The Most Widespread Form of Idolatry Today

[semlogo]

That website (which has ridiculous type) doesn't say the same thing that you are claiming your neighbor said. The website seems to basically say that if one has accepted that the Bible is God's word, then to pray to that same God regarding the truthfulness of something that contradicts that word would be nonsense. The logic is actually pretty fair. However, it depends on several premises, including whether or no the BofM contradicts or goes contrary to the Bible, or if the Bible is the only book of divine scripture.

Would you pray to find out if Muhammed (PBUH) was God's last and greatest prophet? Would you pray to find out if killing babies was ok? Would you pray to see if it was okay to steal a new iPad?

Most Mormons would say that you shouldn't pray about those things, because God has already revealed the truth of it, and thus to pray and question is to to go against God.

When was the last time that you were in church that you should pray to find out that the Prophet was wrong?

The Bible contradicts the Bible. Anyway, the whole premise rests not on whether or not something contradicts the Bible, but whether or not someone thinks it does.

I do find that a lot of Evangelicals seem to worship the Bible. I think it's the natural outcome of emphasizing it so much, and marginalizing everything else.

[the narrator]

So in other words:The Bible has never stated that it was the only word or God, and if the Holy Ghost had would that not be adding to the revelations of God?

There is a clear difference between personal inspiration (which nearly all Christians believe in) and adding to the scriptural canon. Thus the Bible need not say that it is a closed canon. A witness of the spirit confirming it is all that is necessary for believing Christians.

I am quite certain that you have received plenty of divine inspiration that is not (nor will ever) be included in the LDS canon.

[the narrator]

The Bible contradicts the Bible. Anyway, the whole premise rests not on whether or not something contradicts the Bible, but whether or not someone thinks it does.

If one believes that the Spirit has witnessed to them that the Bible contains the limits of God's scriptural (and wholly authoritative) word, is that not enough?

I do find that a lot of Evangelicals seem to worship the Bible. I think it's the natural outcome of emphasizing it so much, and marginalizing everything else.

I do find that a lot of my fellow Mormons seem to worship the Prophet. I think it's the natural outcome of emphasizing him so much, and marginalizing everything else.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet; don't go astray.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,

Follow the prophet he knows the way.

[zeezrom]

When was God replaced by the Bible? I see this as a graven image, where God is literally standing there waiting to speak to his children, and like the Pharisees and Sadducees, THE LAW has become preeminent above God himself, while in this case it is "The Word."

The mormon relies on an answer to a prayer to find truth. The answer is founded on an emotional response or feeling which they believe come from God.

Your friend relies on words in the Bible to find truth which he believes comes from God.

I don't see much difference between the two. In either case, you can't know the truth with absolute certainty. It requires a leap of faith in either case. It is a case of individual reflection and understanding and not necessarily study of external data.

[semlogo]

Actually many Christian recognize the authorship issues, far more than Mormons.

I think not.

[the narrator]

So in other words:The Bible has never stated that it was the only word or God, and if the Holy Ghost had would that not be adding to the revelations of God?

No. It would be private inspiration.

Just as your private inspirations from the Spirit are not added to the D&C.

[semlogo]

If one believes that the Spirit has witnessed to them that the Bible contains the limits of God's scriptural (and wholly authoritative) word, is that not enough?

I've spoken with many evangelicals about the Bible - none of them told me that they had a spiritual witness that the Bible was a closed cannon. What they did was point to certain passages in the Bible that they felt proved it.

I do find that a lot of my fellow Mormons seem to worship the Prophet. I think it's the natural outcome of emphasizing him so much, and marginalizing everything else.

I think many do worship Joseph Smith, in the same unintentional way that evangelicals worship the Bible. Neither objects are to be worshiped, though.

[the narrator]

I think not.

Next time you are in Gospel doctrine ask everyone who wrote Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, the Timmothies, Titus, Hebrews, and the other non-Pauline epistles. Ask who wrote the Gospels. Ask who wrote the Torah.

Then go to a nearby evangelical Church. Ask everyone the same questions. I'm pretty sure that far more of the latter will be able to correctly answer the authorship issues.

Even better, go to BYU and ask all of the so-called 'professors of ancient scripture.'

Then go to a Christian seminary and ask their ancient scripture professors. The differences will be even greater.

[the narrator]

I've spoken with many evangelicals about the Bible - none of them told me that they had a spiritual witness that the Bible was a closed cannon. What they did was point to certain passages in the Bible that they felt proved it.

That is precisely the way in which they believe God witnessed it to them.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is a clear difference between personal inspiration (which nearly all Christians believe in) and adding to the scriptural canon. Thus the Bible need not say that it is a closed canon. A witness of the spirit confirming it is all that is necessary for believing Christians.

I am quite certain that you have received plenty of divine inspiration that is not (nor will ever) be included in the LDS canon.

Um, you just contradicted yourself. There is indeed a difference between persoanl inspiration and adding to the scriptural canon. That difference is that just a spritual confrimtion of something is not enough if it is not in the canon or the bible. When it pertains to doctrines about the bible or canon.

It is one thing to state "I will marry person X for I have had some personal inspiration about the matter" It is entirly differnt to state that the bible teaches "X" for I have had a personal revelation that it teaches "X" even though "X" is not found in the bible". I hope you see the difference.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is precisely the way in which they believe God witnessed it to them.

Actually I don't think that is accurate either.... Can we get some EV's in here into this discussion to help us with what it is they actually do believe.

[Ahab]

My meetings with my neighbor continue, and I am absolutely blown away with how respectful he has been of our differences of belief. One phrase that he used regularly and that I have heard many time concerns me though. You could summarize this stand as, "No I will not pray to God to know the truth; The Bible IS the word of God and so only my ability to align what you say with the Bible determines what is true."

Try telling him that God will give him the ability to align what you say with the Bible by helping him to understand how to correctly understand the Bible.

And if that doesn't quite do it, you might then want to tell him the world is filled with many other people, other than your neighbor, who also believe they correctly understand the Holy Bible without any need to ask God for any additional guidance.

And if that doesn't quite do it, you might then want to tell your neighbor that he/she shouldn't neglect to ask God for additional guidance simply because he/she has a Bible, the Bible, and doesn't need any more Bible.

And if that doesn't quite do it, I would kindly wave goodbye to your neighbor while telling him/her that God is there to help him/her whenever he/she wants some personally customized guidance to help him/her in his/her life whenever he/she really wants some additional guidance other than just that Bible that he/she has.

When was God replaced by the Bible? I see this as a graven image, where God is literally standing there waiting to speak to his children, and like the Pharisees and Sadducees, THE LAW has become preeminent above God himself, while in this case it is "The Word."

The parallels are striking IMHO.

Be careful that you don't diminish the worth and value of the Bible when talking to your neighbor(s).

The Bible is the word of God, in the sense that it contains the word of God, and there is nothing wrong with using the Bible as a tool when trying to learn about and understand God. It's just that there are additional ways which God can help us and we are not limited to only the Bible.

[the narrator]

Um, you just contradicted yourself. There is indeed a difference between persoanl inspiration and adding to the scriptural canon. That difference is that just a spritual confrimtion of something is not enough if it is not in the canon or the bible. When it pertains to doctrines about the bible or canon.

It is one thing to state "I will marry person X for I have had some personal inspiration about the matter" It is entirly differnt to state that the bible teaches "X" for I have had a personal revelation that it teaches "X" even though "X" is not found in the bible". I hope you see the difference.

I'll be honest. I couldn't quite understand what you were saying. Either it was your grammar or my illiteracy.

[the narrator]

Actually I don't think that is accurate either.... Can we get some EV's in here into this discussion to help us with what it is they actually do believe.

I am only studying theology with a bunch of evangelicals. Maybe they are all liars.

[robuchan]

My meetings with my neighbor continue, and I am absolutely blown away with how respectful he has been of our differences of belief. One phrase that he used regularly and that I have heard many time concerns me though. You could summarize this stand as, "No I will not pray to God to know the truth; The Bible IS the word of God and so only my ability to align what you say with the Bible determines what is true."

When was God replaced by the Bible? I see this as a graven image, where God is literally standing there waiting to speak to his children, and like the Pharisees and Sadducees, THE LAW has become preeminent above God himself, while in this case it is "The Word."

The parallels are striking IMHO.

Question for those that really think Christians have replaced God with the Bible. If you prayed and felt like you received inspiration from God that was completely opposed to what you read in scripture, with no possible way of explaining it away by calling it a difference in interpretation, would you trust what you felt you were receiving as inspiration? I think we're taught that we shouldn't ever trust revelation from God if it opposes the scriptures or the prophet. Is this any different?

[Jason]

My own observations and experiences studying Mormonism and Christianity as a graduate student.

My own observations and experiences lead me to exactly the opposite conclusion. Most non-Mormon Christians in my experience have little to no understanding of the Bible period, let alone knowing anything about how it was put together.

And the documentary hypothesis is only that, a hypothesis, not fact. As I mentioned earlier on another thread, the main problem with biblical criticism is that it tends to rule out the possibility of real prophecy having occurred.

[Lightbearer]

There is a clear difference between personal inspiration (which nearly all Christians believe in) and adding to the scriptural canon. Thus the Bible need not say that it is a closed canon. A witness of the spirit confirming it is all that is necessary for believing Christians.

I am quite certain that you have received plenty of divine inspiration that is not (nor will ever) be included in the LDS canon.

That is contradictory, if the Bible need not say it is a closed canon (and it does not) then I contend that their "personal inspiration" must be merely a "private interpretation" of men, not a witness from God. Because if one argues from the standpoint that God cannot speak (which is what a closed cannon is inferring) then how can personal inspiration be possible? What is the real difference? (Other than the obvious that it is included as a Standard Work) I mean who decided what books to include in the Bible? The Catholic Church? That is the point I never could understand about traditional christians, how can they be so sure the canon is closed? Did a Prophet declare it? If God could speak anciently and add to His word, then why not now? Is He a God that changes? Is He a respecter of persons? The notion that God would cease revealing His will 2,000 years ago is ridiculous to me.

[the narrator]

My own observations and experiences lead me to exactly the opposite conclusion. Most non-Mormon Christians in my experience have little to no understanding of the Bible period, let alone knowing anything about how it was put together.

I am not referring to all Christians. I am referring to those who actively self-describe themselves as evangelicals. My bet is that most self-described Christians have difficulty in describing how many apostles Jesus had. That says nothing about traditional Christianity, but rather the stupidity of humanity.

And the documentary hypothesis is only that, a hypothesis, not fact. As I mentioned earlier on another thread, the main problem with biblical criticism is that it tends to rule out the possibility of real prophecy having occurred.

There is much more going on besides that. Either you know that, or you just don't know much about it.

[semlogo]

Next time you are in Gospel doctrine ask everyone who wrote Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, the Timmothies, Titus, Hebrews, and the other non-Pauline epistles. Ask who wrote the Gospels. Ask who wrote the Torah.

Then go to a nearby evangelical Church. Ask everyone the same questions. I'm pretty sure that far more of the latter will be able to correctly answer the authorship issues.

Even better, go to BYU and ask all of the so-called 'professors of ancient scripture.'

Then go to a Christian seminary and ask their ancient scripture professors. The differences will be even greater.

In my experience, religious people of all stripes know very little about the origins of the Bible. But Latter-day Saints know a little more, because we find it permissible to be a little critical of it.

Then again, neither of us is speaking scientifically, and our personal experiences are not statistically significant.

[semlogo]

That is precisely the way in which they believe God witnessed it to them.

Substitute "their pastor" for God and I agree with you.

[the narrator]

That is contradictory,

No it's not.

if the Bible need not say it is a closed canon (and it does not) ...

according to your interpretations (which I agree with, I think)

...then I contend that their "personal inspiration" must be merely a "private interpretation" of men, not a witness from God.

Because if one argues from the standpoint that God cannot speak (which is what a closed cannon is inferring)...

There is your mistake. It does not infer that. It infer's that authoritative revelation (i.e. the Bible) has closed. Just as you believe that your private inspiration is not binding on anyone but yourself (and your family), most Christians believe that the personal inspiration is still available, but that it cannot be made authoritative/binding for everyone (i.e. added to the Bible).

then how can personal inspiration be possible?

By not claiming the straw man that you are trying to beat.

[Jason]

I am not referring to all Christians. I am referring to those who actively self-describe themselves as evangelicals. My bet is that most self-described Christians have difficulty in describing how many apostles Jesus had. That says nothing about traditional Christianity, but rather the stupidity of humanity.

"Stupidity of humanity?" How very charitable of you.

For the record, I do not ascribe the lack of knowledge of most Christians on Biblical matters to stupidity.

There is much more going on besides that. Either you know that, or you just don't know much about it.

Of course. I was merely speaking of the primary problem, which is significant enough to derail the whole field.

[the narrator]

Of course. I was merely speaking of the primary problem, which is significant enough to derail the whole field.

No. Not really.

[Jason]

No. Not really.

Yes, really.

[Ahab]

... snip

The notion that God would cease revealing His will 2,000 years ago is ridiculous to me.

Even though you don't agree with their claim on this issue, I think it may help you to at least understand why they make that claim.

For one thing, that claim is based on how they interpret the words of John in the book of Revelation, where John pronounces a curse on anyone who adds or takes away from that "book". They consider that "book" to be the whole Bible, rather than only the book of Revelation, and their idea of not taking anything away or adding to it means, to them, that no more scripture would be coming after that book.

There are some other scriptures in the Bible which they use to support their claim, too, but that's the gist of it.

Now, you and I both know those scriptures can be understood or interpreted in other ways which would not rule out any more scripture or personal revelation from God, but those other ways really don't matter to the people who accept that interpretation of the scriptures, because that isn't the way they interpret the scriptures, and calling it their "personal interpretation" of the scriptures doesn't really help them very much either, because as far as they are concerned, their idea is the same as God's idea, based on what God said in the Bible, and trying to help them overcome that idea in favor of another idea is seen, by them, as an attack on their whole religion.