A lot of folks from all faiths miss him. He is a good guy.
But I do know he's out there somewhere,
Posted on 01/09/2006 3:56:46 AM PST by Quester
Oh uh, The GRPL Swarm, I think its about Mormonism. But you could sure start a tangent on Catholics, just expect back-up. What ever happened to drstevej? I really enjoyed his comments.
>No Christian authority until the reformation approached the Scriptures as a Christian Koran,<
Not exactly sure what you are implying but Peter (remember him)said scripture was more reliable than a audible voice from God.
A lot of folks from all faiths miss him. He is a good guy.
But I do know he's out there somewhere,
Mormonism relates to Christianity pretty much as Islam does. The new revelation supercedes the Bible. The difference is that The Latter Day Saints ha dto live in a country ruled by Christians; therefore they have to mask their differences with the Christians. The Muslims. on the other hand, were conquerers and did not have to make concessions to the ruling authority. If they had, then they would have used the Bible, but treated the Koran as an "interpretation" of it and a correction. As they were conquerors, the Muslims simply brushed the Bible aside as an inferior revelation, and almost none of them have any knowledge of it.
The Bible is accurate? Which one? The Wyckham, KJV, Revised Standard, Vulgate, whatever? Is the version that's accurate in English accurate in German? In Hausa?
They're all accurate ... and why shouldn't they be, ... they are all translated from the original languages.
Koukl just ignores the Mormons' story of the angelic source of the Book of Mormon, which would seem to make their claim to divine inspiration both more direct and more recent than any that can be made for the Bible.
Not really ... Paul, in his letter to the New Testament Galatian church told the congregation to disregard ...
... even an angel which came forth with a different gospel than had already been presented to them ...
... as he warned them that ...
... even Satan, himself, will masqurade as an angel of light.
You present an interesting hypothetical about Islam, the Koran, and the Bible.
However, you may have misunderstood the attitude of the Latter-day Saints toward the Bible. If I understand your post, you seem to imply that we view Momonism as "superseding" the Bible; that the Book of Mormon corrects the Bible; that Bible is "an inferior revelation"; and that few of us have any knowledge of the Bible. I do not believe those assertions to be true.
The Latter-day Saints consider the Bible to be scripture, just as we consider the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price to be scripture. We also believe that God can, in his wisdom, reveal additional scripture. In other words, we have an open canon.
In my view, the Book of Mormon does not supersede the Bible so much as confirm it. Both books teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this reason, both are vital to the Latter-day Saints.
Nor is the Bible "inferior" to our other books of scripture. The Bible is indispensable. It contains much that is not to be had in our other books of scripture, including the knowledge of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and his apostles.
As for our knowledge of the Bible, I would point out that our Sunday School classes study the scriptures in a four-year cycle:
Old Testament (2006)
New Testament (2007)
Book of Mormon (2008)
Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price (2009)
Note that this year's course of study is the Old Testament; next year's will be the New Testament. Thus, two years out of four our Sunday Schools study the Bible.
Now, I realize that some will say that Mormons read the Bible but do not understand it. I do not wish to start an argument with them about Biblical interpretation. That is a discussion for another day.
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. Also: Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
He was, we agreed on little, but he was a good man.
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every amouth• may be stopped, and all the world may become bguilty before God.
20 Therefore by the adeeds• of the blaw there shall no flesh be cjustified• in his sight: for dby• the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the arighteousness of God bwithout• the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have asinned•, and come short of the glory of God;
24 aBeing• bjustified• freely by his cgrace through the dredemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Goodness, you can still say someone is a good man without denying the fact he is a sinner.
***The Bible is accurate? Which one? The Wyckham, KJV, Revised Standard, Vulgate, whatever? Is the version that's accurate in English accurate in German? In Hausa? ***
An excerpt from the ORIGIONAL 1611 KJV preface FROM THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER
• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
• 2 As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
***Koukl just ignores the Mormons' story of the angelic source of the Book of Mormon, which would seem to make their claim to divine inspiration both more direct and more recent than any that can be made for the Bible.***
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto ANOTHER GOSPEL;
Which is NOT another; but there be some that trouble you, and would PERVERT the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an ANGEL FROM HEAVEN, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preachedunto you, let him be ACCURSED.
As we said before, so say I again, If any man preach any OTHER gospel unto you than that which ye have received, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.----St Paul
....Galatians 1:8-9.
Scripture is indeed reliable, once the problem of interpretation of texts is correctly solved. But the process by which Scripture came to be, and to be recognized as a reliable testimony, is complex and involves synergia between divine and human activity.
The notion that the Scriptures are just 'given by God' is really a Christian notion, it is the claim made for the Koran (= 'recitaiton' in Arabic) by the adherents of the false prophet Mohammed. Study the actual history of the Christian canon of Scripture (not the post hoc explanations of the 'closing of the canon' given by protestant apologists for *sola scriptura*), and you'll see what I mean.
I am not terribly impressed with the author's reasoning here. It seems he sets up his own false dichotomy in arguing that the only way to approach the Bible is to assume that it is either totally infallible or a fabrication of man. Mormons do not believe this. They do believe that the Bible of today is different than what the original authors wrote and that the omissions have been from negligence or have been "lost" because certain doctrines disagreed with the those accepted by the Powers-that-be who later ran the church after the death of the apostles.
How do they claim to know this? Not from examining the original writings because those are either non-existent or not available to laymen, or from "reverse-engineering" later translations. They believe this because of what they believe is modern-day revelation directly from God. (And JoelinCanada, the Lord didn't give the Bible in Greek; the Bible was written in the various languages of the human scribes and at least the Old Testament was translated into Greek in just seventy days, so Greek is also attentuated scripture for most of the Bible.)
Mormons do not try to argue their beliefs in terms of intellectual analysis. They say that the Lord personally appeared to a young boy who wanted to know what denomination was the correct church and told that kid that none were correct because their doctrines were tainted by the philosophies of men. You can either believe that the Lord is still involved with His children and speaks today through a living prophet or you can believe that He has been silent for two millenia and relies completely on the Bible to guide us. But you can't intellectually argue that Joseph Smith did not have a vision of the Lord. You can question it, as you should, but you can't prove it didn't happen or that it did happen. This can only be believed (or discounted) through personal revelation and faith.
The position of Mormons on the Bible is that it is incomplete because of those omissions and that another book, written by a people schooled in the same Law of Moses as the Old Testament people, and later visited by the Savior himself after His crucifixion ("and other sheep have I which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice" (John 10:16)) addresses, supplements and clarifies the same gospel the Savior taught in Israel.
Therefore the Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is a supplement to the Bible, clarifying areas of doctrine and gospel which are either entirely missing or ambiguous in the Bible (and Mormons believe that someday we will meet other people who also have records of the Savior's visits and teachings to them to supplement both the Bible and the Book of Mormon). Now please don't argue that the Bible isn't ambiguous, else why are there so many different denominations of Christians and so many different beliefs and practices as regards basic matters such as the Eucharist, baptism, sacraments, faith and works and other basic doctrines of the gospel. And don't argue that the Bible must not be supplemented by other sources, or you discount the creeds, the "traditions" and the writings of the Church fathers, all of which have supplemented or clarified for one denomination or another, parts of the Bible.
All that Mormons say is that they looked at the claims of Joseph Smith with an open mind, read the Book of Mormon, and asked the purported author, aka the Lord, whether it was true and they believe they received an answer. And they believe anyone is entitled to the same revelation from the Holy Spirit. But too many people seem afraid to take that step and that is understandable but please don't denigrate those who have gone through that process and believe they have received an answer. The author calls this disingenuous and assumes Mormons are fraudulent. You can argue that a belief is wrong but don't presume to know the motivations of those who hold different beliefs. Each side believes it has superior knowledge. Test it yourself and, instead of listening to so-called experts on either side, study the claims of both sides and go to the Lord in prayer and in sincere curiosity and listen to His answer--if you dare. Then follow your answer. Period. I can say it seems clear that the author of this analysis hasn't bothered to do this.
I post this cautiously because I don't have time to sit and respond to all comments this might engender. But even if I do, my answer would be: Have you read the Book of Mormon, compared it to the Bible, and gone to the Lord in prayer, expecting an answer? If you haven't done this, please don't bother to make an intellectual argument against doing so. As James 1:5-6 says, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. . . "
The fact that Gamecock had no problem with my assertion says something. Gamecock and I could not be further apart theologicaly, he is a Reformed Calvinist (GRPL Swarm), I am an Orthodox Roman Catholic (supposed member of TTGC), but we both recognized the zestful debate brought by the late drstevej and the type of man he was. Gamecock and I would both assert he was in need of divine grace for salvation since he was sinner, as are we all, but I will still call him, a good man.
"What you care about is protecting your own belief system, whether it's true or not."
To believe one's belief system is to protect, preserve and perpetuate a people and its culture, while at the same time uniting its organizational structure. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, that ought to be the ultimate purpose of organized religion. The Mormons are, unknowingly, I believe, doing exactly that. God bless them!
Love thy neighbor.
It is so clear from the article that the author and the organization he represents is anti God and anti-Christian.
Today with this article they're attacking and demeaning the Mormons, tomorrow, I'm sure, it will be the turn of other Christians.
The ultimate purpose of pieces such as these, is not necessarily to attack, debase and ridicule Christianity, rather to destroy it's culture and, hence, and people.
The devil is in the minutiae.
An ongoing revelation makes the Mormon religion a non-traditional religion. In any case, my perception is that In a NATION of Deseret, the on-going revelation would have taken a different direction. In a Christian country, more stress on the person of Jesus; in Deseret, less so. As you say, hypothetical, but what is not, is the severe reduction of Morman territory, in large part because of the issue of pologamy, ending in a threat to supress the whole Church. Then the new revelation that enables the Church to survive in a hostile society.
What?
If any man preach any OTHER gospel unto you than that which ye have received, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.
So, a salesman tells you that anybody who offers you a different deal than his just wants to rip you off; and you believe him?
... even an angel which came forth with a different gospel than had already been presented to them ... Satan, himself, will masqurade as an angel of light.
If any man preach any OTHER gospel unto you than that which ye have received, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.
So, a salesman tells you that anybody who offers you a different deal than his just wants to rip you off; and you believe him?
Do you believe that the Apostle Paul was a salesman (i.e. that He wasn't truly speaking for God) ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.