What Distinguishes The Evangelical Witness Vs. Lds Testimony

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

If God tells me something in Scripture, faith means accepting what he has already said, not asking him "Are you sure you meant that?" God has shared his thoughts with me--in Scripture. I believe what he says. The fact that I hear his word in Scripture does not make him any less real or personal to me.

[Franktalk]

....... For example, Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus rose physically from the grave. That is a non-negotiable doctrinal truth denied by that particular religion. We have no choice but to regard Jehovah's Witnesses as heretical. The Metropolitan Community Church generally acknowledges Jesus' resurrection from the dead and other doctrinal truths, but it also teaches that homosexual activity is normal and blessed by God. Such a teaching undermines a minimally acceptable Christian value system and leaves us no choice but to view the MCC as heretical.........

Yet you spend your time here. I would support you if you spent your time in those other areas.

[Rob Bowman]

Franktalk,

You wrote:

Yet you spend your time here. I would support you if you spent your time in those other areas.

I spend my time in a variety of areas. I have written four books on Jehovah's Witnesses and (so far) no books on Mormonism. I have engaged in public debates with Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals. Why should I take a principled stand against heresy from some religious groups and not from others?

[jo1952]

Bold mine. Given my perspective, one man's dishwasher is another mans prophet. If such a fellow can lead others to Christ, then IMO he has led them to faith in Christ and baptism by the Spirit.

No I didn't take it as an offense and I thought I was quite polite considering that immense gap you left open for a punchline.

Thanks.

You've gotta love the Mudcat!!!

Love,

jo

[CV75]

Why should I take a principled stand against heresy from some religious groups and not from others?

Because there are far too many for you to keep up with equitably or non-parochially.

[CV75]

The only way of determining even that the Bible is "true" is by the spirit.

Thank you—any lesser approach is akin to being force-fed stale toast by a baker who lost his license.

[LeSellers]

God has shared his thoughts with me--in Scripture. I believe what he says. The fact that I hear his word in Scripture does not make him any less real or personal to me.

Please recognize that when a person reads anything, the voice he hears, absent the Spirit, is not the voice of the author—it is his own voice. So the way I have to read your statement is not exactly what you wrote.

What you said, and the voice in my head confirms it, was "The fact that I hear my words in Scripture does not make him any less real or personal to me."

The Bible (your limited "Scripture", poor lad) does not say anything. It is mere ink on paper until you (or any other reader) take it up and interpret the words there. It is the interpretation that says something, and the interpretation is your own—it is not God speaking to you, although He may influence you (oooooops! you don't believe in personal revelation of this sort, sorry) in what you think about it, but you are responsible for what the Bible "says" to you. That's why, for instance, your God is nothing but a spirit: you have chosen to focus on that aspect of His being (and interpreting even that incorrectly) and to ignore that uncounted other references that point to His being that and more. That's why 1 Pet 3, 4 don't mean anything to you: your paradigm of God doesn't include, nor does it allow, such mercy as Peter reveals there. You can’t hear it because, sadly, for you, it's just not there.

That's why we Saints can take up the Bible and read a passage and hear the Bible say something completely different from what you hear it say in those same verses. We, however, have a different take on reading the scriptures. We do not believe the scriptures themselves "speak to us", but, rather, that the Holy Ghost is the one speaking when we study it out in our minds. That He will reveal the meaning the original author (and Author) had in mind for us, when He cause that words to be penned or engraved.

There is, for instance, not one useful thing in the Song of Solomon, but, because it's in your Bible, you must come up with a reason for it. (It's too large to simply ignore, so it must "say something" to you.) But when Jesus says a man must be baptized to enter the kingdom of God (or to fulfill all righteousness), your world view (since you have no Priesthood) must reject that simple statement, and hear a different message.

If the Bible (or any other scripture) actually said something, there would be no possibility of two people grasping different messages. Were the Bible clear, there would be only one "Bible-believing" church. But there are many, there are thousands, indeed, there are myriads.

The distinctions between your understanding of the Bible and ours fall as they do because you are quite willing to assume that you, personally, are the arbiter of what the Bible "says", while we must, by reason of the IX Article of Faith, be open to the fact that there is more truth than that which resides between our own ears.

Lehi

Edited August 23, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mudcat]

I quoted your whole post because I am not quite sure what you want me to respond to. Yes, as a little boy I was a believing Catholic and an altar boy, but I stopped believing in my 20's and was a communist student radical and atheist.

It was actually reading William James and other pragmatists that helped me realize that religious experience could justify religious beliefs- and then I had a strong experience with the Book of Mormon. I see no intellectual reason whatsoever to believe the Bible or even in the existence of Jesus Christ, quite frankly- I believe only because I believe God has spoken to me through the Holy Spirit, THAT is the basis for everything.

Does that answer your question?

In part it does, but part is still open.

When I asked, "First question has to with what seem to be deductive verifications. If it is revealed to you that the BoM is true, then what can actually be deduced from such a revelation aside from the revelation of it's truth?"

What I meant by that was, If you are given a testimony of the BoM, as you believe you have been given. Then I think it would be a safe assumption you take what is in the BoM as true.

Does such a revelation of its truth lead a person to other deductive sorts of truth? In example, if we assume the BoM is true, then can it be deduced that JS is a prophet, the CoJCoLDS is true, the D&C, PoGP is true and so forth.

What I am wondering in specific, is if revelation by the Holy Spirits confirmation is necessary for all aspects within the CoJCoLDS for something being true or can you actually make safe assumptions on some things deductively.. and if so what do you think some of those assumptions might be?

I almost want to ask the question, when you say you believe it is true, then in what way or how is it true? I am afraid that would bog things down.. because it is tangential. So don't feel compelled to answer, I may start a thread on it at some point though.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

Apparently a couple of your fellow Mormons liked your post patronizingly expressing sadness for me, the "poor lad" whose Scripture is nothing more than his own voice reverberating between his ears. But I found it to be a condescending exercise in twisting what I said into something unrecognizable as far as what I actually believe.

[Ahab]

Ahab,

If God tells me something in Scripture, faith means accepting what he has already said, not asking him "Are you sure you meant that?" God has shared his thoughts with me--in Scripture. I believe what he says. The fact that I hear his word in Scripture does not make him any less real or personal to me.

That's all fine and dandy as long as you recognize what scripture is, but how do you first find out what scripture is as well as how to correctly understand what is written.

For example, apply what you just said to the Book of Mormon.

If God tells me something in Scripture (like in the Book of Mormon), faith means accepting what he has already said (in the Book of Mormon), not asking him "Are you sure you meant that?" (I was suggesting that you ask him how to correctly understand scripture, including what is written in the Book of Mormon). God has shared his thoughts with me--in Scripture (including the Book of Mormon). I believe what he says. (No you don't). The fact that I hear his word in Scripture does not make him any less real or personal to me.(You don't hear his word in the Book of Mormon, and yet others do and know it is scripture).

[Vance]

Lehi,

Apparently a couple of your fellow Mormons liked your post patronizingly expressing sadness for me, the "poor lad" whose Scripture is nothing more than his own voice reverberating between his ears. But I found it to be a condescending exercise in twisting what I said into something unrecognizable as far as what I actually believe.

I notice that you don't address the issues he raised nor do you clarify or expose his supposed twists. I wonder why.

[Ares]

OP folks OP... Don't make this about each other!

[LeSellers]

Apparently a couple of your fellow Mormons liked your post patronizingly expressing sadness for me, the "poor lad" whose Scripture is nothing more than his own voice reverberating between his ears. But I found it to be a condescending exercise in twisting what I said into something unrecognizable as far as what I actually believe.

You could explain why I'm mistaken, rather than leaving me to guess. Because, you see, I, too, hear my own voice in most of what I read, including, on occasion, the scriptures.

However, I was not referring to the voices in your head when I said, "The Bible (your limited 'Scripture', poor lad) does not say anything," it was to the Bible. It was a wry little aside whereby I meant that the Bible, as one rather small book, and to which you and most of the Christian world have arbitrarily limited yourselves, cannot contain the vastness of the truths of God. We Saints are pleased to have much more revealed to us than is contained in those 66 books found in Bible. "Pleased", because we know that God chooses to reveal to His sons and daughters as much of the truth as they are prepared to receive. It was so in Ex 20, and it remains so in Doc&Cov 138/OD 2.

You have not said anything I did not expect in this, and the failure to address the points I raised is ... unsettling.

Lehi

Edited August 23, 2011 by LeSellers

[KevinG]

So it boils down to this.

Evangelical Doctrine (according to Rob Bowman) = "The Holy Spirit convinces people of their sin and of the trustworthiness of Christ, and brings them to repentance and faith."

LDS Doctrine (according to Moroni) = "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."

Evangelical and LDS Docrine (according to John) = "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I can see how you would interpret the verses from John as being exclusively about Christ, repentance and faith even though my interpretation provides a much broader role for the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for helping me identify the distinction according to your beliefs.

[CV75]

So it boils down to this.

Evangelical Doctrine (according to Rob Bowman) = "The Holy Spirit convinces people of their sin and of the trustworthiness of Christ, and brings them to repentance and faith."

LDS Doctrine (according to Moroni) = "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."

Evangelical and LDS Docrine (according to John) = "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I can see how you would interpret the verses from John as being exclusively about Christ, repentance and faith even though my interpretation provides a much broader role for the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for helping me identify the distinction according to your beliefs.

But why does exclusivity about Christ exclude all things? Are they not one and the same: Ephesians 1:10; 3:9; 4:15. What is "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me (Phillipians 4:13)" supposed to mean if Christ and all things are not one and the same?

[KevinG]

But why does exclusivity about Christ exclude all things? Are they not one and the same: Ephesians 1:10; 3:9; 4:15. What is "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me (Phillipians 4:13)" supposed to mean if Christ and all things are not one and the same?

While I understand Rob's position given his frame of reference, I don't share his conclusions given my frame of reference as a Latter-day Saint.

For example: Doctrine and Covenants section 93 is a wonderful revelation about the nature of truth and our relationship with it through God. It is one of my favorite scriptures and Rob would benefit in his study of Mormonism by reading it, but I do not hold Rob to the standard of considering Latter-day revelation when he explains his own belief system. However I do hope he respects the fullness of LDS doctrines when writing about what we believe.

[Ahab]

While I understand Rob's position given his frame of reference, I don't share his conclusions given my frame of reference as a Latter-day Saint.

For example: Doctrine and Covenants section 93 is a wonderful revelation about the nature of truth and our relationship with it through God. It is one of my favorite scriptures and Rob would benefit in his study of Mormonism by reading it, but I do not hold Rob to the standard of considering Latter-day revelation when he explains his own belief system.

His own belief system includes certain beliefs about Latter-day revelation, though.

If he were totally ignorant of Latter-day revelation, or if he didn't make any judgment at all in regards to Latter-day revelation... either for or against... that would be one thing.

Rob's perspective and belief system is something else, though.

However I do hope he respects the fullness of LDS doctrines when writing about what we believe.

You can hope all you want, and for whatever you want, but Rob is showing by his own works and words what he thinks of Latter-day revelation... including our testimony of it... and unless he changes what you see from him is what you are going to continue to get from him.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

That's all fine and dandy as long as you recognize what scripture is, but how do you first find out what scripture is as well as how to correctly understand what is written.

For example, apply what you just said to the Book of Mormon.

If God tells me something in Scripture (like in the Book of Mormon), faith means accepting what he has already said (in the Book of Mormon), not asking him "Are you sure you meant that?" (I was suggesting that you ask him how to correctly understand scripture, including what is written in the Book of Mormon). God has shared his thoughts with me--in Scripture (including the Book of Mormon). I believe what he says. (No you don't). The fact that I hear his word in Scripture does not make him any less real or personal to me.(You don't hear his word in the Book of Mormon, and yet others do and know it is scripture).

I apply the very same tests to the Book of Mormon that I do to any other postbiblical text that any religious group claims to be scripture or inspired by God, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Qur'an, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, or whatever. There are three basic types of tests. Here I will summarize those tests and illustrate how they work by giving my opinion for how I think the Gospel of Thomas fares. (1) Does the evidence support the core claims made for or about this text, such as who wrote it and when? The Gospel of Thomas fails this test because it definitely was not written by the apostle Thomas, as it explicitly claims. That is, no historian or scholar of any perspective argues that Thomas was actually the author. (2) Is the text, or the religious system of which it is a part, faithful to the gospel of salvation taught in the New Testament? The Gospel of Thomas also fails this test because its view of salvation is gnosticizing and mystical, in clear contrast to that of the New Testament. (3) Where the text makes claims, either historical or prophetic, that can be clearly and definitely tested, do those claims hold up? The Gospel of Thomas is largely untestable in this regard because it makes little or no claims either historical (other than asserting that Jesus said various things) or prophetic. So the Gospel of Thomas clearly fails two of the three tests and gets no support from the third test. Overall result: It fails.

Now, have I acted improperly in denying that the Gospel of Thomas is inspired scripture on the basis of these considerations? Or must I withhold judgment until receiving a private, direct revelation from the Holy Spirit that he did not inspire that particular text?

[Ahab]

I apply the very same tests to the Book of Mormon that I do to any other postbiblical text that any religious group claims to be scripture or inspired by God, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Qur'an, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, or whatever. There are three basic types of tests. Here I will summarize those tests and illustrate how they work by giving my opinion for how I think the Gospel of Thomas fares. (1) Does the evidence support the core claims made for or about this text, such as who wrote it and when? The Gospel of Thomas fails this test because it definitely was not written by the apostle Thomas, as it explicitly claims. That is, no historian or scholar of any perspective argues that Thomas was actually the author.

I wish you had stuck to the Book of Mormon as an example. I'm not familiar with the 'Gospel of Thomas' or those who speak for it or against it, but I do know the Book of Mormon is scripture because God has told me he inspired the people who wrote it, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

(2) Is the text, or the religious system of which it is a part, faithful to the gospel of salvation taught in the New Testament? The Gospel of Thomas also fails this test because its view of salvation is gnosticizing and mystical, in clear contrast to that of the New Testament. (3) Where the text makes claims, either historical or prophetic, that can be clearly and definitely tested, do those claims hold up? The Gospel of Thomas is largely untestable in this regard because it makes little or no claims either historical (other than asserting that Jesus said various things) or prophetic. So the Gospel of Thomas clearly fails two of the three tests and gets no support from the third test. Overall result: It fails.

Now, have I acted improperly in denying that the Gospel of Thomas is inspired scripture on the basis of these considerations? Or must I withhold judgment until receiving a private, direct revelation from the Holy Spirit that he did not inspire that particular text?

Let's summarize your reasons for rejecting the Gospel of Thomas as inspired scripture:

1) According to your level of knowledge and understanding, ie wisdom, including the wisdom you perceive to be in other people you rely upon for your own testimony, no historian or scholar of any perspective argues that Thomas was actually the author.

2) According to your level of knowledge and understanding, ie wisdom, including the wisdom you perceive to be in other people you rely upon for your own testimony, its view of salvation is gnosticizing and mystical, in clear contrast to that of the New Testament

In summary, it looks to me like you're relying upon your own wisdom and the wisdom of others who you consider to be wise, rather than getting an answer (testimony) from God who is much more wise than those arms of flesh you rely upon for your own testimony.

[KevinG]

His own belief system includes certain beliefs about Latter-day revelation, though.

If he were totally ignorant of Latter-day revelation, or if he didn't make any judgment at all in regards to Latter-day revelation... either for or against... that would be one thing.

Rob's perspective and belief system is something else, though.

You can hope all you want, and for whatever you want, but Rob is showing by his own works and words what he thinks of Latter-day revelation... including our testimony of it... and unless he changes what you see from him is what you are going to continue to get from him.

I understand. I will continue to share my understanding and hold others accountable for not twisting my meanings or beliefs as long as they are on this board. If their misunderstandings are unintentional then they will be taught and know better. If they persist in retaining biases that are not true they will at least know that they have been corrected and any false witness is upon their conscience.

I have already expressed my objections to what Rob does with his information and misinformation about Latter-day Saints. I was challenged to show what exactly he got from our board here that was misrepresented (which of course is near impossible knowing he gets his information from multiple sources, good, bad and ugly) and told he would correct any misinterpretations (which, forgive me, given the history of converstaions in this board does not fill me with optimism).

This converstaion has been educational to me. It reinforces my understanding that the single most significant divide between the LDS and other Christians is that we believe in Latter-day revelation and an ongoing conversation with God, while much of the Christian world believes God has already said what is necessary for us to know about our salvation and it is contained in a closed canon. The paradox as I have pointed out is that contrary to Robs explanation many good Christians I know petition God to bless them with knowledge and wisdom concerning a wide variety of life concerns and issues beyond the scope of knowledge of Christ and sin. This seems to me to be more consistent with the LDS view that the Spirit will testify to the truth of all things.

Moderators: please help me clean up my post- it wont quote correctly.

Done - Ares. Don't hit submit more than once if you experience delays.

Edited August 23, 2011 by DaddyG

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

I wish you had stuck to the Book of Mormon as an example.

I chose to use a different example precisely because I wanted you to consider the reasoning I use apart from the Book of Mormon. But you would have none of it.

You wrote:

Let's summarize your reasons for rejecting the Gospel of Thomas as inspired scripture:

1) According to your level of knowledge and understanding, ie wisdom, including the wisdom you perceive to be in other people you rely upon for your own testimony, no historian or scholar of any perspective argues that Thomas was actually the author.

2) According to your level of knowledge and understanding, ie wisdom, including the wisdom you perceive to be in other people you rely upon for your own testimony, its view of salvation is gnosticizing and mystical, in clear contrast to that of the New Testament

In summary, it looks to me like you're relying upon your own wisdom and the wisdom of others who you consider to be wise, rather than getting an answer (testimony) from God who is much more wise than those arms of flesh you rely upon for your own testimony.

Your criticism here is based on a false dichotomy: Either it's my wisdom or it's God's wisdom. But if God enables me to have some wisdom, it is in that sense my wisdom, i.e., I would be (to that extent) wise. The Bible describes a number of human beings as wise; there's nothing wrong with humans drawing on the wisdom they gain as long as that wisdom is based on the fear of the LORD (as Proverbs repeatedly says).

In any case, I was not relying on my own wisdom. I was relying on God's wisdom, because God has revealed in the Bible how we ought to test prophetic claims. I simply follow his directions in the matter. To do otherwise would be...unwise.

[KevinG]

Now, have I acted improperly in denying that the Gospel of Thomas is inspired scripture on the basis of these considerations? Or must I withhold judgment until receiving a private, direct revelation from the Holy Spirit that he did not inspire that particular text?

This is a false choice. We depend on reason and revelation to understand the things of God.

Allow me to share what I did on the thread about the Qu'Ran (Koran):

"I want to clarify something that I think the LDS get unfairly hammered on by critics. In addition to pondering and praying about things to find if they are true, the Holy Ghost also works as a constant companion and I have found in my reading of this and other important texts my mind and spirit are ministered to constantly, helping me divine what is good and truthful from what is in error as I read and ponder."

There can be truth and error in all texts written or interpreted by man. Our own minds and perceptions can be flawd and our understanding is imcomplete (through a glass darkly) That is why the Holy Spirit is a critical resource for us to understand fullness of truth.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

The paradox as I have pointed out is that contrary to Robs explanation many good Christians I know petition God to bless them with knowledge and wisdom concerning a wide variety of life concerns and issues beyond the scope of knowledge of Christ and sin.

Of course, I explicitly denied limiting the knowledge and wisdom Christians may receive from God to matters about Christ and sin. We simply disagree on the "delivery system."

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Of course, I explicitly denied limiting the knowledge and wisdom Christians may receive from God to matters about Christ and sin. We simply disagree on the "delivery system."

Sorry I didn't understand. What is the delivery system for other revelations of knowledge and wisdom from God if not the Holy Spirit?

[KevinG]

In summary, it looks to me like you're relying upon your own wisdom and the wisdom of others who you consider to be wise, rather than getting an answer (testimony) from God who is much more wise than those arms of flesh you rely upon for your own testimony.

That is a common error among Doctoral candidates even among the Saints.

(O.K. that was a low blow - I just couldn't resist)