Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

LDS, what do you not believe that is in the Bible?


Mudcat

Recommended Posts

Hi CC,

Lightbearer seemed to supportive of this, as well. In fact, seems like the topic of Pharaoh's hardened heart, is a topic that has come up with nearly any missionary I have talked to, as well as my in-Laws. I have yet to have a "reality" LDS disagree with you either.

As a rule of thumb, I always take the position that God did harden Pharaoh's heart , if for no better reason than it leads to rather interesting conversations. :P

Well, I'm one. Maybe it's just my contrary streak, but it seems that Paul at least, was very convinced that God did in fact harden Pharaoh's heart. I have come to believe that this did happen. However, if you look carefully at the account, it would seem that Pharaoh made certain choices, then had his heart hardened by God. I think God simply withdrew His Spirit from Pharoah and left him to his own bad decisions, after Pharaoh had already resisted His influence.

Link to comment
I could be wrong, but everything I've seen where the earliest available manuscripts are used to determine what was changed in later versions, shows text being added, rather than removed. That seems logical to me, that the impulse of scribes and translators would be to add little details that they thought would help explain something.

So the line about "plain and precious" truths being taken out doesn't seem very likely to me; the opposite seems more likely.

Uh huh. So some scribes added some stuff. Will all the books which were lost or left out now report in please? No answers-- I guess you are right. It is hard to take attendence of those who are not in a meeting without a list of who is supposed to be there.

Link to comment
Let's clear this up right away.

Haven't you ever said to your wife after and argument, Honey you really ticked me off!

Well she didn't tick you off, you got ticked off!

It was more about Pharaoh's attitude toward God than anything God did to him. It's all about how Pharoah chose feel about God that is the key.

My heart hardens to the guy who cuts me off on the freeway, but it wasn't him who hardened my heart!

Does that make sense?

Theo

It's a nice analogy about why I could say something and it mean something else.

However, the verses say that God did indeed actually harden Pharaoh's heart. Let me ask you, why do you think God would not have done such?

Link to comment
It's a nice analogy about why I could say something and it mean something else.

However, the verses say that God did indeed actually harden Pharaoh's heart. Let me ask you, why do you think God would not have done such?

Does God encourage people to do evil? Does He want people to go to Hell?

Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Link to comment
However, the verses say that God did indeed actually harden Pharaoh's heart. Let me ask you, why do you think God would not have done such?

God is no respecter of persons. He loves Pharaoh as much as he loves you and I. He hopes each of us will repent and turn to him. When we do wrong he still loves us and still hopes we'll change and come to him.

He doesn't harden our heart so that we reject him.

You really believe God hardens peoples hearts so that they will reject him? I think the scriptural basis for what I have outlined is very strong. What scriptural basis do you have for your belief?

Link to comment
God is no respecter of persons. He loves Pharaoh as much as he loves you and I. He hopes each of us will repent and turn to him. When we do wrong he still loves us and still hopes we'll change and come to him.

He doesn't harden our heart so that we reject him.

You really believe God hardens peoples hearts so that they will reject him?

In the case of Pharaoh, I believe his heart was hardened by God.

I'm curious, do you think it was Pharaoh's fault that God had all those first born children killed by an angel? Did God love those children? If he did, why did he kill them?

I think the scriptural basis for what I have outlined is very strong. What scriptural basis do you have for your belief?

I'll just go with with scripture that said God hardened his heart.

Link to comment
I'm curious, do you think it was Pharaoh's fault that God had all those first born children killed by an angel? Did God love those children? If he did, why did he kill them?

A young girl, two years old, was kidnapped in my town about twenty years ago. Her mutilated body was found a week later, tossed in a ditch. Did God love that little girl? If He did, why did He permit her to die in such a horrible, terrifying manner?

Link to comment
A young girl, two years old, was kidnapped in my town about twenty years ago. Her mutilated body was found a week later, tossed in a ditch. Did God love that little girl?

Of course.

If He did, why did He permit her to die in such a horrible, terrifying manner?

I don't know. What would you have Him do?

Link to comment
A young girl, two years old, was kidnapped in my town about twenty years ago. Her mutilated body was found a week later, tossed in a ditch. Did God love that little girl? If He did, why did He permit her to die in such a horrible, terrifying manner?

It's a terrible story Urroner. I don't know how it relates to what is reflected in the passover account? From what I can gather God sent an angel to kill these children. Permission and causation are two different subjects.

Link to comment

Mudcat,

I have not read through all of this thread. I will try to do so later.

I wrote the below last night in hopes of posting it fairly quickly. The below immediately jumped to my mind. In other places I have been suggesting that Sola Scriptura most consistently results in Chris Smithâ??s liberal Christianity. And specifically I have suggested that if Sola Scriptura Christians are free to allow woman to not wear hats in church, then perhaps they should also not condemn homosexual activity.

Now, perhaps the below was a little more polemic than you are looking for. It is how I feel, but it does not seem I needed to go straight to such a conflict producing answer.

As I mention in the end of my post, I embrace a â??functional inerrancyâ? for scripture. I do not suggest that all of scripture should be viewed literally, but that should be a first approximation. I also do not suggest that all of the Bible is absolutely uncorrupted. I do however suggest that none of the Bible is declared specifically a product of â??translation errors. All of the Bible is accepted by common consent of the CoJCoLDS. So IMO the best LDS position is to not attempt to discard any Biblical passages. You will see how I attempt to do this with God hardening Pharaohâ??s heart below.

My original planned post:

I immediately thought of 1 Cor 11 and the requirement that women wear hats in church. I do not believe the Bible should be followed literally here. As I understand it the prescription for woman to wear hats in church was something that happened in churches in Paulâ??s day. It was also a very widespread practice (Biblically based practice in MANY churches) in the US just 50 or so years ago. But, I think it is a cultural prescription that is not a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe this because President Monson and the other General Authorities that I lean upon to help me understand scripture have very clearly not viewed 1 Cor 11 as a prescription for woman to wear hats in church.

So, while I really like some of the things mentioned above; I do not get too bold in my â??the Bible is falseâ? declarations. I believe the Bible is functionally inerrant (because as LDS we have accepted it by common consent and not defined authoritatively any passages that are corrupted by translation errors or ???), and we should use all of it to understand what scripture is teaching us. But, I believe the only way you can arrive at a uniform theology is through the use of authoritative interpretation from authorized church leaders. (Now as a LDS I might point out that I think â??a uniform theologyâ? is not the pinnacle of achievement for a church, but this thread is about truth gleaned from the Bible).

I would say that â??God hardening Pharaohs heartâ? is true in that God established/epitomizes the open, loving heart actions AND Pharaoh in shunning those activities received a hardened heart. Or, if we want to be more simple, I would say that scripture teaches me that God is all loving and therefore â??God hardening Pharaohs heartâ? does not mean that God choose Pharaoh to have a hard heart that rejects love from God. Joseph Smith the Prophet of God wanted Christâ??s church to not be confused by the statement that â??God hardened Pharaohs heart,â? and provided more info so we would not be confused. That does not make those verses in the scripture false, just in need of Prophetic elaboration.

Charity, TOm

Link to comment
Uh huh. So some scribes added some stuff. Will all the books which were lost or left out now report in please? No answers-- I guess you are right. It is hard to take attendence of those who are not in a meeting without a list of who is supposed to be there.

So you're saying that the "plain and precious" parts were entire books that the early church removed from the Jewish scriptures after incorporating them into their Old Testament?

Link to comment
A young girl, two years old, was kidnapped in my town about twenty years ago. Her mutilated body was found a week later, tossed in a ditch. Did God love that little girl? If He did, why did He permit her to die in such a horrible, terrifying manner?

Horrible story. However, if this world is to be a test, it has to be believable that we are on our own. Random events like natural disasters, terrible events like the one you mentioned are all part of the world put on auto pilot for us to react to.

Link to comment

Hey TOm,

Thanks for the response. It is an interesting theory you posit.... Sola Scriptura will ultimately equal Liberal Christianity. I don't know that I disagree, as this seems to be a growing movement. I suppose I would have difficulty putting wearing hats in church on par with homosexuality. I may think on this for a bit.

In regards to some Pauline theology, I will say that I used to have quite a bit of trouble with denominations that supported a female ministry, as this seemed contrary to Paul's statements about women being silent... not teaching men and so forth.

I have a friend who is a "Oneness" Pentecostal that has found that sort of thing, in regards to women as pastors a non-issue. I asked him one day, how did his thoughts on the topic square with what Paul has told us.

He said, "How am I to reject who God calls for his purposes? Either I'll be on the wrong side of God or the side of Paul. Which do you think is better?"

That fairly well shut me up, that was about a year ago... I still haven't come up with an answer that sounded better than his.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Link to comment
Hey TOm,

Thanks for the response. It is an interesting theory you posit.... Sola Scriptura will ultimately equal Liberal Christianity. I don't know that I disagree, as this seems to be a growing movement. I suppose I would have difficulty putting wearing hats in church on par with homosexuality. I may think on this for a bit.

In regards to some Pauline theology, I will say that I used to have quite a bit of trouble with denominations that supported a female ministry, as this seemed contrary to Paul's statements about women being silent... not teaching men and so forth.

I have a friend who is a "Oneness" Pentecostal that has found that sort of thing, in regards to women as pastors a non-issue. I asked him one day, how did his thoughts on the topic square with what Paul has told us.

He said, "How am I to reject who God calls for his purposes? Either I'll be on the wrong side of God or the side of Paul. Which do you think is better?"

That fairly well shut me up, that was about a year ago... I still haven't come up with an answer that sounded better than his.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

Mudcat

But doesn't this imply that you are putting the call to the ministry above the scriptures? I think you are saying that since (your friend believes that) God called the woman in question to the ministry, that would rank above the bible? To me this sounds like a very Mormon understanding of the "bible insofar as it is translated correctly" shifted slightly to "the bible insofar as it is correct as verified by personal revelation".

Time to fill the font, dude... :P

Link to comment
So you're saying that the "plain and precious" parts were entire books that the early church removed from the Jewish scriptures after incorporating them into their Old Testament?

Wow. No, not exactly. I don't recall saying I accepted the Jewish choice of what to include as canonical for the ideal bible. If plain and precious things were left out, the Jews I am sure were just as "guilty" as the early church.

My point was merely that we don't know what was lost, because it was LOST. Do you think perhaps it is possible that someone in the ten tribes might have written something of value? How could we ever know that?

Link to comment
Mudcat

But doesn't this imply that you are putting the call to the ministry above the scriptures?

That is a good question, I am still uncertain about that, though I might be more inclined to say "on par with" than "above" though.

I think you are saying that since (your friend believes that) God called the woman in question to the ministry, that would rank above the bible?

As I see it, it seems apparent there are women who believe they are called of God into the ministry. I am sure these women are aware of what Paul has said on the subject, yet they proceed forward with God's calling. All I am saying, is that if God has called them, then he has called them.

In direct relation to Paul's statements, then yes this calling would take priority wouldn't it? In regards to ultimate thrust of the Gospel, which seems to be to go and teach others about the Gospel I don't know that it would be above it, rather in line with it, I think.

To me this sounds like a very Mormon understanding of the "bible insofar as it is translated correctly" shifted slightly to "the bible insofar as it is correct as verified by personal revelation".

This sounds close, but not close enough for me to agree with. I may think of a better way to state that and PM it to you or something.

Time to fill the font, dude... :P

It's about time you came to your senses. I'll have my pastor make sure its ready for you this Sunday. ;)

Link to comment
Wow. No, not exactly. I don't recall saying I accepted the Jewish choice of what to include as canonical for the ideal bible. If plain and precious things were left out, the Jews I am sure were just as "guilty" as the early church.

Not sure what merits the "wow." I was simply trying to make it fit with the description in I Nephi 13, about a book that comes "from the mouth of a Jew" ... "in purity unto the Gentiles," and from which the "great and abominable church" took away "plain and precious" parts. How does this scenario fit with a Hebrew canon that already has important parts missing?

My point was merely that we don't know what was lost, because it was LOST. Do you think perhaps it is possible that someone in the ten tribes might have written something of value? How could we ever know that?

Sure, but there is also no way to know IF anything of importance was lost. Is there another source besides the one above that mentions other lost documents or portions?

Link to comment
I would say it was more inspired in many ways.

"Dust to dust" seems more true than "pie in the sky". :P

Actually, I think "dust to dust" is from genesis but ...anyway...

Sorry, it's just another supposedly Christian thing that men made up. You know, the philosophies of men, intermixed with scripture.

Lehi

Link to comment
This sounds close, but not close enough for me to agree with. I may think of a better way to state that and PM it to you or something.

It's about time you came to your senses. I'll have my pastor make sure its ready for you this Sunday. ;)

:P

Good one! And I deserved it, too!

Link to comment
I would say it [The Songs of Solomon] was more inspired in many ways.

"Dust to dust" seems more true than "pie in the sky". :P

Actually, I think "dust to dust" is from genesis but ...anyway...

Sorry, it's just another supposedly Christian thing that men made up. You know, the philosophies of men, intermixed with scripture.
Dus to dust? I think you'll find that it is Genesis 3:19.
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
The phrase is "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust" in the burial ceremonies I have witnessed. This phrase is not in the Bible, nor is the shorter version Tarski cited: "Dust to dust".

Yes, they allude to Gen 3:!9, but they do not quote the verse. That is why I made the statement I did.

Lehi

Link to comment

Hello Mudcat,

Thanks for the response. It is an interesting theory you posit.... Sola Scriptura will ultimately equal Liberal Christianity. I don't know that I disagree, as this seems to be a growing movement. I suppose I would have difficulty putting wearing hats in church on par with homosexuality. I may think on this for a bit.

I chose (regularly choose) homosexuality for at least two reasons. First, the explanation of Paulâ??s culture often offered to explain why the gospel does not include woman wearing hats during church links well to Paulâ??s anti-homosexual statements. Second, it is SHOCKING to most conservative Christians.

I do not agree with MFBukowski that it is time to fill the font. But, a willingness to make allowances for those who claim that God can / did call woman is an acceptance of a very liberal perspective. As you note in this you have moved from a literal understanding of scripture to a nuanced understanding that includes real world events.

In dialogue with Chris Smith I have noted that his position avoids many of the pitfalls I see in my position, the conservative Protestant position, and the Catholic position. He does not need to accept some explanation for the BOA and he can even allow LDS their commitment to the BOM because of various evidences (perhaps God did inspire the BOM as one of His contacts with His children. He does not need to accept authoritative development of theology through the Catholic Church or the preservation of Tradition more commonly part of the Catholic self-understanding. And he avoids the point I am making about Sola Scriptura not producing Evangelical theology in the clarity Evangelical demand it to exist.

Having just finished <b>The Problem of Pain</b> I have a new objection to Chrisâ??s theology. It does not require a total surrender of the self to Christ in a sufficient way. If YOU think the parts of the Bible that condemn pre-marital sex should not be dogmatically followed, then you can be comfortable with this theological position. There is too much of the self in Chrisâ??s theology for it to be the supreme surrender.

I do not think Chrisâ??s Christianity is strong enough to require a complete surrender. I will reproduce Talmageâ??s words because I really like them. C.S. Lewis said the same thing and I am quite convinced it is part of true Christianity in any of its manifestations.

â??When at last he beheld the pearl that excelled all others, though it was, as of right it ought to have been, held at high cost, he gladly sold all his other gems; indeed he sacrificed "all that he had" -- gems and other possessions -- and purchased the pearl of great price. Seekers after truth may acquire much that is good and desirable, and not find the greatest truth of all, the truth that shall save them. Yet, if they seek persistently and with right intent, if they are really in quest of pearls and not of imitations, they shall find. Men who by search and research discover the truths of the kingdom of heaven may have to abandon many of their cherished traditions, and even their theories of imperfect philosophy and "Science falsely so called," if they would possess themselves of the pearl of great price. Observe that in this parable as in that of the hidden treasure, the price of possession is one's all. No man can become a citizen of the kingdom by partial surrender of his earlier allegiances; he must renounce everything foreign to the kingdom or he can never be numbered therein. If he willingly sacrifices all that he has, he shall find that he has enough. The cost of the hidden treasure, and of the pearl, is not a fixed amount, alike for all; it is all one has. Even the poorest may come into enduring possession; his all is a sufficient purchase price.â? -Jesus the Christ, Talmage.

Charity, TOm

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...