Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Pahoran,You wrote:Rob, you really must try to break the habit of telling us why we do what we do. I realise that this would be fatal to all forms of anti-Mormonism, but you need to break it anyway.To the contrary, in this case you are trying to tell me what I have experienced. What I said was that in my experience, Mormons trot out the lists of lost books of the Bible for the specific reason I described. That has been my experience. If you want to give a different reason for your use of such lists, feel free. I'm not telling you what you do or why you do it.You wrote:The reality is that we "trot out" those lists to establish this sole fact: that the idolatrous notion of a perfect and inerrant canon is false.... A bibliolater naturally expects the loss of scriptural books to be made good by the restoration of those particular books; however, someone who really and actually (and not merely as a matter of lip service) gives God priority over the Bible is happy to accept a restoration of whatever truths we presently lack, including (but not limited to) whatever truths might once have been contained in those missing books.You've just defeated your own reasoning. If God can provide truths in books other than the ones that are "lost," then he might just have done so in the books that we have had for the past two millennia. And this is precisely what the evangelical believes. We maintain that whatever might have been in the ancient books mentioned in the Old Testament that the Jews did not preserve, and whatever might have been in Paul's two lost letters to the church in Corinth, the truths that God wants us to have were preserved in the 66 books that we have in the Bible.There is nothing idolatrous about this belief, and merely asserting otherwise in the dogmatic and condemning way that you do here is no substitute for presenting reasons for such an accusation.You wrote:(This idolatrous notion is linked to a whole raft of other idolatrous notions, incidentally, one of which is the idea that the Bible is some kind of living being that can consciously choose to authorise a person to carry out specific acts, simply by allowing them to interpret passages in a particular way; but I digress.)The problem with your statement is not that it is a digression but that it is a ridiculous caricature of my position. I never said any such thing and in fact have already explicitly rejected that false characterization of my belief. Since we're throwing around accusations of violations of the Ten Commandments, you might want to reflect on the ninth.You wrote:If only you could wean yourself away from the comforting but idolatrous notion of a closed canon, you'd find the reality of living in a time when the fountains of revelation are flowing again to be exciting and invigorating.The reality is that the purported fountain of latter-day continuous revelation once shot high into the air but has since slowed to a gurgle. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Robert,You wrote:Actually, Ehrman trots out such lists in order to attack the very idea of a canon. In my experience, Mormons trot out the lists to establish that the Bible is missing scripture and therefore needs to be supplemented with additional scriptures, which Joseph Smith claimed to be the instrument for providing. But if the LDS scriptures do not restore the supposed lost books, then those lists are irrelevant; and if the LDS Church fails to restore one of these supposedly lost scriptures when it is extant, then the recitation of such lists is negated by that failure. Now I grant that Mormons take the position that 1 Enoch in its extant form(s) is not identical to the original book of Enoch, but it makes the same claim about the canonical books of the Bible. So again, the arguments seem inconsistent.Ehrman and Charlesworth obviously have different perspectives on Scripture in general, although their books tend to fill in the factual gaps left when evangelicals and other well-meaning parties (including some Mormons) describe the nature of Canon. Such historical perspective is called for when evangelicals paper over or even ignore the nature of the formation of Canon -- suggesting incorrectly that the Canon is closed and adequate for God's purposes. I haven't heard Mormons going beyond that factual, historical description to claim that all those earlier lost books should automatically now be recovered. So I do not find any inconsistency there.What is important to note is that the NT writers frequently quote sources which were at the time considered Canonical, but now no longer. They also quoted pagan sources from time to time. These were human servants of God testifying to their own experiences and to what they had seen God do -- treasure in earthen vessels, as these servants and their Gospel message is described. No pretense of inerrancy. As the late James Barr observed, claims by evangelicals that the Bible is divinely inspired and infallible, do not mean that it must be taken literally, and are not so interpreted in the conservative evangelical literature; what they mean, and are constantly interpreted as meaning, is that the Bible contains no error of any kind – not only theological error, but error of any sort of historical, geographical or scientific fact, is completely absent from the Bible.** Barr, Fundamentalism, 40-41. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Pahoran, To the contrary, in this case you are trying to tell me what I have experienced.What I said was that in my experience, Mormons trot out the lists of lost books of the Bible for the specific reason I described. That has been my experience. If you want to give a different reason for your use of such lists, feel free. I'm not telling you what you do or why you do it.You've just defeated your own reasoning. If God can provide truths in books other than the ones that are "lost," then he might just have done so in the books that we have had for the past two millennia. And this is precisely what the evangelical believes. We maintain that whatever might have been in the ancient books mentioned in the Old Testament that the Jews did not preserve, and whatever might have been in Paul's two lost letters to the church in Corinth, the truths that God wants us to have were preserved in the 66 books that we have in the Bible. There is nothing idolatrous about this belief, and merely asserting otherwise in the dogmatic and condemning way that you do here is no substitute for presenting reasons for such an accusation. You wrote: The problem with your statement is not that it is a digression but that it is a ridiculous caricature of my position. I never said any such thing and in fact have already explicitly rejected that false characterization of my belief. Since we're throwing around accusations of violations of the Ten Commandments, you might want to reflect on the ninth. You wrote: The reality is that the purported fountain of latter-day continuous revelation once shot high into the air but has since slowed to a gurgle.Interpretations of the various phases through which the LDS Church has gone cover a broad range from their leaving sacred time (Jan Shipps) to becoming a strongly institutionalized Church, and carrying all the socio-cultural baggage which that entails.I tend to see it not only in those terms, because there is some truth there, but also as a Church which is swiftly & surely engaged in evangelizing the entire planet in preparation for the end times. This is the consolidation phase, IMHO. When the Messiah comes, we expect to be there waiting and ready to serve Him as His Holy Priesthood. Link to comment
zerinus Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) In my experience, Mormons trot out the lists to establish that the Bible is missing scripture and therefore needs to be supplemented with additional scriptures, which Joseph Smith claimed to be the instrument for providing. But if the LDS scriptures do not restore the supposed lost books, then those lists are irrelevant; . . .Wrong! The fact that we claim there are missing scriptures does not by any stretch of the imagination or logic oblige us to restore them. The "restoration" has been promised by God, and will take place in His own time and way when He sees fit. Some has already been restored, such as the Book of Mormon; and the rest will also be restored when the time is right, as the Lord wills.. . . and if the LDS Church fails to restore one of these supposedly lost scriptures when it is extant, then the recitation of such lists is negated by that failure.That is a very hypocritical comment, especially in the light of your next clause:Now I grant that Mormons take the position that 1 Enoch in its extant form(s) is not identical to the original book of Enoch, . . .Exactly.. . . but it makes the same claim about the canonical books of the Bible. So again, the arguments seem inconsistent.Wrong again. We don't make "exactly the same claim" about the Bible. 1 Enoch could be entirely fictitious for all we know. That is not the claim we make of the Bible. Edited November 4, 2011 by zerinus Link to comment
zerinus Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) The reality is that the purported fountain of latter-day continuous revelation once shot high into the air but has since slowed to a gurgle.There is a reason for that. The Lord has told us the reason:3 Nephi 26:9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people."My people" in the above verse doesn't just mean Mormons. It means all the Gentiles, and especially the Christian nations. God considers all Christians to be "His people," not just Mormons. If such a new revelation was given, its impact would be felt far beyond the shores of Mormonism. It would have a tremendous impact on all the Christian world, not just on Mormons. And the Lord is going to wait until the world is ready--including the Mormons.If you really want those missing scriptures to be revealed, you can start by believing what God has already revealed! Then you have taken the first step to being ready for the new revelation when it comes. And who knows, you may be lucky enough for it to happen in your day! Edited November 4, 2011 by zerinus Link to comment
diglot Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) The reality is that we "trot out" those lists to establish this sole fact: that the idolatrous notion of a perfect and inerrant canon is false. (This idolatrous notion is linked to a whole raft of other idolatrous notions, incidentally, one of which is the idea that the Bible is some kind of living being that can consciously choose to authorise a person to carry out specific acts, simply by allowing them to interpret passages in a particular way; but I digress.) Holding to a closed canon is not idolatrous. That is one of the most absurd things I have heard here.And no one thinks the Bible is some kind of living being. Edited November 4, 2011 by diglot Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Rob, you really must try to break the habit of telling us why we do what we do. He has accused me of "bearing false witness" on another thread for allegedly misstating what I thought he believed.I would think it cuts both ways. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Holding to a closed canon is not idolatrous. That is one of the most absurd things I have heard here.And no one thinks the Bible is some kind of living being.I don't think I have ever agreed with a single thing you have said, but I wish you would give Rob some lessons on how to disagree without being,,,, well, like he is about these things. Link to comment
wenglund Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 He has accused me of "bearing false witness" on another thread for allegedly misstating what I thought he believed.I would think it cuts both ways.In the future, you can avoid Rob accusing you of bearing false witness by simply using the phrase "in my experience" (or something similar) as a preface when you claim he and other EV's are saying such-and-such. At least Rob believes that works for him.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Link to comment
diglot Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I don't think I have ever agreed with a single thing you have said, but I wish you would give Rob some lessons on how to disagree without being,,,, well, like he is about these things.No one agrees with what I say, no matter if they're LDS or Evangelical! Link to comment
Vance Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 No one agrees with what I say, no matter if they're LDS or Evangelical! Well, that may be. But I for one have enjoyed your contributions to the discussions here. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) In the future, you can avoid Rob accusing you of bearing false witness by simply using the phrase "in my experience" (or something similar) as a preface when you claim he and other EV's are saying such-and-such. At least Rob believes that works for him.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Unfortunately he does not always say it that way either.Edit: Most especially on his site. Edited November 4, 2011 by mfbukowski Link to comment
zerinus Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 No one agrees with what I say, no matter if they're LDS or Evangelical! I agree with what you just said! Link to comment
Calm Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Holding to a closed canon is not idolatrous. That is one of the most absurd things I have heard here.And no one thinks the Bible is some kind of living being.We actually did have one evangelical on the board in the past who believed that because the Bible is called the Word of God and Christ is called the Word, that they were somehow one and the same. Never explained how this could be, but he was firm in his belief. It was recognized by all that this was a rather unique belief. 1 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Also, just so you know, LDS Christians unlike other historical Christians don't claim to be 4th or 16th century traditional Christians. Mormons are a restoration of the 1st century Christians.Non-LDS Theological scholar Ernst W. Benz (1907-1982) a longtime professor of church history and dogma at the University of Marburg in Germany and one of the leading experts in the world of the Ancient Christian Church argued that Joseph Smith’s major contribution was that he offered a complete reinterpretation of the orthodox Christian concept of the nature of God and his views was closer to the original church.Quote“One thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology is closer to the concept of man of the original church than that of the protagonists of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship as the quintessential heresy.” Ernst Wilhelm Benz, Archetype and Image: Man and the Mythical World, p. 326. Now please show me how your beliefs are close to the 1st century Christians.Thanks for the very interesting cite Hannah. I finally managed to run down the original German for Benz' statement, and a friend provided a corrected translation:Ernst W. Benz, “Der Mensch als Imago Dei," in Benz, Urbild und Abbild: Der Mensch und die mythische Welt: gesammelte Eranos-Beitrage (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 326, “Man mag zu dieser Lehre von der progressiven Vergottung stehen wie man will, eines ist sicher, Joseph Smith steht mit dieser seiner Anthropologie der altkirchlichen Anschauung vom Menschen näher als die Vorkämpfer der augustinischen Erbsündenlehre, die den Gedanken an einen so wesenhaften Zusammenhang zwischen Gott und Mensch als die eigentliche Haeresie betrachtet haben.” “Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.” 1 Link to comment
Vance Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 “Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.”Joseph, you evil genius you. Link to comment
Recommended Posts