
I might be inclined to overlook them or to at least consider the
possibility that it could have been a transcription error. But the problem
comes from the revelations that change what was already a very
clear meaning. And if that wasn't enough, there are all the other
problems relating to how the book came into being and the historical
errors.
Am I any less sincere in wanting God's perfect will for my life just
because I have a problem in dealing with the problems I see in the
BoM. Maybe it would help if I knew how you are able to overlook
these problems.
Roger
|
| 60.64 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Tue Sep 05 1989 13:33 | 12 |
| Something Roger said about the way the BofM came into being casting
doubt upon its validity struck me as peculiar. Seems to me that it
tests faith more to believe that a book (for which many conflicting
versions are available in most given languages) is inspired (assuming
you can pick the versions that are inspired) after being passed
through many hands and translators, few of whom were prophets of God.
It seems more probable that a book is inspired of God if it has passed
through relatively few hands, mostly those of prophets, through
relatively few translations, and for which are found relatively few
versions.
Steve
|
| 60.65 | Is there a specific problem | GENRAL::RINESMITH | GOD never says OOPS! | Tue Sep 05 1989 15:11 | 20 |
|
RE : Note 10.30 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN
Perhaps a new note should be created for discussing how the LDS
perceive a few of the more popular versions of the Bible. I
would suggest the King James, New International and Revised Standard.
Steve, I am not sure what you would put under the column of
conflicting. I believe that these three versions try to
translate as close to word for word as possible from the
ancient manuscripts. There are several methods of translating - but
as for differences, I think you would see some of the same problems
in translating the BoM into German, French, Russian or just about
any language.
So Steve, is there some Scripture reference that you have a problem
with between translations?
|
| 60.66 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Tue Sep 05 1989 15:57 | 26 |
| If it is supposed that all versions of the Bible are saying the same
thing with no conflicts in interpretation, some of the reasons for why
individuals have felt it necessary to generate and to support these
versions are being overlooked. Further, some believe that the New
Testament Apocrypha should be included withing the NT text. There
is certainly conflict between the NT Apocrypha and the classic NT
books.
Are there other conflicts? Depends on who you talk to. Heated debate
on the Bible scriptures has existed and will probably continue to
exist for many years. Those who debate are often fond of reminding
their opponents that the meanings in the Bible are plain enough for
anyone (except their opponents, of course) to understand. The
individuals who debate assert there are no conflicts. As they debate
heatedly, the casual observer would have to wonder about that latter
assertion. If the Bible is that easy and plain to understand, why
would intelligent people expend so much energy in convincing each
other that they don't understand it correctly?
The serial translations from which the English, for example,
version(s) of the Bible are derived are possible sources of
error. The error accumulates. There is less problem with a book that
gets translated into different languages in a parallel fashion because
the error is not cumulative.
Steve
|
| 60.67 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Tue Sep 05 1989 23:09 | 116 |
| Re .29
> Well said! And yes, I agree. Your right, we cannot choose for others,
> but I believe that people need to be guided to the truth and then it
> is up to them. I also believe that 'guidance' has to be more than
> just 'well, I prayed and God said this book is okay'.
And I agree with you, Roger, that divine guidance has to be more than an
emotional feeling, but I'm not sure we're thinking of the same thing. In
note 4.7 (Answers to Prayer) I gave Biblical justification for the LDS
position that answers to prayer are recognized by one as emotional feelings
such as peace of mind, a warm feeling within, or a stupor of thought. Those
emotional feelings are only outward indications that literal spiritual
communication has occurred between the individual and the Holy Spirit.
I recognize, Roger, as you, Ed, and others have pointed out, that emotional
feelings can be just that--emotional feelings rather than indicators of
spiritual communication with God. As people develop a relationship with
God, they have to learn to differentiate between the Lord's use of
emotional feelings to indicate spiritual communications and their body's
use of emotional feelings as part of the normal function of the body.
Sometimes that differentiation is hard to make. It would be nice if the
Lord provided some infallible indicator for us to use rather than our
emotions, but the Biblical record seems clear to me that he does indeed
use our emotions, as I explained in 4.7.
>> Because God is consistent, He will not contradict Himself. Thus, if a
>> person feels he or she has an answer through prayer, that answer can not
>> contradict other things that God has said. If it does, then that answer
>> is not from God even though the person sincerely believes it is.
>
> Then who is that answer from? Is it just that that person wanted to
> believe something so much that they thought it was from God? And is
> it also possible that someone could pray concerning the BoM (or
> anything else for that matter) and sincerely believe that God was
> telling them that it is true, and yet they are not hearing from God?
Yes, Roger, I agree it is possible that a person can let their own desires
for something cloud their spiritual path to God and cause similar emotional
feelings that God might use, and in doing so they would think their prayers
had been answered by God when they weren't. Concerning the BoM, for example,
I think this situation could exist with people who pray and believe the
Lord told them the BoM was not true when He didn't, as well as people who
pray and think the Lord told them the BoM was true when He didn't [note
that the Lord not telling someone the BoM is true does not imply the BoM
isn't true--only that the people didn't receive an answer; no answer leaves
the question still unanswered]. This is not a problem unique to Mormonism
but a general problem relating to prayer: how does one recognize answers
from God.
What we have, Roger, is a difficult situation. On the one hand we have
people who refuse to listen to their emotions at all but rely on their
intellect in trying to understand an ambiguous book, a task that is
impossible. As they study they think they understand the book, but others
disagree with them and also think they understand the book. On the other
hand we have people who listen to their emotions (as well as using their
intellect). These people face the danger that they may misinterpret their
emotions. Neither situation is the best, but that is the way God (as I
under the Bible) has set it up. Our challenge is to learn to be more
spiritual as we grow older and to be able to recognize the difference
between feelings that come from God and those that come from our body.
> Allen, if the only problem with the BoM were a few contradictions, then
> I might be inclined to overlook them or to at least consider the
> possibility that it could have been a transcription error. But the problem
> comes from the revelations that change what was already a very
> clear meaning.
Your use, Roger, of the phrase "already a very clear meaning" indicates
to me that you believe the Bible has a meaning that is clear in the
absolute sense, i.e. a meaning free from interpretation, and a meaning
which is understood by you and others who disagree with the LDS church.
I maintain that such an absolute meaning does not exist, but only
interpretations of the Bible exist.
> Am I any less sincere in wanting God's perfect will for my life just
> because I have a problem in dealing with the problems I see in the
> BoM.
As far as I know, Roger, you are sincere in your relationship with God. You
have been critical of LDS doctrine, but you haven't said anything that
indicates you are not a faithful follower of Jesus Christ.
> Maybe it would help if I knew how you are able to overlook
> these problems.
I see the BoM from a different perspective, Roger, and I don't see the
problems you see. Thus, I'm not overlooking "these problems" because to
me they don't exist. As I read the Bible, BoM, D&C, and PofGP, I marvel
at the consistency that exists between them. The four books approach
the Gospel from different directions, of course, but they all teach of one
Christ and one Gospel. In contrast, you read the four books and see
different Christs and different Gospels being taught. Thus, our attitude
toward religion in general and the LDS church in particular is highly
influenced by our interpretation of the words on the printed pages.
I study LDS history and realize that Joseph Smith was both a mortal man
and a prophet. I realize that he, Brigham Young, and others weren't
perfect, but I believe they still had the Priesthood of God and were
still prophets. On the other hand, you see the mortality of these men
and to you they could never be prophets. We look at the LDS church
from different perspectives, Roger, and thus see problems or the lack
of problems accordingly. We both have the challenge to come closer to God
in our lives and to let His will be done (that statement does not imply
anything about our present relationship with God, only that everyone can
always improve and be closer to Him). I believe, Roger, that people who
are sincerely seeking truth from God will be led by Him to find it. It
will be interesting if we cross paths in 20-30 years from now to compare
notes with each other and see what our attitudes and beliefs are at that
time about God in general and the LDS church in particular.
Allen
|
| 60.68 | Notes discussing answers to prayer | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Wed Sep 06 1989 11:22 | 8 |
| There are three notes that are discussing in great detail the LDS belief
that answers from the Lord come through the Holy Spirit and that our emotions
are involved in our recognition of those answers.
4.7 Answers to prayer
51 Are these things true
118 Promptings of the Holy Ghost
|
| 60.69 | I'm getting into this late, but... | TOMCAT::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Fri Oct 13 1989 16:55 | 86 |
| � ...the Bible is so ambiguous that people can not agree on what it is saying.
� People who say that the Bible is the only book of scripture we have and
� will ever have are like the person who has painted themselves into a
� corner. They are saying that the only scripture we have now or will ever
� have is a book that is so ambiguous that the Christian community can not
� and will not ever agree on what it means. This attitude by those who say
� the Bible is the only book of scripture must seem pretty amusing to
� non-Christians. To me it seems ridiculous.
Alan,
I know that you can demonstrate remarkably astute handling of very fine
shades of meaning when so inclined, so I was a little surprised to see
this simplistic portrayal of the Christian's approach to scripture. It
almost sounds arrogant to me.
You portray Christians as hopelessly lost in a morass of disagreement
over an "insufficient" book, then berate them for believing that there
can be no other scriptures. Your implication, of course, is that if they
would only accept Mormon scriptures, then the clouds would part and all
their confusion would end. Less than 100% agreement does not prove
complete disagreement, as your argument so aptly implies.
That the Bible is subject to interpretation does not demonstrate
insufficiency. If it did, then the spawning of numerous splinter groups
during Mormonism's brief history proves that the Book of Mormon is no
more sufficient than the Bible in that respect. Followers of Joseph
Smith don't agree with one another any better than you claim Christians
do. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Christians of various
denominational backgrounds have more common ground upon which to
fellowhip than Mormons, given that each group of Mormons almost certainly
considers the others to be apostate, and therefore not to be associated
with.
You incorrectly reason about the Bible as though it were a single book
rather than a collection of writings, when of course it was never
delivered to us all at once as a single book (although, oddly enough, the
Book of Mormon was). The Bible is a collection of God's revelation over
many generations, and passed through a rigorous process of canonization
before becoming what we now know as the Bible. Glossing over this fact
makes for a misleading argument. Please, don't anyone bring up that old
straw about the process of canonization being responsible for corrupting
the Bible. My response to that is that the Mormon Church claims to accept
the Bible as scripture, just as it is. Yes, I know they say "as long as
it's translated correctly", but they haven't yet retranslated it to make
it correct.
You also slant your argument by pointing to people who supposedly say
that "the Bible is the only book of scripture we have AND WILL EVER HAVE"
(my emphasis). Certainly there are people who say that the Bible is the
only book of scripture we have, myself among them, but you throw in that
"ever will have" because your argument would otherwise have little
substance. The fact is, you can only get scripture (canon) from what you
have, not from what you have and might get in the future, so, for now,
the Bible is the only body of scripture, period. Bring forth your new
candidates for inclusion, let them pass the same tests that the other
books have, and they'll be added, otherwise the Bible will remain as is.
Your argument attempts to portray "Bible-only" people as ignorant and
closed-minded because their canon gives them "only" the Bible, while you,
being more enlightened, have the Bible and other (but only Mormon) works.
It seems, then, that the standards for canon are more stringent for the
former than the latter group, yet the latter group considers their
addition to be somehow superior to the Bible. (there's almost a pun in
there).
I have yet to hear of the LDS church examining non-Mormon writings to see
if they should be added to the scripture, yet I recall one of the LDS
noters saying elsewhere that at this point in time we only have "books"
from two tribes of Israel (presumably he was allocating the Bible to one
tribe and the Book of Mormon to another), and indicated that he (and
presumably all Mormons) would be more than willing to recieve the books of
revelation from the other "tribes" while we "Bible-only" types huddle in
the corner, clutching our Bibles and missing out on all this great new
revelation.
� and will not ever agree on what it means. This attitude by those who say
� the Bible is the only book of scripture must seem pretty amusing to
� non-Christians. To me it seems ridiculous.
I disagree.
Regards,
Ed
|
| 60.70 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Mon Oct 30 1989 08:15 | 76 |
| Hi Ed,
I'm Sorry to be so slow in continuing this discussion; I've been under a lot
of pressure at work and at home.
>That the Bible is subject to interpretation does not demonstrate
>insufficiency. If it did, then the spawning of numerous splinter groups
>during Mormonism's brief history proves that the Book of Mormon is no
>more sufficient than the Bible in that respect.
Well, Ed, I do believe that because the Bible is subject to interpretation,
it can not be used as an *absolute* guide in our religious thinking. It has
*no* meaning by itself--only meaning that we assign to it through our
interpretations. I indicated in .23 that I also felt the Book of Mormon, the
D & C, and the P of GP were insufficient as absolute guides. In that reply,
I said that the only real solution would be for God Himself to come down and
speak to the inhabitants of the earth from to time. It seems He has chosen
not to do that, and we LDS believe He is following the pattern used in Biblical
times of having living prophets as spokesmen for Him.
>You incorrectly reason about the Bible as though it were a single book
>rather than a collection of writings, when of course it was never
>delivered to us all at once as a single book
I'm not sure I understand your point about this, Ed, and perhaps you can
elaborate on why you think I'm reasoning about the Bible as a single book
rather than a collection of writings. My point has been that the Bible is
a physical object containing symbols that must be interpreted, and it seems
to me that this point is valid regardless of whether the Bible were given
all at once as a single book or over a period of time as individual writings.
>You also slant your argument by pointing to people who supposedly say
>that "the Bible is the only book of scripture we have AND WILL EVER HAVE"
>(my emphasis). Certainly there are people who say that the Bible is the
>only book of scripture we have, myself among them, but you throw in that
>"ever will have" because your argument would otherwise have little
>substance. The fact is, you can only get scripture (canon) from what you
>have, not from what you have and might get in the future, so, for now,
>the Bible is the only body of scripture, period. Bring forth your new
>candidates for inclusion, let them pass the same tests that the other
>books have, and they'll be added, otherwise the Bible will remain as is.
I'm glad to know, Ed, that you feel that additional manuscripts might be
added to the Biblical cannon in the future. I have heard, however, others
say that the cannon is closed. We LDS also hope that additional manuscripts
will be found and added, because we have always maintained that there are
"lost" books of the Bible, i.e. manuscripts that are not in the present
Biblical cannon and not known to our scholars.
>Your argument attempts to portray "Bible-only" people as ignorant and
>closed-minded because their canon gives them "only" the Bible, while you,
being more enlightened, have the Bible and other (but only Mormon) works.
>It seems, then, that the standards for canon are more stringent for the
>former than the latter group, yet the latter group considers their
>addition to be somehow superior to the Bible. (there's almost a pun in
>there).
I'm sorry if I portrayed "Bible-only" people as ignorant, but I do think
that many of them are closed-minded to the idea of additional scriptures.
I think we have to look at the idea of additional scriptures from two
viewpoints. First, additional manuscripts that might be found and added
to the Biblical cannon, and second, additional manuscripts from completely
different areas of the world that might be found and added to a cannon(s)
that is not the Biblical cannon. We claim the Book of Mormon, D & C, and
P of GP are such records and we have added them to a "LDS-unique" cannon.
There are two obvious reasons why we have not tried to have our LDS
scriptures added to the Biblical cannon but have added them to our own
cannon; first, they came from different peoples and different time periods
and don't belong in the Biblical cannon, and second, we do not control the
Biblical cannon and would be unsuccessful to have them placed there if
we were to try to do that. We accept the Book of Mormon, D & C, and P of GP
as scripture and have canonized them as such and therefore binding on both
the LDS Church as an organization and upon us as individuals. Of course, our
canonization of those three books is not binding on other churches.
Allen
|
| 60.71 | Interesting Inconsistency | CEOWS::BALSAMO | Save the Wails | Tue Oct 31 1989 13:28 | 24 |
|
re: 10.36 <CACHE::LEIGH>
Allen,
>Well, Ed, I do believe that because the Bible is subject to
>interpretation, it can not be used as an *absolute* guide in our religious
>thinking. It has *no* meaning by itself--only meaning that we assign to
>it through our interpretations. I indicated in .23 that I also felt the
>Book of Mormon, the D & C, and the P of GP were insufficient as absolute
>guides. In that reply, I said that the only real solution would be for
>God Himself to come down and speak to the inhabitants of the earth from to
>time.
It seem interesting to me that your standard for an absolute guides
requires interpretation when referencing the Bible (and your Scriptures)
but requires no interpretation when referencing the direct words of God
himself, were He to directly speak to us. This strikes me as an
interesting inconsistency. What makes you think that the words your ears
hear from God would require any less interpretation that the words your
eyes read from God?
In Christ,
Tony
|
| 60.72 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Tue Oct 31 1989 17:41 | 10 |
| Hi, Tony,
I can't speak for Allen, but I don't think he will disagree with me. My
experience has been that all of the canonized scripture and prophetic
sayings are in need of "interpretation". By interpretation, I refer to
the admonishment to all Latter-Day Saints to study, ponder and pray
about all information that proports to be revelation and not to just
take everything "on faith".
Steve
|
| 60.73 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Wed Nov 01 1989 07:03 | 27 |
| Hi Tony,
Nice to hear from you again!
You've asked an interesting question. I think the answer concerns the
difference between being mortal and being divine. The Biblical manuscripts
were written by mortal prophets, who even though they were inspired were
still mortal and didn't have a perfect command of language or a perfect
language to use. The various Monks and others who made copy after copy of
the manuscripts were also mortal, as were the scholars who translated the
manuscripts into our versions of the Bible. The result of all this is that
we have a book that isn't clear in all aspects, written in symbols that need
interpretation.
On the other hand, if God were to personally appear and speak to us, I
assume He would be able to perfectly transmit His information to us, and
I assumed we would be able to receive that information without error. At
least we would be able to query Him for clarifications.
We would like to think that the prophets, Monks, and scholars were guided
by the Spirit so their work was without error and ambiguity, but my personal
feelings are that errors and differences between manuscripts did occur, and
it is obvious that differences in interpretation of the Bible today do occur
even though Bible readers all strive to be close to the Spirit. Perfection
in language seems to be beyond reach of us mortals.
Allen
|
| 60.74 | | ARCHER::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Wed Nov 01 1989 12:04 | 74 |
| > I'm Sorry to be so slow in continuing this discussion; I've been under a lot
> of pressure at work and at home.
I understand. Me too. (Work, home, ..and school, too!)
> Well, Ed, I do believe that because the Bible is subject to interpretation,
> it can not be used as an *absolute* guide in our religious thinking. It
> has *no* meaning by itself--only meaning that we assign to it through our
> interpretations.
Well, I've heard you say this many times before, and I think it's
really stretching things a bit to take such an abstract "bits
and bytes" approach to the scripture in order to make a case for this
whole continuing revelation idea. You discount the value of existing
scripture by saying that it has no meaning other than what "we assign to
it through our interpretations." That can be said about any form of
communication. You could say that a stop sign is no more than metal and
paint with no intrinsic "meaning", yet anyone who can read knows what it
means. According to your reasoning, though, we would need someone to come
along every so often (or appoint some authority) to make sure that we
understand stop signs correctly.
I contend that the fundamentals of God's revelation are simple enough to be
understood without the need for a Pope figure to interpret for everyone.
I do not intend to argue the point though. It is enough that we understand
one another's positions.
> ...perhaps you can elaborate on why you think I'm reasoning about the
> Bible as a single book rather than a collection of writings.
Ok. You said:
� People who say that the Bible is the only BOOK of scripture we have and
� will ever have are like the person who has painted themselves into a
� corner. They are saying that the only scripture we have now or will ever
� have is A BOOK that is so ambiguous that the Christian community can not
� and will not ever agree on what it means. This attitude by those who say
� the Bible is the only BOOK of scripture must seem pretty amusing to
� non-Christians. To me it seems ridiculous. (my emphasis)
My point is that you are over-simplifying (by referring to the Bible as
though it were a single a book) in order to make your point. If we
consider that "Bible" is only the name that has been given to the
collection of writings that comprise the Christian canon, it takes most
of the impact out of your attempt to portray Christians as huddling in
their ecclesiastical corners with their minds closed to other, (presumably
valid) scripture.
� We accept the Book of Mormon, D & C, and P of GP as scripture and have
� canonized them as such and therefore binding on both the LDS Church as an
� organization and upon us as individuals. Of course, our canonization of
� those three books is not binding on other churches.
I did not wish to give anyone the idea that I anticipate any new
scriptural manuscripts ("lost" or otherwise) to come forth. My point was
that the canonical standards are still intact and that if you want
Christians to give credence to Mormon revelations as valid scripture,
then let them pass muster - meet the standards - which they don't.
Consequently, Mormons have had to establish their own canonical standards
(which they're entitled to do of course) in order to grant scriptural
status to their own manuscripts.
What is boils down to is this: I think it is unfair to portray Christians
as closed minded just because they fail to give serious consideration to
a body of work that would require them to lower their standards for canon.
Personally I believe that Mormonism's continuing hope for the discovery
of "lost" books and so forth is rooted in a desire for hard evidence to
validate a body of revelation for which evidence is sorely lacking.
Regards,
Ed
|
| 60.75 | Did you see that STOP sign? | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Nov 01 1989 13:50 | 72 |
| Re: Note 10.40 by ARCHER::PRESTON
Hi Ed,
>You could say that a stop sign is no more than metal and
>paint with no intrinsic "meaning", yet anyone who can read knows what it
>means. According to your reasoning, though, we would need someone to come
>along every so often (or appoint some authority) to make sure that we
>understand stop signs correctly.
Now hold on a second here! I think we *have* appointed someone to make
sure we understand stop signs correctly. As a matter of fact, it wasn't
that long ago that one of them did just that for me! :-)
Seriously, your example is a simple one, but what if the stop sign were
written a couple of thousand years ago in a dialect that left room for
speculation on whether the word "stop" meant to stop moving or to stop
talking or to stop doing something else. Then again, have you ever
stood on a corner to watch just how many drivers really think that a
STOP sign means that they have to come to a full and complete stop?
Do we have the same problem with the scriptures? Well, how about all
the Christians who differ, after reading the same Holy Bible, on such
questions as abortion, homosexuality, extramarital sex, ordaining
women, the necessity of baptism, speaking in tongues, healing, visions,
war, government, etc, etc, etc. Some Christians even disagree on the
divinity of Jesus Christ, while claiming to believe the Holy Bible!
The point is that while you or I may believe that what is in the Holy
Bible should be quite clear to all, for some reason, on almost any
point you may choose, I suspect that you will find *interpretive*
differences. Can all interpretations be correct? I submit that they
cannot. It then becomes important to know what is *GOD's*
interpretation. As the Holy Bible teaches, scripture is not for PRIVATE
interpretation, but may only be properly interpreted when a man is
influenced by the same Holy Spirit which gave the original revelation.
>I contend that the fundamentals of God's revelation are simple enough to be
>understood without the need for a Pope figure to interpret for everyone.
Mormons do not advocate that God's revelations must be interpreted for
us by another person (Pope figure). We believe that every person has
the right to receive understanding directly from God through the Holy
Ghost.
However, we do believe that NEW revelation for the whole church does,
as it did anciently, come to one authorized by God to receive such
revelation - a living prophet. This provides for order in God's
kingdom, so that the foot or the hand does not purport to be the head
and thus cause confusion.
>I did not wish to give anyone the idea that I anticipate any new
>scriptural manuscripts ("lost" or otherwise) to come forth. My point was
>that the canonical standards are still intact and that if you want
>Christians to give credence to Mormon revelations as valid scripture,
>then let them pass muster - meet the standards - which they don't.
What exactly are these standards, and who would decide whether some
writing would "pass muster"? On what basis do you judge that Mormon
scriptures do not meet the standards, whatever they are?
Wouldn't you agree that these standards do not allow for scripture to
have been given to any other people than those in ancient Palestine? Do
these standards allow for the possibility that God would or could have
spoken also to other peoples at other times and places than ancient
Palestine? Mormons testify that God has and does give His word to other
peoples, and that these words are every bit as much scripture as is the
Holy Bible and are to be understood by that same Holy Spirit that gave
them.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 60.76 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Wed Nov 01 1989 16:10 | 17 |
|
Rich,
Your last comments brought up an interesting situation which might
occur. What if a "lost NT gospel was uncovered, or perhaps a letter
to one of the 1st century churches by Paul, for example. How would
modern-day christianity handle it? Would all eyes look to the Pope
for guidance or perhaps have some sort of council make a decision. Would
it be pronounced as canon and added to the Bible? Would authenticity
be based on consistancy with existing Bible books/doctrine. What if
it were specific on some doctrinal points, as to erase doubt as to
the early church practices. Would modern christianity change, if
at variance with info contained on this "new" old parchment or codex.
I think this might constitute "new" revelation. I question, however
whether it would be canonised.
Kevin St Thomas
|
| 60.77 | Excuse me Sir, what is your opinion on ... | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Thu Nov 02 1989 09:15 | 79 |
| Hi Ed,
>Well, I've heard you say this many times before, and I think it's
>really stretching things a bit to take such an abstract "bits
>and bytes" approach to the scripture in order to make a case for this
>whole continuing revelation idea. You discount the value of existing
>scripture by saying that it has no meaning other than what "we assign to
>it through our interpretations." That can be said about any form of
>communication.
How true!
> You could say that a stop sign is no more than metal and
>paint with no intrinsic "meaning", yet anyone who can read knows what it
>means.
People know what the stop sign means because they have assigned that meaning
to the sign, i.e. they have interpreted the sign. When the international
symbols used in road signs were first adopted in the USA, people had to
learn what the symbols meant; I was driving before the symbols were adopted, and
I can remember the transition. The symbols were designed to be pretty much
self explanatory, but none the less, the transition still had to be made,
because the symbols by themselves had no meaning--we had to assign meaning to
them.
>According to your reasoning, though, we would need someone to come
>along every so often (or appoint some authority) to make sure that we
>understand stop signs correctly.
It would be nice if religion were as simple as a stop sign.
>I contend that the fundamentals of God's revelation are simple enough to be
>understood without the need for a Pope figure to interpret for everyone.
Unfortunately, the many Christian denominations are a witness that the
fundamentals aren't understood the same by everyone.
>I do not intend to argue the point though. It is enough that we understand
>one another's positions.
Hopefully, that is why we are involved in these conferences--to understand
each other better.
>> ...perhaps you can elaborate on why you think I'm reasoning about the
>> Bible as a single book rather than a collection of writings.
>
>Ok. You said:
>
> � People who say that the Bible is the only BOOK of scripture we have and
> � will ever have are like the person who has painted themselves into a
> � corner. They are saying that the only scripture we have now or will ever
> � have is A BOOK that is so ambiguous that the Christian community can not
> � and will not ever agree on what it means. This attitude by those who say
> � the Bible is the only BOOK of scripture must seem pretty amusing to
> � non-Christians. To me it seems ridiculous. (my emphasis)
>
>My point is that you are over-simplifying (by referring to the Bible as
>though it were a single a book) in order to make your point. If we
>consider that "Bible" is only the name that has been given to the
>collection of writings that comprise the Christian canon, it takes most
>of the impact out of your attempt to portray Christians as huddling in
>their ecclesiastical corners with their minds closed to other, (presumably
>valid) scripture.
You're right, I did speak of the Bible as one book rather than a collection
of manuscripts, but I think my point is still valid. It is a common attitude
in Christianity that the Bible is the only book, collection of manuscripts,
what-ever, that is acceptable as scripture, and in general, Christians aren't
receptive to new manuscripts from different geographical areas and time periods.
It would be interesting, Ed, to take a survey among non-LDS Christians about
the following scenario: scientists discover written records in Central
America that tell of Christianity being in ancient America prior to Columbus.
Let's assume that scientists agree on the authenticity of the records and
their translation, so those are not a points of dispute. Would Christians
subject those manuscripts to the process of canonization that you spoke of,
and if they passed accept them as scripture equal to the Bible? My feelings
are that they wouldn't, but I could be wrong.
Allen
|
| 60.78 | Faith in God's ability... | CEOWS::BALSAMO | Save the Wails | Thu Nov 02 1989 14:43 | 49 |
|
re: 10.39 <CACHE::LEIGH>
Allen,
>I think the answer concerns the difference between being mortal and being
>divine. The Biblical manuscripts were written by mortal prophets, who
>even though they were inspired were still mortal and didn't have a perfect
>command of language or a perfect language to use.
Ah, but you will never be able to remove the human interface between
God's Words (weather spoken directly by Him or through Scripture) and our
heart. If the "mortal" prophets were unable to put down on paper exactly
what God was inspiring in them because of their mortalness, we too would be
unable to comprehend exactly the direct words of God (were we to hear them)
because of our mortalness. You see, you are still being inconsistent! You
do not have enough faith the believe that God could preserve his thoughts
exactly as He inspired them coming from the prophet on to paper, but you
hold that if God were to directly speak to us, He is able to preserve them
from our ears to our heart. Do you follow?
>The various Monks and others who made copy after copy of the manuscripts
>were also mortal, as were the scholars who translated the manuscripts into
>our versions of the Bible. The result of all this is that we have a book
>that isn't clear in all aspects, written in symbols that need
>interpretation.
What we are really talking about is God's ability to preserve His Word.
This makes the acceptance of God's word, the Bible, a matter of faith and
not one of interpretation. Prayer is needed to understanding but not for
interpretation. The Bible speaks for itself. What can not be gleamed
from the Scriptures is not meant to be gleamed.
>On the other hand, if God were to personally appear and speak to us, I
>assume He would be able to perfectly transmit His information to us, and
>I assumed we would be able to receive that information without error.
>We would like to think that the prophets, Monks, and scholars were guided
>by the Spirit so their work was without error and ambiguity, but my
>personal feelings are that errors and differences between manuscripts did
>occur
We must be careful not to base doctrine on personal feelings that
errors and differences did occur.
In Christ,
Tony Balsamo
|
| 60.79 | | CACHE::LEIGH | Do not procrastinate repentance | Thu Nov 02 1989 17:00 | 72 |
| Tony,
> Ah, but you will never be able to remove the human interface between
> God's Words (weather spoken directly by Him or through Scripture) and our
> heart. If the "mortal" prophets were unable to put down on paper exactly
> what God was inspiring in them because of their mortalness, we too would be
> unable to comprehend exactly the direct words of God (were we to hear them)
> because of our mortalness. You see, you are still being inconsistent!
You have a good point, Tony, and I specifically said I was assuming that we
would have perfect communication with God if He spoke directly to us, and then
I qualified that by saying that we could at least query Him if we were
confused. I've never spoken directly with God in the way that we are
discussing, so I don't know if my assumption is correct or if yours is correct.
> You do not have enough faith the believe that God could preserve his thoughts
> exactly as He inspired them coming from the prophet on to paper, but you
> hold that if God were to directly speak to us, He is able to preserve them
> from our ears to our heart. Do you follow?
I don't think it is a question of faith at all, Tony. There is nothing in
the scriptures that states or implies that God has preserved his word 100%
without error in the manuscripts that we have, and I think you have no basis
for your faith that the manuscripts are without error, other than your desire
that that is the case.
> What we are really talking about is God's ability to preserve His Word.
Certainly God has the ability to have preserved his word without human
errors occurring in the manuscripts, but we have no evidence that that
occurred. If you want to believe it did occur, that is your choice, but what
you believe about the manuscripts makes no difference at all, Tony. Either
the manuscripts have been perfectly handed down or they haven't, and your
or my belief about them has no effect on them.
> This makes the acceptance of God's word, the Bible, a matter of faith and
> not one of interpretation. Prayer is needed to understanding but not for
> interpretation.
Hmmmm. I'm afraid, Tony, I'm not understanding your reasoning. Suppose I
have before me a Bible in Russian. I can look at the pages of symbols, but
since I don't know Russian, those symbols have no meaning to me. Only if I
(or someone else) interpret the symbols will they have meaning to me. Now,
if I have an English Bible before me, the same situation exists! The book
still has pages of symbols that must be interpreted. Because I've been
trained in English, I can gain meaning from the symbols, but the probablity
exists that I may make mistakes too, since my command of English isn't
perfect and the language itself isn't perfect.
> The Bible speaks for itself. What can not be gleamed
> from the Scriptures is not meant to be gleamed.
I curious to know your basis for that statment, Tony?
> >We would like to think that the prophets, Monks, and scholars were guided
> >by the Spirit so their work was without error and ambiguity, but my
> >personal feelings are that errors and differences between manuscripts did
> >occur
>
> We must be careful not to base doctrine on personal feelings that
> errors and differences did occur.
Your comments, Tony, also apply to your position that errors did not occur.
We must be careful to not base doctrine on personal feelings or faith that
errors in the manuscripts/translation did not occur.
Allen
|
| 60.80 | God's word <> Bible | NORGE::CHAD | Ich glaube Ich t�te Ich h�tte | Fri Nov 03 1989 11:59 | 10 |
| We must be careful also when saying things similar to
"God's word, the Bible".
The Bible is not God's word. The Bible contains some of God's word. The
Bible is an example of scripture, but the Bible is not synonymous with
"all scripture" or God's word. And the Bible doesn't make that claim
either.
Chad
|
| 60.81 | please qualify | TOMCAT::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Wed Nov 08 1989 13:06 | 16 |
| > We must be careful also when saying things similar to
>
> "God's word, the Bible".
>
> The Bible is not God's word. The Bible contains some of God's word. The
> Bible is an example of scripture, but the Bible is not synonymous with
> "all scripture" or God's word. And the Bible doesn't make that claim
> either.
Chad,
You left one thing out. You should preface that with:
"Mormons believe that..."
Ed
|
| 60.82 | | TOMCAT::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Wed Nov 08 1989 13:08 | 89 |
| It seems to me that this whole discussion hinges on the LDS presumption
that all other "Christian" groups are mired in disarray and confusion,
("disagreement") while they (LDS) are somehow spared all that, thus
imparting a sort of superior status.
The only way universal agreement is possible within a group of any
size is if each member agrees to subordinate their beliefs to someone or
something else. The key question becomes, then, whether or not the Mormon
church has some sort of advantage over other groups simply because they
are willingly subordinated to their leaders. Since Mormon participants in
this conference repeatedly tell us that Mormons are urged to think for
themselves and not accept anything blindly, it makes me wonder about
this apparent contradiction.
So, do Mormons occupy some sort of superior position because they can claim
unanimity of beliefs? Considering that anyone who disagrees goes elsewhere,
then their claim is not particularly remarkable. Besides, you can find
much the same level of agreement in other groups, so I don't see how
Mormons can claim any advantage in this area.
> However, we do believe that NEW revelation for the whole church does,
> as it did anciently, come to one authorized by God to receive such
> revelation - a living prophet. This provides for order in God's
> kingdom, so that the foot or the hand does not purport to be the head
> and thus cause confusion.
Maybe I've missed it, but I don't see an indication that one "living
prophet" is "authorized" by God to be His agent - not anciently and
not now.
> What exactly are these standards, and who would decide whether some
> writing would "pass muster"? On what basis do you judge that Mormon
> scriptures do not meet the standards, whatever they are?
I cannot go into great depth on the standards of canon, although I'd be
willing to start a new topic on it sometime in the future. To put it
simply, there needs to be consistency with other accepted works of
scripture, (in other words they validate one another) and, most
problematic for Mormon scriptures, sufficient historical accuracy to be
taken seriously as an ancient document. A good study on the process of
canonization can be found in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict", by Josh
McDowall, Intervarsity Press.
The whole idea of a canonical standard is to be able to offer rational
support for the inclusion or exclusion of certain works from the body of
scripture. It makes sense to be able offer more support for the decision
of what is scripture and what is not than "because we say so."
> Wouldn't you agree that these standards do not allow for scripture to
> have been given to any other people than those in ancient Palestine? Do
> these standards allow for the possibility that God would or could have
> spoken also to other peoples at other times and places than ancient
> Palestine?
I don't think there is anything per se that says that scripture can only
come from ancient Palestinians. Besides, how about Luke? Wasn't he a
Greek?
> Mormons testify that God has and does give His word to other
> peoples, and that these words are every bit as much scripture as is the
> Holy Bible and are to be understood by that same Holy Spirit that gave
> them.
The key work here is "testify." The only support Mormons are able
to produce for the validity of their scriptures is their own testimony,
which, in the absence of corroborating evidence, is too weak to be taken
seriously alongside the Old and New Testaments. Every group from the
Muslims to the Moonies can give similar testimonies, so the need for
solid historical verification becomes very important.
> What if a "lost NT gospel was uncovered, or perhaps a letter
> to one of the 1st century churches by Paul, for example. How would
> modern-day christianity handle it? Would all eyes look to the Pope
> for guidance or perhaps have some sort of council make a decision. Would
> it be pronounced as canon and added to the Bible? Would authenticity
> be based on consistancy with existing Bible books/doctrine. What if
> it were specific on some doctrinal points, as to erase doubt as to
> the early church practices. Would modern christianity change, if
> at variance with info contained on this "new" old parchment or codex.
> I think this might constitute "new" revelation. I question, however
> whether it would be canonised.
How would you handle it? What if it was at variance with current Mormon
practices? Would Mormonism change?
Regards,
Ed
|
| 60.83 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Wed Nov 08 1989 14:10 | 25 |
|
<<< Note 10.47 by TOMCAT::PRESTON "Punch it, Margaret!" >>>
-< please qualify >-
>> We must be careful also when saying things similar to
>>
>> "God's word, the Bible".
>>
>> The Bible is not God's word. The Bible contains some of God's word. The
>> Bible is an example of scripture, but the Bible is not synonymous with
>> "all scripture" or God's word. And the Bible doesn't make that claim
>> either.
>
>Chad,
>
>You left one thing out. You should preface that with:
>
>"Mormons believe that..."
>
>Ed
THEN GIVE THE BIBLICAL SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE(S) SHOWING THAT
THE MORMON BELIEF IS WRONG.
|
| 60.84 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Wed Nov 08 1989 14:15 | 31 |
|
> <<< Note 10.48 by TOMCAT::PRESTON "Punch it, Margaret!" >>>
> -< >-
>
>> What if a "lost NT gospel was uncovered, or perhaps a letter
>> to one of the 1st century churches by Paul, for example. How would
>> modern-day christianity handle it? Would all eyes look to the Pope
>> for guidance or perhaps have some sort of council make a decision. Would
>> it be pronounced as canon and added to the Bible? Would authenticity
>> be based on consistancy with existing Bible books/doctrine. What if
>> it were specific on some doctrinal points, as to erase doubt as to
>> the early church practices. Would modern christianity change, if
>> at variance with info contained on this "new" old parchment or codex.
>> I think this might constitute "new" revelation. I question, however
>> whether it would be canonised.
>
>How would you handle it? What if it was at variance with current Mormon
>practices? Would Mormonism change?
>
YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
What if a "lost NT gospel was uncovered, or perhaps a letter
to one of the 1st century churches by Paul, for example. HOW WOULD
MODERN-DAY CHRISTIANITY HANDLE IT? WOULD ALL EYES LOOK TO THE POPE
FOR GUIDANCE OR PERHAPS HAVE SOME SORT OF COUNCIL MAKE A DECISION. WOULD
IT BE PRONOUNCED AS CANON AND ADDED TO THE BIBLE? WOULD AUTHENTICITY
BE BASED ON CONSISTANCY WITH EXISTING BIBLE BOOKS/DOCTRINE. WHAT IF
IT WERE SPECIFIC ON SOME DOCTRINAL POINTS, AS TO ERASE DOUBT AS TO
THE EARLY CHURCH PRACTICES. wOULD MODERN CHRISTIANITY CHANGE, IF
AT VARIANCE WITH INFO CONTAINED ON THIS "NEW" OLD PARCHMENT OR CODEX.
|
| 60.85 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Wed Nov 08 1989 14:20 | 7 |
| Re: -1
Thanx Charles for bringing my point back up! I'm still waiting for an
answer!
Kevin
|
| 60.86 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Wed Nov 08 1989 14:32 | 8 |
| One point to be made here is that Mormonism *could* change if new parchment
was discovered. This per the 9th Article of Faith. Also, consider that we
often think that what we believe is doctrine and find out later that it is not.
This probably due to our personal misunderstanding of the Gospel. What other
Christian denominations make claims similar to the 9th A of F? I feel that
there are a few that do.
Steve
|
| 60.87 | New scripture | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Wed Nov 08 1989 15:24 | 70 |
| Re: Note 10.48 by TOMCAT::PRESTON
Hi Ed,
>The only way universal agreement is possible within a group of any
>size is if each member agrees to subordinate their beliefs to someone or
>something else.
You are correct when you say that Mormons subordinate their beliefs to
someone else. We subordinate our beliefs to God alone, and not to
mortal leaders. Even the Mormon leaders have always urged Mormons to
test what they have to say by asking God if it is true. Every person
has a right to know from God if the Mormon claims are true.
>> However, we do believe that NEW revelation for the whole church does,
>> as it did anciently, come to one authorized by God to receive such
>> revelation - a living prophet. This provides for order in God's
>> kingdom, so that the foot or the hand does not purport to be the head
>> and thus cause confusion.
>
>Maybe I've missed it, but I don't see an indication that one "living
>prophet" is "authorized" by God to be His agent - not anciently and
>not now.
You'll find evidence of this throughout the Holy Bible. Here are a few
examples. Noah was authorized by God to warn the people of the coming
flood and of their destruction, if they did not repent. Moses was
authorized to lead the Isrealites out of Egypt, and to proclaim the
Lord's word to them. Joshua was authorized by God to wipe out the
wicked nations from the promised land. Consider that the kings of
ancient Israel consulted *the* prophet to know God's will in crucial
decisions. Elijah was authorized by God to seal the heavens so that it
would not rain, and to command the people to forsake their heathen
gods. In the days of the New Testament, Jesus authorized his twelve
apostles to lead the church and Peter was the presiding apostle. It was
Peter who received the revelation about taking the gospel to the
gentiles, and it was Peter who presided at the Jerusalem conference,
where it was determined that circumcision was not required of the
gentile converts. These are only a few of a great many examples found
in the Holy Bible.
The Lord authorizes more than one to do his work, but there is always a
head appointed to preside, so that there is order in God's kingdom.
With regard to the standards of canon, I must say that you have not yet
said anything that indicates that there exists a definite standard for
canonizing scripture today, should an ancient writing of the apostles
come to light, or by which the LDS scriptures can be objectively
compared.
>How would you handle it? What if it was at variance with current Mormon
>practices? Would Mormonism change?
A better question is how *have* we handled it? Throughout the history
of the church additional revelations have been received, as well as the
restoration of some lost writings. These scriptures have resulted in
changes in the thinking and practices of the Church. The Lord gives
line upon line, precept upon precept, and we grow to a fullness. It
does not come all at once.
When new scripture is received, it is presented to the First Presidency
and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for their acceptance as
scripture. Then, it is presented to the general church membership at
general conference, for their sustaining vote. In this way, it is clear
exactly what is considered part of the scriptures, or standard works of
the church, and what is not. Each member has the right to ask God for
personal revelation confirming that it is indeed His word.
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 60.88 | ditto | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Wed Nov 08 1989 16:46 | 5 |
|
RE .-1
Yes, that's it - right on - ditto - what Rich said........
|
| 60.89 | Defenders of the faith? | KERNEL::BARTLEY | | Thu Nov 09 1989 01:42 | 71 |
| 10.48
> The key question becomes, then, whether or not the Mormon
> church has some sort of advantage over other groups simply because they
> are willingly subordinated to their leaders. Since Mormon participants in
> this conference repeatedly tell us that Mormons are urged to think for
> themselves and not accept anything blindly, it makes me wonder about
> this apparent contradiction.
Ed,
I don't see this as a KEY question.
There seems to be a common thread of misapprehension running through this
conference that Mormons have to defend their position. We don't.
There seem to be other misunderstandings such as:
1. Mormons are out to convert the world
2. Mormons think themselves superior to other people
3. Mormons have blind faith
4. etc.
The truth is, we know what we know because God has told us. We proclaim it to
the world partly because it is a commandment to do so, but mainly because we
want our families and friends and neighbours to enjoy the same blessings that
we have in the gospel of Jesus Christ. However we know that most of the world
will reject our preachings and our teachings (the preachings and teachings of
Jesus Christ as far as we're concerned). Well that's fine. We feel no
rancour. We may feel a little sad. I don't love my parents or my friends any
less because they haven't accepted my faith and my beliefs. I don't feel
superior to them. In fact I marvel at the things that some people are able to
achieve without the gospel, often without any gospel, and I feel very humbled
indeed.
The KEY questions Ed, are:
1. Is the Book of Mormon the word of God?
2. Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God?
3. Is Ezra Taft Benson a prophet of God?
If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes', then everything else follows.
The only way to find the answer is to ask God, sincerely. No amount of
intellectual posturing or academic research is going to provide the answer.
That's the way God designed it. We have to go to Him with a broken heart and a
contrite spirit. That's the ONLY way.
Sometimes we ask and we think the answer is 'no'. Well that's fine too. At
that point we just have to agree to disagree. There's no need to get the
Mormons to justify why they got the answer 'yes' and you got 'no'. There are
lots of possible explanations. In my case it took me eight years to hear the
answer 'yes'. In my case that was because I wanted to hear 'no'. It wasn't
until certain events in my life transpired to take away my pride and leave me
with a broken heart and a contrite spirit that I heard the 'yes'. But once
you've heard the voice of God you can never deny it thereafter. Furthermore, I
still have a constant battle against pride, which is a perpetual stumbling
block, and which often deafens me to the still, small voice of the Spirit.
In summary, it is a mistake to think that we are 'defending' our beliefs, when
we are participating in explanation and discussion. The gospel of Jesus Christ
stands on its own. Some take it; some leave it. All will be judged by it.
Theo
By the way, someone recently said in this conference that the testimony of the
LDS is weak evidence, and inadequate. Consider, a testimony is often used
in a court of law to determine guilt or innocence. Also, a testimony that is
borne by the Holy Ghost from one person to another is unequalled in its power
to convey truth. Still doesn't mean it will be accepted however.
|
| 60.90 | Thanks | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Thu Nov 09 1989 03:11 | 5 |
| Re: Note 10.55 by KERNEL::BARTLEY
I really enjoyed your note, Theo. Thanks for entering it!
Rich
|
| 60.91 | trying to catch up... | TOMCAT::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Thu Nov 09 1989 12:43 | 39 |
|
<You guys are getting too far ahead of me - this is the reply I
wrote yesterday to Charles. I'm working on the one from Rich,
and now the one from Theo. Hang on, I can only go just so fast..>
Re 10.49
> THEN GIVE THE BIBLICAL SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE(S) SHOWING THAT
>
> THE MORMON BELIEF IS WRONG.
Charles, Charles..! No need to get so demanding. Chad made a broad
assertion, and stated it as a self-evident fact. I merely asked him
to qualify his statement because there are plenty of people who would not
agree with him, such as myself. If he said "Mormons believe that...",
then his statement would have been accurate.
I was simply trying to say, in an understated manner, that not everyone
is in agreement with him.
Re .50
> YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
There's nothing wrong with pursuing dialogue by answering a question with
a question once in a while. In fact, a good friend of mine - a Mormon -
uses that technique regularly. You seem convinced that I'm trying to be
evasive, which couldn't be further from the truth. I was merely wondering
if Kevin had given thought to how Mormons might react to such a
situation. Steve came up with the sort of well thought out reply that I
was hoping to generate - to help provide substance to the discussion, and
that is all I was looking to do.
I respect your zeal, Charles, but there's no need to be demanding with
me. I'll answer any questions you care to ask.
Ed
|
| 60.92 | your turn, Ed! | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Thu Nov 09 1989 13:37 | 41 |
|
re -1:
Hi Ed!
Yes, you *could* turn it around to ask how LDS might react to the
question I asked previously. I was hoping for a response, and at the
same time was thinking about how I would react myself, so I'll answer
first.
I think LDS members might have problems with anything that differs from
established belief *but* the problems, I believe would be on certifying
that any document(s) were true or factual. All churches (including ours)
tend to discourage anything that takes away from the legitimacy of
our beliefs. *If* and only if a document came out that *proved* Mormonism
untrue, I would believe it would be difficult to accept it. One goal of
any church, is it's own continued existence. It is never explicitly
stated but it is there. (Witness the manifesto of 1890). The
alternative there was the disincorporation of the church, seizure of
assets, tithing monies and imprisonment of leadership, who were from
time to time in hiding. Under such circumstances, there was *no* other
course for the church to take but to issue the manifesto. (In a pragmatic
sense.)
Now built in to my comments here is the belief that the gospel is true and
*in the end* all things will verify the truthfulness of the gospel,
and the authority of the priesthood, and of our Prophets. So one
might say, "throw out any info, or documents...in time, anything
which is contrary to our beliefs will eventually be discredited.
The same holds for the NT times. "they don't agree with my beliefs,
and I know MY beliefs are true, so they MUST be false, even when faced
with pretty strong evidence. Why that evidence must be false, I
can't let it shake my beliefs, they're sacred, hand's off!
I tell you Ed, this religion business get's pretty complicated
sometimes! BTW, keep up the replies, I enjoy your comments.....
and.... now it's your turn! I'd like you to share your thoughts
on this topic.
Kevin
|
| 60.93 | Your turn, indeed, Ed. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu Nov 09 1989 14:19 | 37 |
|
Ed,
Ah, now we are getting to the crux of the matter. I just
could not figure out why I got so dad-blamed cotten-picking sputtering
FRUSTRATED with any kind of a dialog with you.
Now I know.
You don't seem to really want to justify what you say, but
are content to just say something to be saying it. No matter what
was talked about, you seem to have this obsession of saying something
different to hear yourself say it. You are always getting the subject
derailed and go off on tangents (smile, maybe you should apply your
train example to your conversations?)
What I, and probable a lot of other people in this conference,
want to know is WHY do you disagree, or believe the way you do. What
are your references? I got demanding because I want to know YOUR
answer to the questions posed. If you disagree with something, then
PLEASE - tell us WHY! Just blowing in the breeze is not going to help
anyone understand! Give some substance to your replies. (smile, Not
stupid train stories.) You and I were not born with the belief system
we have. If you know something of value, then share it with us so
that we all can be edified. Only then can an intelligent decision be
made.
I did not respond to you with zeal, I was totally frustrated
with the lackadaisical attitude with which you ignore ANY question
in the note you were answering. If you will answer questions, then
go back and answer the ones asked with something that can be grasped.
If you like to answer question with questions, then all that really
leads to is circles. If the answer is given and then questions are
asked - that leads to discussion. I don't mind that because I would
like to become better and more knowledgeable than I am. Thanks....
Charles
|
| 60.94 | my speculation | TOMCAT::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Thu Nov 09 1989 15:58 | 29 |
| Kevin,
One good turn deserves another, and I'm doing this on the fly, whcih
is highly unusual for me, 'cause I usually take more time so I can
get my thought together and express them as best I can, but here
I am and I think I can give it a shot "on-line"...
First, I appreciate your candor in acknowledging the tendencies
of the religious mind (which everyone who has not outrightly rejected
religion uncategorically). Anyhow, to speed up the process a bit:
if such a document as you mentioned were found, and it appeared
to be genuine, I imagine that a push to consider it would arise.
It would be examined by interested parties from the laity on up,
and, if it's historical validity and textual consistency, etc etc
and so forth caused it to stand up to the same standards that other
existing books had already met, then I feel sure that some would
want it included and others probably would not, but if it were -
let's say - genuine after all, I imagine it would eventually be
incorporated after whatever controversy there was had died down.
I think you read a little more into my question than I intended,
though. I didn't mean for you to assume that this mythical manuscript
would prove anything about Mormonism one way or the other, just
what would you do with it...
Thanks,
Ed
|
| 60.95 | And this, too | TOMCAT::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Thu Nov 09 1989 16:01 | 31 |
| > You are correct when you say that Mormons subordinate their beliefs to
> someone else. We subordinate our beliefs to God alone, and not to
> mortal leaders. Even the Mormon leaders have always urged Mormons to
> test what they have to say by asking God if it is true. Every person
> has a right to know from God if the Mormon claims are true.
That's a lovely pronouncement, but essentially meaningless.
We have been talking about the issue of agreement vs disagreement.
Mormons like to portray themselves as somehow above all the confusion and
disagreement to be found in other churches, and I am saying that because
we all are limited humans with limited minds we are not capable of 100%
agreement unless we agree to submit to a common leader. Lately Allen has
held that the importance of "correct interpretation" demonstrates the
necessity of a head leader or Pope figure to perform this function. Now
you seem to be implying that every Mormon has such a perfect pipeline to
God that your leaders are essentially unnecessary. Which is it, do you
submit to your prophet for interpretation, as Allen says, or do you
simply rely upon seeking an "inner testimony".
Actually, I know what you're going to say, and I'm going to go out on a
limb by saying it first. You will to say that of course *both* are
correct, because your prophet hears from God, interprets correctly, and
each Mormon's inner testimony tells him so. Now this sounds great, but
how do you keep this "inner testimony" principle from allowing you to
accept all sorts of things without question? After all, it is subjective
- from within - and the scripture says that the heart of man is
deceitful, so how do you know for sure that at any given time your inner
testimony is right?
Ed
|
| 60.96 | It all starts somewhere. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Thu Nov 09 1989 17:28 | 47 |
|
>You will to say that of course *both* are
>correct, because your prophet hears from God, interprets correctly, and
>each Mormon's inner testimony tells him so. Now this sounds great, but
>how do you keep this "inner testimony" principle from allowing you to
>accept all sorts of things without question? After all, it is subjective
>- from within - and the scripture says that the heart of man is
>deceitful, so how do you know for sure that at any given time your inner
>testimony is right?
Ed,
Yes, the desires, or "heart", of man is deceitful - but God
is not. His ministrations through the Holy Ghost are absolute and
above reproach. Now, the big thing is how do we, i.e. mankind, know
that the ministration we receive is the Holy Ghost?
A good example of the cleansing power of God is found in
Isaiah 6:5-7. Here the representation of fire, through the coal, is
the power of God's ministration through the Holy Ghost - it feels
like a burning fire within you as your spirit is touched by the Holy
Ghost. Now, this can be either a cleansing or a testifying action.
Personally, I have experienced both, and there is no mistaking of
either one once it happens.
Because I know this testification of the Holy Ghost is a
witness to me of some truth, just as it was for Peter in Matthew
chapter 16, verses 13 through 20, then I progress from step to step.
The Doctrine and Covenants is the word and voice of the Lord.
I know this by going from one level on knowledge to another. Here
I am instructed in the matter of stewardship. The prophet, or head
of the church here on earth, has a certain stewardship over leading
me in the way of the Lord. I accept that, but only after I have
accepted a certain knowledge foundation based upon Christ and the
principles of His gospel.
The statement that "Mormons subordinate their beliefs to
someone else" is essentially incorrect. Our beliefs are our own,
but we adhere to that stewardship that the Lord has set up in His
church organization so that there is "order" in the House of the Lord.
We also believe that any prophet of the Lord will be removed before
he can lead us astray. These things do not come from a strictly
intellectual basis, but on a inner spiritual basis that gets stronger
and stronger as we progress and continue in the word of the Lord.
Charles
|
| 60.97 | Ask, and ye shall receive | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Fri Nov 10 1989 00:40 | 82 |
| Re: Note 10.61 by TOMCAT::PRESTON
Hi Ed,
>We have been talking about the issue of agreement vs disagreement.
>Mormons like to portray themselves as somehow above all the confusion and
>disagreement to be found in other churches, and I am saying that because
>we all are limited humans with limited minds we are not capable of 100%
>agreement unless we agree to submit to a common leader.
In response to this, I would like to share a couple of thoughts.
First, we claim that the cause of the confusion and disagreement among
the Christian sects is a result of their departure from the foundation
of the church, which Paul said was apostles and prophets. Their
function in the church is literally to hold it together and to keep it
steady. We claim they had authority anciently, and that they have that
same authority today, to resolve the issues that otherwise cause
divisions in the body of Christ. Without them, then divisions do (and
did) occur, to the point where now there are thousands of differing
sects of Christianity.
Did such divisions occur while the ancient apostles were yet alive?
Yes! Much of the New Testament is the letters of the apostles working
to try to correct such divisions. Sometimes they were successful, and
sometimes they were not. Have such divisions occurred in the Mormon
church? Yes! Present day apostles also work to correct such divisions.
Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not. From a Mormon
point of view, those who choose to depart from the foundation of the
apostles and prophets have departed from the authority of God and from
the foundation of the church. They have tried to take authority of God
unto themselves, which the Holy Bible says no man may do. They must be
called and ordained by one who has authority. They can't just create
their own authority to act in God's name, to baptize, to administer the
sacrament of the Lord's supper, to ordain others, etc. You will find
that this principle is in complete harmony with the Holy Bible.
>Lately Allen has
>held that the importance of "correct interpretation" demonstrates the
>necessity of a head leader or Pope figure to perform this function. Now
>you seem to be implying that every Mormon has such a perfect pipeline to
>God that your leaders are essentially unnecessary. Which is it, do you
>submit to your prophet for interpretation, as Allen says, or do you
>simply rely upon seeking an "inner testimony".
I'm sorry if I have implied that Mormons have this "perfect pipeline"
to God that others do not. No, we too struggle to learn line upon line,
precept upon precept, to grow to a fulness of understanding of God's
will. Our objective is to come to the same understanding on a subject
that God has about it. But that takes time and effort and preparation
for us to be ready to understand it.
Sometimes God helps this process by making his will known by direct
revelation to prophets. The prophets speak the word they have received.
We try to understand it and decide whether to abide by it or not. We
have the right to know from God that the word is really from Him and to
know that the prophet is really a prophet of God. If we are two lazy to
seek and obtain our own confirmation from God and follow the prophet
blindly, then we have rejected God's counsel to ask Him. If we choose
to follow the word, then we are subjecting ourselves to God, and not to
the prophet. If we choose not to follow the word, then we are not
rejecting the prophet, but we are rejecting God.
>Now this sounds great, but
>how do you keep this "inner testimony" principle from allowing you to
>accept all sorts of things without question? After all, it is subjective
>- from within - and the scripture says that the heart of man is
>deceitful, so how do you know for sure that at any given time your inner
>testimony is right?
Sometimes this is a struggle to be sure that what we think is from God
is not really from our own mind. Sometimes it is not a struggle.
Sometimes it is so clear and powerful that it cannot be denied.
Sometimes it is so subtle and quiet that we are left to wonder. I have
felt both extremes and much in between. But this I will say, God's arm
is not shortened, nor is he left without power to convince the heart of
him who humbly prays in faith and in the name of Jesus to know the
truth. I know that our Savior really did mean it when he said "Ask, and
ye shall receive".
In Christ's Love,
Rich
|
| 60.98 | testimony | TOMCAT::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Fri Nov 10 1989 12:06 | 35 |
| Theo,
Thank you for your nice reply, but we were really talking about something
else. While your comments were worthy, they changed the direction of the
discussion. Charles finds that very frustrating, so we'd better stick to
the topic at hand. (:-) - see Charles, a smiley face!)
> The truth is, we know what we know because God has told us.
Ok. How do you know God has told you?
> it is a mistake to think that we are 'defending' our beliefs, when
> we are participating in explanation and discussion.
That's just a semantic difference. I don't feel compelled to defend my
beliefs any more than you do, but I'm willing to so anyway. If ones
beliefs cannot stand up to challenge and scrutiny, what good are they?
> By the way, someone recently said in this conference that the testimony
> of the LDS is weak evidence, and inadequate. Consider, a testimony is
> often used in a court of law to determine guilt or innocence.
I said that. I said that compared to the evidence supporting the
reliability of the Bible, the LDS "testimony" pales to inadequacy
due to the lack of impartial corroborating evidence.
You are right about testimony in a court of law, but consider that if I
had an autographed photo of George Washington, I could testify with utter
conviction that it was genuine until I was blue in the face and it still
wouldn't alter the fact that it couldn't possibly be genuine since
photography wasn't invented until long after Washington's death.
Testimony can't make something true that isn't.
Ed
|
| 60.99 | Just curious ... | CSCOA5::ROLLINS_R | | Fri Nov 10 1989 13:36 | 6 |
| > I said that. I said that compared to the evidence supporting the
> reliability of the Bible, the LDS "testimony" pales to inadequacy
> due to the lack of impartial corroborating evidence.
What "evidence" supporting the reliability of the Bible are you
talking about ?
|
| 60.100 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Fri Nov 10 1989 14:03 | 19 |
| A side comment here. I had a short conversation with a Jewish friend about
Christ and the Jewish people at the time of Christ. He indicated his beliefs
that Christ was a fictional character. This carried with it the implication
that the New Testament was a spurious document that did not reflect the general
character and history of the Jews at that time.
Josephus is often cited as an non-Biblical document of Christ. But, though
Josephus goes to more details about the Christians, he only has about one
paragraph that talks about Christ. The rest is his abridgment and commentary
about other documents, many if not all no longer available, concerning the
Jewish people.
I mention this because the Bible, New Testament in particular, doesn't
apparently have enough objective, outside sources to give it credence for all
nations, in spite of what Christans may assert. I persoanlly believe the Bible
to contain the word of God. But, it strikes me as being weak when considering
non-Biblical confirmation of its contents.
Steve
|
| 60.101 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Fri Nov 10 1989 15:27 | 26 |
| re: -1 by Steve Sherman
Hi!
Regarding your comments, in previous replies I alluded to the same
Jewish perspective on Christ. There is very little that indicates
the existence of the historical Jesus. The accounts that we do have
are not contemporary to his period, ie. written much later and
are recollections of his sayings. This is why I brought up the
rising from the tomb passages, and their differences. To put it
into perspective, say you and I had a conversation and 20 years
later I tried to put your words down on paper, it would be difficult
to be accurate. If I were not present to the conversation, and had learned
of your conversation with someone else, the ability to record your words
accurately would be even further impaired. The NT gospels, I feel, fit
into this catagory. Nonetheless, I still believe in the historical
Jesus in part, because of the Book of Mormon, which is that second
witness. I have had problems with saying that I believe the Bible
to be the *literal* word of God, line for line, because of the
inaccuracies contained within. It has been through the revelations
of modern day Prophets that have more sharply defined the Lord's
gospel and His plan.
Kevin
|
| 60.102 | | TOMCAT::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Fri Nov 10 1989 16:47 | 9 |
| > I have had problems with saying that I believe the Bible
> to be the *literal* word of God, line for line, because of the
> inaccuracies contained within.
Do you feel the same way about the Book of Mormon?
Ed
|
| 60.103 | | MIZZOU::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326 | Sat Nov 11 1989 16:56 | 29 |
| Addressing Ed's comment as though it were to me, I know that there have
been changes made to the Book of Mormon. Most of the changes were
cosmetic. But, some of the changes were to make it less likely to
be interpreted incorrectly by readers, in my opinion. Now, we are
talking the English version. Other versions are still subject to
errors in translation. For example, the Danish version was at one
time missing an entire scripture, as I recall. Given all of this,
I can even envision further changes to the B of M to make it less
likely to be misunderstood.
I know that similar efforts are made with the Bible. However, there
is no clear authority as to who should canonize it, considering the
many different Christian sects who maintain a version. The Church
encourages us to study as many of these versions as we fell are
helpful, but we tend to use the King James version as the English
standard. The version Church members use in Denmark is the same
version as that used by the Danish Folk Church. This version was
derived independent of the King James version.
I think that there are translation difficulties associated with both
the Bible and the B of M. But, a significant difference is that there
is no clear authority for what is canon in the Bible (if I may include
significant Christian factions) and there is a clear authority (if I may
exclude the less significant splinter groups) for canonization of the
B of M. Also, the record and history of the B of M includes direct claim
to divine preservation of integrity, while my experience has been that a
similar claim for the Bible is usually inferred, however vehemently.
Steve
|
| 60.104 | Apocrypha | RIPPLE::KOTTERRI | Rich Kotter | Mon Nov 13 1989 07:43 | 7 |
| Re: Standard of canonization for the Bible
As evidence that there is no *clear* standard for canonization of Holy
Bible scriptures, I would like to point out that the Catholic Bible
contains whole books that are not recognized by most other Christian
sects. These are sometimes referred to as the Apocrypha.
|
| 60.105 | | DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV | | Mon Nov 13 1989 08:07 | 27 |
| re:.68 by Ed
Good question Ed! We are taught that the BoM is the most correct
of any book, so I believe the truths contained therein. The line
for line translations however... There have been many changes in the
BoM over the years the latest change that sticks out in my mind
is the one that describes the Lamanites as becoming a "pure and
delightsome people." 1981 ed. Older BoM's described them becoming a
"white and delightsome people". I remember this as coming out of
2 Nephi 30:6 As I see it, if the Prophet of the Lord see's fit to
change a word here or there, so be it. My only feelings on this is
perhaps not being white was taken in a negative light by many. Change
the word to pure and you'll offend less people. Don't alienate the
potential converts, you know, that sort of thing.
There have been more substantial changes, years back.
The gist being in several verses in the BoM verses that referenced
"God" were changed to read "Son of God". To me, those are major
changes. Inaccuracies, I'd have to say yes. If it's accurate, why
change it. The act of making changes implies inaccuracy or an
incomplete picture. I prefer to think that we do not have a complete
picture, thus changes.
Kevin
Kevin
|
| 60.106 | Subjective/Objective | TOMCAT::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Mon Nov 13 1989 12:18 | 45 |
| > Now, the big thing is how do we, i.e. mankind, know
> that the ministration we receive is the Holy Ghost?
>
> A good example of the cleansing power of God is found in
> Isaiah 6:5-7. Here the representation of fire, through the coal, is
> the power of God's ministration through the Holy Ghost - it feels
> like a burning fire within you as your spirit is touched by the Holy
> Ghost. Now, this can be either a cleansing or a testifying action.
> Personally, I have experienced both, and there is no mistaking of
> either one once it happens.
> Because I know this testification of the Holy Ghost is a
> witness to me of some truth, just as it was for Peter in Matthew
> chapter 16, verses 13 through 20, then I progress from step to step.
> The Doctrine and Covenants is the word and voice of the Lord.
> I know this by going from one level on knowledge to another. Here
> I am instructed in the matter of stewardship. The prophet, or head
> of the church here on earth, has a certain stewardship over leading
> me in the way of the Lord. I accept that, but only after I have
> accepted a certain knowledge foundation based upon Christ and the
> principles of His gospel.
> These things do not come from a strictly
> intellectual basis, but on a inner spiritual basis that gets stronger
> and stronger as we progress and continue in the word of the Lord.
> Sometimes this is a struggle to be sure that what we think is from God
> is not really from our own mind. Sometimes it is not a struggle.
> Sometimes it is so clear and powerful that it cannot be denied.
> Sometimes it is so subtle and quiet that we are left to wonder. I have
> felt both extremes and much in between. But this I will say, God's arm
> is not shortened, nor is he left without power to convince the heart of
> him who humbly prays in faith and in the name of Jesus to know the
> truth. I know that our Savior really did mean it when he said "Ask, and
> ye shall receive".
In all due respect gentlemen, this is still subjective criteria. Don't get
me wrong. I am not trying to impugn the value of an inner witness in any
way. I only want to know if there is anything else, perhaps some objective
means (if any) that are employed to validate your testimony.
Ed
|
| 60.107 | that other issue | TOMCAT::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Mon Nov 13 1989 12:25 | 14 |
| > What "evidence" supporting the reliability of the Bible are you
> talking about ?
I really want to get into this, but it will have to wait a little while,
because I have a couple of school things happening this week - a
programming assignment and a mid term exam - so I am too busy to give it
the right attention, and I'm reluctant to really get into it then not be
able to keep up once it gets into full swing. (Right now there's four or
five of you guys and one of me, so I'm getting smart and planning ahead!)
Thanks,
Ed
|
| 60.108 | Subjective is the only true way. | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Mon Nov 13 1989 13:25 | 23 |
|
RE: Note 10.72 by TOMCAT::PRESTON
>In all due respect gentlemen, this is still subjective criteria. Don't get
>me wrong. I am not trying to impugn the value of an inner witness in any
>way. I only want to know if there is anything else, perhaps some objective
>means (if any) that are employed to validate your testimony.
>
Ed,
Yes, you are right - it is subjective! It is particular to
a given individual! It exists only within the experiencer's mind
and is incapable of external verification!
That is why I refered to Peter's testimony of Jesus. Look
at Paul's conversion. Try as hard as you may, you will not come up
with any objective criteria, that I know of, that will withstand the
world. Sorry, push comes to shove, you will have to break down and
ask God, with a sincere heart and desire to know the truth. Only
then will you obtain anything that will stand up to Satans objectivity.
Charles
|
| 60.109 | | CSCOA5::ROLLINS_R | | Tue Nov 14 1989 09:47 | 33 |
| >> What "evidence" supporting the reliability of the Bible are you
>> talking about ?
>I really want to get into this, but it will have to wait a little while,
>because I have a couple of school things happening this week - a
>programming assignment and a mid term exam - so I am too busy to give it
>the right attention, and I'm reluctant to really get into it then not be
>able to keep up once it gets into full swing. (Right now there's four or
>five of you guys and one of me, so I'm getting smart and planning ahead!)
>Thanks,
>Ed
Part of the point I was trying to make with the question is that, while
much of what the Old Testament documents as history can be validated by
external sources, the "valuable" portions of the Bible can be validated
only by the Spirit. In other words, that are lots of books that are as
historically accurate, perhaps more so, than the Bible, but that are not
nearly so valuable, because spiritual truths are not taught therein.
These truths are what is really valuable in the Bible, not the historical
teachings.
Just for an example, would you discuss the canonization of the Letter to the
Hebrews ? Would you discuss the various facets of the canonization of the
letter, and the way that it is viewed today ? Since so many Biblical scholars
suggest that the letter cannot be attributed to Paul, how can we be sure it
belongs in the Church canon ? With the Biblical scholars become even more
adept in their "proof" that the letter was not written by Paul, have Christian
churches reviewed whether such a document belongs in the canon of the Church ?
And even if there were conclusive evidence that the letter was written by
Paul, what evidence is there that he was sent by God to proclaim this message ?
|
| 60.110 | | ARCHER::PRESTON | Punch it, Margaret! | Thu Nov 16 1989 15:54 | 9 |
| > ask God, with a sincere heart and desire to know the truth. Only
> then will you obtain anything that will stand up to Satans objectivity.
Charles,
Could you please explain what you mean by "Satan's objectivity?"
Ed
|
| 60.111 | | BSS::RONEY | Charles Roney | Fri Nov 17 1989 13:34 | 28 |
|
RE: Note 10.76 by TOMCAT::PRESTON
>> ask God, with a sincere heart and desire to know the truth. Only
>> then will you obtain anything that will stand up to Satans objectivity.
>
>Charles,
>
>Could you please explain what you mean by "Satan's objectivity?"
>
>Ed
Ed,
My point was that God is subjective. Just as God and Satan
are opposites, so is "subjective" and "objective". To ask for some
objective means is like asking for a sign.
Therefore, "Satans objectivity" are things of the world, which
are temporal, or temporary. These things are of the world, and are not
constant like God.
Originally, you asked, "I only want to know if there is
anything else, perhaps some objective means (if any) that are
employed to validate your testimony." Basically, the answer is no.
Charles
|
| 60.112 | Mormonism as a topic of another file | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Unquenchable fire | Fri Jun 23 1995 12:02 | 34 |
| Remarks of a less than endorsing nature concerning Mormon doctrine and beliefs
have arisen a few times in the CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE notesfile in recent days.
As I would not wish to see any erroneous allegations concerning Mormonism
perpetuated by the mere absence of a knowledgable voice, I would invite
Mormons and others who are at least not counter-Mormon to participate therein.
In an attempt to localize the discussion, I initiated topic 1101, "The Mormons"
(see below).
To add CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE to your notebook type
ADD ENTRY LGP30::CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE<return>
at the notes prompt or press keypad 7.
Peace be with you,
Richard
================================================================================
<<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
-< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 1101.0 The Mormons No replies
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Unquenchable fire" 9 lines 23-JUN-1995 10:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This topic for the discussion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, otherwise known as the LDS or Mormons.
CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE also offers topics specifically for the discussion
of Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Roman Catholic Church.
Shalom,
Richard
|