altersteve Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 I've always found this funny. Every faithful Latter-day Saint on the planet believes that the Bible is 100% in line with LDS doctrine, and yet I see critics shove a few "proof texts" in my face all the time. I can't tell you how many times I've had Isaiah 44:6, John 1:18, John 4:24, and even Moroni 8:18 quoted to me to "refute" my beliefs. The fact is, though, every Latter-day Saint on the face of the earth will completely agree with all those verses.Maybe this is not the best idea for a discussion, but I just find this unbelievable. The critics need to try something else, because this just isn't working for them. Seeing that silly Matt Slick on CARM, for example, take random Bible verses out of context to attempt to refute the entirety of LDS theology, and then actually think that he's done it, is hilarious to me.
Rob Bowman Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Steve,I'm guessing this is aimed at the choir, since your tone is not inviting to those of us "silly" enough to think that the Bible disagrees with LDS theology.I've always found this funny. Every faithful Latter-day Saint on the planet believes that the Bible is 100% in line with LDS doctrine, and yet I see critics shove a few "proof texts" in my face all the time. I can't tell you how many times I've had Isaiah 44:6, John 1:18, John 4:24, and even Moroni 8:18 quoted to me to "refute" my beliefs. The fact is, though, every Latter-day Saint on the face of the earth will completely agree with all those verses.Maybe this is not the best idea for a discussion, but I just find this unbelievable. The critics need to try something else, because this just isn't working for them. Seeing that silly Matt Slick on CARM, for example, take random Bible verses out of context to attempt to refute the entirety of LDS theology, and then actually think that he's done it, is hilarious to me.
Cobalt-70 Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 I've always found this funny. Every faithful Latter-day Saint on the planet believes that the Bible is 100% in line with LDS doctrine, and yet I see critics shove a few "proof texts" in my face all the time. I can't tell you how many times I've had Isaiah 44:6, John 1:18, John 4:24, and even Moroni 8:18 quoted to me to "refute" my beliefs. The fact is, though, every Latter-day Saint on the face of the earth will completely agree with all those verses.Maybe this is not the best idea for a discussion, but I just find this unbelievable. The critics need to try something else, because this just isn't working for them. Seeing that silly Matt Slick on CARM, for example, take random Bible verses out of context to attempt to refute the entirety of LDS theology, and then actually think that he's done it, is hilarious to me.If your goal is to convert Mormons to something else, like evangelicalism or mainline Protestantism, then I agree this is a tactic doomed to fail because Mormons read these passages differently than do other groups; thus, readings of the Bible do not effectively refute Mormon beliefs. The reverse is also true: nobody ever really converts to Mormonism because someone uses the Bible to refute their non-Mormon beliefs; therefore, non-Mormon beliefs are not effectively refuted by the Bible either. 1
LeSellers Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 If your goal is to convert Mormons to something else, like evangelicalism or mainline Protestantism, then I agree this is a tactic doomed to fail because Mormons read these passages differently than do other groups; thus, readings of the Bible do not effectively refute Mormon beliefs. The reverse is also true: nobody ever really converts to Mormonism because someone uses the Bible to refute their non-Mormon beliefs; therefore, non-Mormon beliefs are not effectively refuted by the Bible either.That's what Joseph Smith thought, too.for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.Lehi
Calm Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) Maybe this is not the best idea for a discussion, but I just find this unbelievable. The critics need to try something else, because this just isn't working for them. It is rather amazing***** how some refuse to consider that it is their interpretations that we disagree with and not the text itself.Same with those who think that history is so superficial that there can be only one way to interpret that, refusing to see how their own assumptions are coloring their views.Those who understand this and support their interpretations in some other way besides insisting that it is the only way to read it are much more admirable, especially if they are willing to accept it as reasonable (understanding that such depends on assumptions as well as logic).....and tons more fun as well.******and a royal waste of time and effort Edited September 19, 2011 by calmoriah
Calm Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 The critics need to try something else, because this just isn't working for them. Since it is a premise of their faith, I believe...someone correct if I am wrong, that the Spirit will provide the true believer with the correct interpretation, I don't see this type of critic changing their ways any time soon.
Bill Hamblin Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Technically speaking, what is being discussed is that Evangelical interpretations of some passages of the Bible are different than LDS interpretations of those biblical passages. I find this is exactly what should be expected. The Bible, of course, means many, many different things to many different people and denominations throughout history.
Zakuska Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) Technically speaking, what is being discussed is that Evangelical interpretations of some passages of the Bible are different than LDS interpretations of those biblical passages. I find this is exactly what should be expected. The Bible, of course, means many, many different things to many different people and denominations throughout history.12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. Edited September 19, 2011 by Zakuska
LeSellers Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55707-using-the-bible-to-refute-lds-doctrine/page__view__findpost__p__1209046887Is there an echo in here?Lehi 1
Calm Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Technically speaking, what is being discussed is that Evangelical interpretations of some passages of the Bible are different than LDS interpretations of those biblical passages. I find this is exactly what should be expected. The Bible, of course, means many, many different things to many different people and denominations throughout history.Precisely said.
Jesterss Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 It is rather amazing***** how some refuse to consider that it is their interpretations that we disagree with and not the text itself.Same with those who think that history is so superficial that there can be only one way to interpret that, refusing to see how their own assumptions are coloring their views.Those who understand this and support their interpretations in some other way besides insisting that it is the only way to read it are much more admirable, especially if they are willing to accept it as reasonable (understanding that such depends on assumptions as well as logic).....and tons more fun as well.******and a royal waste of time and effortx2
ERMD Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 What makes me bang my head against the wall is when someone says, "The Bible says what it says. It interprets itself." Interestingly, the Bible's interpretation of itself always agrees with that individual's interpretation (which he is not making, rather simply communicating the Bible's interpretation of itself).
BCSpace Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 What makes me bang my head against the wall is when someone says, "The Bible says what it says. It interprets itself." Interestingly, the Bible's interpretation of itself always agrees with that individual's interpretation (which he is not making, rather simply communicating the Bible's interpretation of itself).And thus one can quickly come to the question of who is authorized to interpret the Bible. According to 2 Peter 1:19-21, prophets are necessary and anyone who practices exegesis not authorized.
Jesterss Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 And thus one can quickly come to the question of who is authorized to interpret the Bible. According to 2 Peter 1:19-21, prophets are necessary and anyone who practices exegesis not authorized.^exact definition of ones own interpretation of a biblical quote..
Deborah Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 LDS look at scripture so differently because we have a big picture of what the gospel is all about. It seems to me others are very limited in their beliefs, which center around Jesus Christ, who of course is central to the entire understanding of the gospel, but because they don't really understand the Atonement or the nature of God or our purpose here they are unable to go any further than just accepting Christ as their Savior without understanding who he really is.
Nathair/|\ Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) LDS look at scripture so differently because we have a big picture of what the gospel is all about. It seems to me others are very limited in their beliefs, which center around Jesus Christ, who of course is central to the entire understanding of the gospel, but because they don't really understand the Atonement or the nature of God or our purpose here they are unable to go any further than just accepting Christ as their Savior without understanding who he really is.Or who they really are. Edited September 19, 2011 by Nathair
altersteve Posted September 19, 2011 Author Posted September 19, 2011 LDS look at scripture so differently because we have a big picture of what the gospel is all about. It seems to me others are very limited in their beliefs, which center around Jesus Christ, who of course is central to the entire understanding of the gospel, but because they don't really understand the Atonement or the nature of God or our purpose here they are unable to go any further than just accepting Christ as their Savior without understanding who he really is.Exactly. When you take a step back and look at everything that LDS doctrine covers, it's a very large scope. I think some non-LDS Christians have a hard time understanding that.
Zakuska Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Exactly. When you take a step back and look at everything that LDS doctrine covers, it's a very large scope. I think some non-LDS Christians have a hard time understanding that.Well thats because we have how many more Books of scripture to deal with?
David T Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) I've always found this funny. Every faithful Latter-day Saint on the planet believes that the Bible is 100% in line with LDS doctrine, and yet I see critics shove a few "proof texts" in my face all the time.There are many faithful Latter-day Saints (myself included) who do not feel the bible is 100% in line with current understanding of LDS Doctrine, and, as members of a Church who prides itself on continuing revelation, and greater light and knowledge, don't think that it needs to be, or feel the need to create special definitions of terms and concepts to 'make it fit'. We also see many LDS member us out of context biblical "proof texts" to try to make the current Biblical text far more univocally modern LDS than it really is, or really should be. Edited September 19, 2011 by nackhadlow 1
Deborah Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 There are many faithful Latter-day Saints (myself included) who do not feel the bible is 100% in line with current understanding of LDS Doctrine....Of course it is continuing revelation that helps put it in context but I really don't think we have to stretch to see how LDS doctrine is contained in the Bible. I'm not sure I've seen people try to "make it fit". I think it's more a matter of because we have a bigger picture we read it differently and understand that there are parts of the Bible that are not translated correctly or are incomplete.
Mudcat Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) Hi Steve,In general, I am with Bill Hamblin and some of the other posters that follow that line of thinking. The differences are interpretative.But the reason for those interpretive differences are significant.As an Evangelical, I do hold to interpretations of the Bible that are in some respects completely distinct from LDS. I think a key factor in how we look at things differently is the fact, I typically look at Scripture(the Bible) as a singular source, with what I believe is the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course. Where LDS appeal to a number of sources, the Bible in the LDS respect is only a part of a collective group that is part and parcel with the teachings of it's leadership.I would agree that there are a number of non-LDS Christians who are not aware of the scope of LDS doctrine, many who simply realize some of the stark differences between LDS views and their own, likely find these differences as a deterrent for further investigation to the matter.However I would be more inclined to think that most of your critics have a descent grasp on LDS teachings, they just don't agree with you is all.Respectfully,Mudcat Edited September 19, 2011 by Mudcat 1
Rob Bowman Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Bill,You wrote:The Bible, of course, means many, many different things to many different people and denominations throughout history.Perhaps a few hundred years from now, or maybe far sooner, folks will be saying the same thing about the Book of Mormon. Things are already well under way in that regard. The same thing may be said for the teachings of Joseph Smith.
Rob Bowman Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 \While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to “ask of God,” concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture. (JS-H 1:11-13If we take this account at face value, Joseph seems to have regarded the meaning of the scripture in James 1:5 as sufficiently clear to act upon it prior to receiving any personal revelation from God.
Recommended Posts