The Most Widespread Form of Idolatry Today

[the narrator]

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

The notion that God abandoned his children for 2,000 years and didn't reveal to them for that time can also seem ridiculous to many.

[Jason]

The notion that God abandoned his children for 2,000 years and didn't reveal to them for that time can also seem ridiculous to many.

Actually it's His children that did the abandoning, not God.

[zeezrom]

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.

How did you come to that conclusion?

[semlogo]

How did you come to that conclusion?

Which one? That religious people tend not to know about the origins of the Bible or that LDS find it acceptable to be somewhat critical of the Bible?

[LeSellers]

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

While there are probably a lot of Saints who don't know (or care) who wrote individual books of the Bible, I (personally) know of hundreds of Evangelicals who know much less on the matter. My LDS acquaintances, friends, brothers and sisters, all know that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek while I have personal knowledge that many Evangelicals actually believe it when they say, "If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."

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.

Do you honestly believe that any Evangelical church would let a Latter-day Saint ask such a question?

We are heretics (at best).

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

Would that include Bob Millet, my old BYU roommate? I have asked him, and I am more than convinced he knows at least as much as you claim to.

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

I am sure there is a difference. However, I am also aware that many of these professors have no testimony of the Bible as the word of God anyway.

On the other hand, I would be startled and surprised to learn that even one BYU professor of ancient scripture discounted the divine sourcing of biblical scripture (the Songs of Solomon aside).

Lehi

[the narrator]

Actually it's His children that did the abandoning, not God.

Again, the notion that humanity refused god for 2,000 years seems ridiculous to many. Especially when even LDS are abandoning the antiquated notions of the dark ages and accepting that others, such as the reformers, were inspired by God.

I'm done with this whole discussion though. It was boring from the beginning.

[the narrator]

Would that include Bob Millet, my old BYU roommate? I have asked him, and I am more than convinced he knows at least as much as you claim to.

Haha. I know Bob pretty good. I suggest that you do ask him. Ask him how knowledgeable the BYU religion staff is with contemporary Biblical scholarship.

In fact, I'll be seeing him on Friday. I'll ask him then.

[Jason]

Again, the notion that humanity refused god for 2,000 years seems ridiculous to many. Especially when even LDS are abandoning the antiquated notions of the dark ages and accepting that others, such as the reformers, were inspired by God.

The LDS have always known that some individuals in the dark ages received inspiration. It's in the Book of Mormon, after all (see Columbus).

Yes, in fact humanity as a whole rejected large portions of the truth and light that it had received directly from the Savior - enough to prevent the priesthood and the Church from staying organized and active on the Earth. When the reformers had done their work and times changed it became possible to restore the organization - but only then.

I'm done with this whole discussion though. It was boring from the beginnig.

Boring? Is that why you were so active on the thread?

One might be tempted to say that a better hypothesis is that you know when you are beaten.

[Ahab]

The notion that God abandoned his children for 2,000 years and didn't reveal to them for that time can also seem ridiculous to many.

I believe God spoke to everyone during those 2000 years just as God speaks to everyone today.

It's just they had the idea that God didn't speak to them, even though he was, just as many say God doesn't speak to them today because they don't think he is.

Start with this very simple idea: Every good idea comes to us from God

Once you accept that idea as a fact, if you ever do, you can then continue to get other good ideas from God.

[saemo]

I believe God spoke to everyone during those 2000 years just as God speaks to everyone today.

It's just they had the idea that God didn't speak to them, even though he was, just as many say God doesn't speak to them today because they don't think he is.

Who is they?

[Ahab]

Who is they?

All the people who had the idea that God didn't speak to them anymore like God had always done in the past.

God speaks to all of us, and we know it is God by our faith both in and from God.

Without that faith, the default position is to have no faith both in and from God.

[Obiwan]

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.

Mormons aren't all that different.

"No I will not pray to God to know the truth; The Prophet IS the source of the word of God and so only my ability to align what you say with the Prophet determines what is true.""

BTW... the whole line about Christians refusing to pray to God for answers is a straw man.

1. Following the Prophet is only PART of the Restored Gospel, thus you bear false witness.

2. Yes, you are right, NORMALLY it would be a straw man, but guess what.... Anti-mormons ALWAYS tell us that we shouldn't pray about anything, in their efforts to try and discredit the Book of Mormon and Praying about it. They say the "heart will deceive" etc. etc.

The point of the statement is not that they don't pray about everything, it's that they are hypocrites and use a double standard against LDS simply because we believe one can Pray to know if something is true, such as the BOM. Thus, if you have a problem with the statement, talk to them, cause every single one of them use it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

You know as well as I do (I hope) that not all EV's share the same doctrine. I am not so sure that they would agree with what you have pointed out as what they believe.

[LeSellers]

Haha. I know Bob pretty good [sic].

Wow, I don't know him "good" at all, so you must know him much more gooderer than I do.

I suggest that you do ask him. Ask him how knowledgeable the BYU religion staff is with contemporary Biblical scholarship.

We haven't seen each other for years, but this was among the things he talked about when we did.

Nonetheless, I am convinced he does, certainly, and I have little doubt that most BYU religion professors are knowledgeable on the matter. Whether they accept "contemporary Biblical [sic] scholarship" is an entirely different question.

I know I don't, in toto. In fact, I submit that there is no "contemporary Biblical [sic] scholarship" if, by that, you mean, some monolithic bloc, or even a consensus, because there is no such agreement.

In fact, I'll be seeing him on Friday. I'll ask him then.

Please do, and say, "hey" from Le. (You might tell him my belt has gotten shorter since we spoke last. It's an inside joke.)

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

I am sure it is a little of column A and a little of column B.

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.

The 1st point is talking about revelation that would not be found in the bible but is true for that person, as it only applies to that person.

The 2nd point is trying to establish something that is true for that person and then projecting it on to others by saying that " the bible teaches doctrine "X" for I have had a personal revelation that it teaches doctrine "X" even though doctrine"X" is not found in the bible".

Doctrine X would be that there can be no more scripture but the bible.

The 2nd example is what I see a whole lot of others doing. Passing off a doctrine as biblical because they think God has shown it to them, in some form. If God really was going to show them this doctrine it would be in the Bible.

[Daimao]

It's funny that we touched on this subject in EQ the other week. One of the quorum members referred to it as "Bibolatry," which made me smile.

[Vance]

Would that include Bob Millet, my old BYU roommate? I have asked him, and I am more than convinced he knows at least as much as you claim to.

Lehi,

I take it that you aren't as impressed with the narrators OBVIOUS superior knowledge of all things as he is.

[LeSellers]

I take it that you aren't as impressed with the narrators OBVIOUS superior knowledge of all things as he is.

Well, I've always been a tough sell.

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Pray to know align myself with the Prophet?

Pray to know that the Prophet is right?

At least that is what I seem to learn at church each Sunday.

I should have realised a while back that all you are trying to do is show a double standard. I think you do not understand what the OP saying.

Praying to God to know the truth about something and claiming that "all I need to do is go to the bible to know if you speak the turth" are the same how? You seem to think they are

One is an attempt to communicate with God directly, the other is to take the place of prayer directly with God.

And I have had many people on my mission tell me that they didn't need to pray to God about anything to know if it is true. All they needed to do was go to God's word, the bible and compare it there.

[handys003]

Blooit - I understand what your saying. However your assertion can be easily misinterpreted. The Bible is the word is what you should have said. However your should have asked them if it's the only finished word of HF. Perhaps a discussion of the Council of Nicea should have been in order in relation to the lost books that were thrown out. Should they be discounted as lack of the word?

[blooit]

Blooit - I understand what your saying. However your assertion can be easily misinterpreted. The Bible is the word is what you should have said. However your should have asked them if it's the only finished word of HF. Perhaps a discussion of the Council of Nicea should have been in order in relation to the lost books that were thrown out. Should they be discounted as lack of the word?

Well, I see where you are coming from. My real feeling though has little to do with whether or not the Bible is the only real word of God, although that would be a great thread, but even if it were a closed canon, isn't it dangerous when we dismiss God from the process. To me, since the beginning of time, man has embraced "The Word" - of the past - but rejected God's contemporary revelations. This seems to be the pattern throughout history, and I contend that it is the same situation today, where many "Christians" do not properly differentiate between God and the Bible, and this at least borders on idolatry IMHO.

[Skylla]

Blooit, I am the new prophet. The first president and qof12 in Salt Lake are apostates.

Will you sincerely... I mean really sincerely... I mean fasting and heartfelt on your knees sincerely... pray to God and ask if I am his true prophet on the earth?

Will you do that Blooit?

You're done in this thread.

Skylla

[handys003]

Well, I see where you are coming from. My real feeling though has little to do with whether or not the Bible is the only real word of God, although that would be a great thread, but even if it were a closed canon, isn't it dangerous when we dismiss God from the process. To me, since the beginning of time, man has embraced "The Word" - of the past - but rejected God's contemporary revelations. This seems to be the pattern throughout history, and I contend that it is the same situation today, where many "Christians" do not properly differentiate between God and the Bible, and this at least borders on idolatry IMHO.

Well I was just wondering what your discussion friends would think such as the books that are in the Catholic Bible which is omitted from the protestant bible. Also such as The Gospels from the Nag Hammadi Collection as the word or are they unfit etc...liken unto BoM. You know where I'm going?

Like if they assert they don't have to pray that the bible is true and not the others then they dismiss the other books. Is the original Bible faulty then i.e...original as in the Catholic Bible established by the Council of Nicea. Their logic on not praying is faulty. The idea of revelation is dead to them?

I was wondering if you had that type of discussion yet?

[Mudcat]

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."

Could you be more specific here Blooit? You seem to be citing a verbatim quotation, but your usage of the term "summarize" leads me to think you are giving us the Readers Digest version.

What to the best of your recall, would you say was said? Was the neighbor speaking about praying about the BoM, or the truth in general, or something else?

Based upon your posed summary, it certainly seems that there is an a priori assumption that the Bible is God's word.

Have you asked your neighbor why they make such an assumption. If not, I would be curious to see how that discussion went, considering that LDS also think the Bible is God's word, at least to some degree.

As a side note, I would point out, that through the missionaries that I have entertained for missionary discussions, I was never asked to pray about the Bible, the D&C, the Articles of Faith or the PoGP. However, I have been asked to pray about the BoM and IIRC the need for a Prophet, on occasion. I never really thought about that before now, and don't really know what to make of it, now that I have thought about it.

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."

I think you would have to explore the a priori assumption of your neighbor before drawing any realistic parallels. IMO, the evangelicals I know see a great connection to God in the Bible, because we believe it is God's word. I don't think it would be considered a graven image. Evangelicals don't pray to the Bible, worship the Bible perform ordinances or praise the Bible, serve the Bible and so forth. These things are directed towards God.

The parallels are striking IMHO.

I don't, but to each his own, I suppose.

[saemo]

All the people who had the idea that God didn't speak to them anymore like God had always done in the past.

God speaks to all of us, and we know it is God by our faith both in and from God.

Without that faith, the default position is to have no faith both in and from God.

I think you've built yourself a strawman.