Using The Bible To Refute Lds Doctrine

[altersteve]

If 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.

Any time God speaks to a person through scripture is considered personal revelation. It was revelation, therefore, that led to Joseph's decision to act upon the counsel given in James 1:5.

Edited September 19, 2011 by altersteve

[Rob Bowman]

BCSpace,

You wrote:

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.

But apparently I cannot know that this interpretation of 2 Peter 1:19-21 is correct unless I accept the modern prophet's authorized interpretation as correct. So now I must presuppose that this interpretation of 2 Peter 1:19-21 is correct in order to know that it is correct.

A classic case of petitio principii.

I like to explain the paradox here as the Chinese Bible Syndrome:

"This is Chinese Bible. You cannot understand Chinese Bible except by listening to Lee--God's prophet on earth."

"How do I know that Lee is God's prophet on earth?"

"Says so in Chinese Bible."

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I don't think the scope of Mormonism is any greater than trinitarianism. Trinitarianism purports to describe a God that rules the entire universe, fills the entire universe with his presence, and causes the universe to exist. That seems like a pretty totalizing worldview. Mormonism, by contrast, describes a limited local god that is physically finite, fixed to a particular location in space, and did not create ex nihilo, but merely organized our local section of the pre-existing universe. I think the difference is that Mormonism is more elaborate than trinitarianism. Mormonism answers more questions, but each answer leads to far more new unanswered questions.

[Ahab]

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.

Well, even if Steve thinks its funny and outright ridiculous, you could chime in with some reasoning to try to explain how that tactic of yours is supposed to work to try to help us.

Or, better yet, you too could see how ridiculous it is and just stop doing that kind of thing while trying to get your buddies to do likewise.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Any time God speaks to a person through scripture is considered personal revelation. It was revelation, therefore, that led to Joseph's decision to act upon the counsel given in James 1:5.

Fair enough. So when God spoke to me through Acts 17:11 to tell me to test Mormonism by examining the Scriptures to see if what Joseph Smith taught was true, that was personal revelation.

[altersteve]

So now I must presuppose that this interpretation of 2 Peter 1:19-21 is correct in order to know that it is correct.

Of course. This is how we come to conclusion of anything being correct. We must presume that something is correct in order for us to put it to the test. The Book of Mormon is a perfect example. We won't come to a knowledge of its truthfulness by presupposing that it is a 19th-century American work, we must presuppose, even hypothetically, that it is what it claims to be. Similarly, we must suppose that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God in order for us to know for sure that he was. We must suppose that Jesus Christ not only existed but also that He was and is the Son of God and Savior of mankind before we can know the truth of these things with certainty. Does that make sense?

Fair enough. So when God spoke to me through Acts 17:11 to tell me to test Mormonism by examining the Scriptures to see if what Joseph Smith taught was true, that was personal revelation.

Who am I to deny that?

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Of course. This is how we come to conclusion of anything being correct. We must presume that something is correct in order for us to put it to the test. The Book of Mormon is a perfect example. We won't come to a knowledge of its truthfulness by presupposing that it is a 19th-century American work, we must presuppose, even hypothetically, that it is what it claims to be. Similarly, we must suppose that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God in order for us to know for sure that he was. We must suppose that Jesus Christ not only existed but also that He was and is the Son of God and Savior of mankind before we can know the truth of these things with certainty. Does that make sense?

Not to me. I think you are equivocating or confusing presupposing something with considering something hypothetically. I am quite comfortable with considering as a hypothetical possibility that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. We then test that hypothesis by examining the facts to see if they match the hypothesis. To "suppose" something for the sake of investigation or learning is to consider that something might be true. This is different from "presupposing," which means to accept as a given that something is true (not just that it might be true).

I had written: So when God spoke to me through Acts 17:11 to tell me to test Mormonism by examining the Scriptures to see if what Joseph Smith taught was true, that was personal revelation. You replied:

Who am I to deny that?

I don't know, but I do know this: what I understand Acts 17:11 to mean is precisely the opposite of what Joseph Smith said that he understood James 1:5 to mean. He thought that James 1:5 was a revelation to him that he should give up hope of knowing the truth by testing different religious claims by the Scriptures and instead he needed to get a personal revelation concerning the true church directly from God. I think that Acts 17:11 is a revelation to me to test different religious claims by the Scriptures. Either Joseph Smith misunderstood James 1:5, or I am misunderstanding Acts 17:11, or these scriptures teach contradictory messages about how to test religious claims.

[Bill Hamblin]

I don't know, but I do know this: what I understand Acts 17:11 to mean is precisely the opposite of what Joseph Smith said that he understood James 1:5 to mean. He thought that James 1:5 was a revelation to him that he should give up hope of knowing the truth by testing different religious claims by the Scriptures and instead he needed to get a personal revelation concerning the true church directly from God. I think that Acts 17:11 is a revelation to me to test different religious claims by the Scriptures. Either Joseph Smith misunderstood James 1:5, or I am misunderstanding Acts 17:11, or these scriptures teach contradictory messages about how to test religious claims.

They're complimentary.

By the way, the "things" they were examining was whether Jesus was the Messiah.

And they scriptures they were using was the Hebrew Bible.

And note that the result of this examination was that "many believed" (17:12), while, obviously, many (or most?) did not. Thus, in fact, the result of appeal to the Hebrew Bible was indecisive, and led to different interpretations and sects. And, as I noted, this is precisely what we can expect from an appeal to the Bible. It is not, and never has been, a conclusive and decisive source for truth.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

Of course. In fact, it began during JS's lifetime (just as divisions among Jews and Christians as to the meaning of the Hebrew Bible began during the lifetime of the Apostles). So?

We do have continuing revelation for a reason, you know, just like the early apostles did. Too bad you don't!

[Franktalk]

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.

Yes and no. When I read the Bible I came to my own conclusions about what it said. In my view the Bible makes a case for Mormon doctrine and this was before I read the BOM, D and C, and the Pearl. Many times in scripture it became obvious that some truths were not being revealed. A simple reading of Daniel shows this. So in my mind I filled in what was missing using my view of God's character. As it turns out what I came up with is pretty much Mormon doctrine. Now when I read the BOM I still had to determine for myself if it was scripture. Just because a book agrees with me is not a reason to call it the Word from God. In fact it should make it harder. It took me about two years before I accepted the Mormon books. And since that time I have uncovered dozens of links between the Bible and Mormon doctrine. For me it is a matter of interpretation. If someone has the mind set that the Bible is sealed then they will read any new book in that light. But scripture has been gathering for thousands of years why would God change this pattern. It was out of character to wait until 1830 or so. But since the BOM fills in that time gap it makes perfect sense. Scripture was being written just not in Europe. Good thing because they would have just burned them all at the stake like they did with so many others.

[Deborah]

Mormonism, by contrast, describes a limited local god that is physically finite, fixed to a particular location in space, and did not create ex nihilo, but merely organized our local section of the pre-existing universe. I think the difference is that Mormonism is more elaborate than trinitarianism. Mormonism answers more questions, but each answer leads to far more new unanswered questions.

Local God? You do not understand Mormon belief about God and his purposes. "Merely organized"? Seriously. Do you have any idea of the magnitude of that concept. What is greater the magician who can pull things out of thin air, or the creator of intricate design from the elements that have always existed? The fact that the Mormon God has a far more intricate plan for his children than merely letting them bow down and worship shows me a God of great power and great love that he would be willing to share all that he has and is.

[altersteve]

Local God? You do not understand Mormon belief about God and his purposes. "Merely organized"? Seriously. Do you have any idea of the magnitude of that concept. What is greater the magician who can pull things out of thin air, or the creator of intricate design from the elements that have always existed? The fact that the Mormon God has a far more intricate plan for his children than merely letting them bow down and worship shows me a God of great power and great love that he would be willing to share all that he has and is.

The "Mormon God" does not create something from nothing, He creates order from chaos. This is extremely significant. Just as He created the universe from chaos, He can also mend and bring peace and order into our souls and lives if we let Him. I love that concept.

[Zakuska]

Steve,

You wrote:

Not to me. I think you are equivocating or confusing presupposing something with considering something hypothetically. I am quite comfortable with considering as a hypothetical possibility that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. We then test that hypothesis by examining the facts to see if they match the hypothesis. To "suppose" something for the sake of investigation or learning is to consider that something might be true. This is different from "presupposing," which means to accept as a given that something is true (not just that it might be true).

I had written: So when God spoke to me through Acts 17:11 to tell me to test Mormonism by examining the Scriptures to see if what Joseph Smith taught was true, that was personal revelation. You replied:

<snip>

I don't know, but I do know this: what I understand Acts 17:11 to mean is precisely the opposite of what Joseph Smith said that he understood James 1:5 to mean. He thought that James 1:5 was a revelation to him that he should give up hope of knowing the truth by testing different religious claims by the Scriptures and instead he needed to get a personal revelation concerning the true church directly from God. I think that Acts 17:11 is a revelation to me to test different religious claims by the Scriptures. Either Joseph Smith misunderstood James 1:5, or I am misunderstanding Acts 17:11, or these scriptures teach contradictory messages about how to test religious claims.

I was personally impressed by some of the hymns in the Methodist hymnals at the time and were probably sung at the "non-existant" 1820 Revival Joseph attended and other meetings ealier as well.

Because camp-meetings “ought to be almost continually vocal with psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs,”217 publishers circulated hundreds to choose from. “HYMN XII” in Methodist minister Stith Mead’s 1811 collection was one that Palmyra’s revivalists of 1820 probably sang, just as Latter-day Saints have continued to do so to the present:

SWEET is the work, my God, my King.

To Praise thy name[,] give thanks and sing.218

Another selection for New York’s rural camp-meetings was “Hymn 44″ as published at Poughkeepsie the same year as Mead’s hymnal:

I know that my Redeemer lives,

What comfort this sweet sentence gives!

He lives, he lives, who once was dead,

He lives[,] my ever living head.219

Of these two hymns, only the latter was in the first hymnal of the new church Joseph Smith Jr. eventually organized.220

Of greater importance for understanding the First Vision were other selections from New York hymnals. Among the songs Joseph undoubtedly joined in singing at Palmyra’s camp-meeting in June 1820 was this one from the 1811 Poughkeepsie collection of hymns Usually Sung at Camp-Meetings:

O do not be discourag’d

For Jesus is your friend,

And if you lack for knowledge,

He’ll not refuse to lend;

Neither will he upbraid you,

Though often you request

Those words restated the “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God” passage from the New Testament’s Epistle of James that Joseph said inspired him in 1820. This hymn’s first line (“O When shall I see Jesus”) implied that such “knowledge” could reach the teenager through actually seeing the Savior during this life.221

Palmyra’s 1820 camp-meeting attenders definitely heard that hymn as revivalists “almost continually” participated in days and nights of singing. Its words were also in Reverend Mead’s 1811 hymnal,222 and by 1817 had been reprinted in nine editions of Totten’s New York hymns USUALLY SUNG AT CAMP-MEETINGS.223 In addition to eight printings of a Boston hymnal by 1817, those words were also in two hymnals of 1819, including New York’s fourth edition of Hymns and Spiritual Songs For the Use of Religious Assemblies.224 Rather than a sermon, it was a universally sung camp-meeting hymn that inspired Joseph Smith with the promise of James 1: 5.

From 1809 to 1817, nine editions of Totten’s New York hymnal even affirmed the literal reality of having a daytime vision of Jesus:

As at the time of noon,

My quadrant FAITH, I take,

To view my CHRIST, my sun,

If he the clouds should break:

I’m happy when his face I see,

I know then whereabouts I be.225

By 1817, these words had also appeared in the eight editions of Boston’s hymnal.226 It should be no surprise that many American revivalists published their visions of Jesus, even of seeing the Father and Son together.227

In 1809 Totten’s New York collection of hymns USUALLY SUNG AT CAMPMEETINGS even explained how a young man could obtain such a vision:

ONE ev’ning, pensive as I lay,

Alone upon the ground,

As I to God began to pray,

A light shone all around.

These words with power went through my heart

I’ve come to set you free;

Death[,] h***[,] nor grave shall never part,

My love (my son) from thee.228

What a more apt place for a 14 year old boy to be inspired than his local Church Hymnal.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Ah, but whose continuing revelation? Monson's? Jeffs's?

Of course. In fact, it began during JS's lifetime (just as divisions among Jews and Christians as to the meaning of the Hebrew Bible began during the lifetime of the Apostles). So?

We do have continuing revelation for a reason, you know, just like the early apostles did. Too bad you don't!

[Zakuska]

The "Mormon God" does not create something from nothing, He creates order from chaos. This is extremely significant. Just as He created the universe from chaos, He can also mend and bring peace and order into our souls and lives if we let Him. I love that concept.

Just think. The Christian God is responsible for the creation of Chaos. ex nihilo. There by... is directly responsible for all the suffering.

[Palerider]

Anyone here ever heard of a psychological phenomenon called:

Confirmation Bias

"Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence."

Science Daily

[Franktalk]

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.

It is expected that the Bible and the BOM will seem to be different in some areas. You must be aware that many areas of scripture are not open for us at this time. Yes we can read the words but the meaning is not open. There is spiritual blindness on us. Only at the end of the last days will all scripture be open. I know that many areas in the Bible are opening today but the Bible is so filled with layers of understanding it will probably double in content before the end. I am so looking forward to that. So don't be troubled by these areas. Have faith. Sometimes years pass before I understand a verse and place it in proper context and content. The words did not change but my understanding did. If we knew just how much is open and how much is blocked I think we would be shocked. Again have faith. One of the reasons that there are so many interpretations out there is due to this very reason.

[Ahab]

I don't know, but I do know this: what I understand Acts 17:11 to mean is precisely the opposite of what Joseph Smith said that he understood James 1:5 to mean. He thought that James 1:5 was a revelation to him that he should give up hope of knowing the truth by testing different religious claims by the Scriptures and instead he needed to get a personal revelation concerning the true church directly from God.

You may think that's what Joseph thought James 1:5 was saying but I don't see any evidence to support your conclusion.

Joseph said that scripture brought to his mind the idea that if anyone asked God for wisdom, God would give it and not upbraid him for asking for it. I don't think Joseph really expected to get a personal visit from God, himself, along with his son, Jesus Christ. I think he only thought that he needed more wisdom than he then had, and that an appeal to the scriptures, themselves, was not enough because many people understood the scriptures so differently than an appeal to the Bible, itself, seemed to him to be pretty much pointless, because pretty much all he would get out of that is some understanding of the scriptures that some other group had already thought of without knowing or being wise enough to know if that was the correct understanding.

I think that Acts 17:11 is a revelation to me to test different religious claims by the Scriptures.

It is, but you also need some wisdom to know how to arrive at the correct understanding and God is a good person to ask for that.

Either Joseph Smith misunderstood James 1:5, or I am misunderstanding Acts 17:11, or these scriptures teach contradictory messages about how to test religious claims.

Or... there is another possibility that you don't seem to have thought of, yet.

Do you see why you need more wisdom than you have now?

[Zakuska]

Anyone here ever heard of a psychological phenomenon called:

Confirmation Bias

"Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence."

Science Daily

And there is no more apt place to print that than "Science Daily".

The whole scientific process is geared like this. Come up with a hypothesis and then find things that confirm your hypothesis. Then come up with a billion excuses to explain away why your data is screwed up so you can just assert your original Hypothesis again anyways.

"Global Warming" any one? (NOTE: Lets not derail the thread with that one please)

Edited September 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[altersteve]

I don't know, but I do know this: what I understand Acts 17:11 to mean is precisely the opposite of what Joseph Smith said that he understood James 1:5 to mean. He thought that James 1:5 was a revelation to him that he should give up hope of knowing the truth by testing different religious claims by the Scriptures and instead he needed to get a personal revelation concerning the true church directly from God. I think that Acts 17:11 is a revelation to me to test different religious claims by the Scriptures. Either Joseph Smith misunderstood James 1:5, or I am misunderstanding Acts 17:11, or these scriptures teach contradictory messages about how to test religious claims.

Are you saying you don't believe that we should ask God for truth?

Put yourself in Joseph Smith's place. Here he was, a fourteen-year-old boy looking around at all these preachers telling him that if he doesn't join their church, he's going to h***. He was struggling, and scared. He didn't want to go to h***. That's why he asked God which of the churches was true. When he was satisfied that his sins were forgiven, as God told him, and that he did not need to worry, he felt finally at peace. That's all he wanted. He was not testing religious claims, he was searching for his own salvation. And what better way is there to find salvation than by asking God for it?

Joseph did exactly as James 1:5 says we should do when we find ourselves lacking wisdom. I see no other interpretation of this verse. But if Joseph did misunderstand it, and James 1:5 is not telling us to appeal to God for knowledge and wisdom, then what is, in your opinion, the "proper" interpretation?

Edited September 19, 2011 by altersteve

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Ah, but whose continuing revelation? Monson's? Jeffs's?

Ah, but whose continuing revelation? The Teacher of Righteousness? Paul's? The High Priest? Josephus?

The fact that there are false prophets doesn't demonstrate that there are no true ones.

But however that may be, the appeal to scripture clearly failed in Acts 17. Some, reading the Hebrew Bible, accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Others, reading the very same passages in the Hebrew Bible, rejected Jesus as the Messiah. So why, precisely, do you expect a more definitive result from reading the Bible today?

[David T]

It is expected that the Bible and the BOM will seem to be different in some areas. You must be aware that many areas of scripture are not open for us at this time. Yes we can read the words but the meaning is not open. There is spiritual blindness on us. Only at the end of the last days will all scripture be open. I know that many areas in the Bible are opening today but the Bible is so filled with layers of understanding it will probably double in content before the end. I am so looking forward to that. So don't be troubled by these areas. Have faith. Sometimes years pass before I understand a verse and place it in proper context and content. The words did not change but my understanding did. If we knew just how much is open and how much is blocked I think we would be shocked. Again have faith. One of the reasons that there are so many interpretations out there is due to this very reason.

I'm not troubled to know that all prophets (or writers of religious national histories) didn't have a carbon copy understanding. While I recognize that there are points of view and 'doctrinal' statements in the Bible that are different than our understanding today, what is consistent is the evolutionary pattern of cooperative revelation. God gives us experiences, and then allows to grow and work out the meaning of those experiences. Prophets and other observers have written of their understanding of these encounters with deity, and express them in those terms, according to their understanding, and thus we have scripture which serve as powerful landmarks.

My faith is strengthened by a God who provides the puzzle pieces through his Prophets, but allows us to grow and work together to put the puzzle together as we come to appreciate, in chunks and pieces, what the final resulting picture is. Sometimes others have a good view of what the final picture is before it's finished. Some are way off. Often there's more than one puzzle going on at a time, and the pieces get mixed together. Church leaders fall into both categories. And when the Church community finally ready for a new picture, a majority ready to accept and and sustain the same picture, the Prophet - our authorized and sustained spokesperson - asks if the puzzle has been put together right, receives a confirmation, we get everyone on the same page on that particular subject, and then more puzzle pieces are doled out to learn some more.

I'm okay with the idea that biblical prophets didn't have all the puzzle pieces we have, and in fact thought the end picture was significantly different than the one we understand today. That doesn't mean their puzzle pieces were wrong. It just meant they didn't have all the pieces, and their explanations as to how the puzzle pieces fit together weren't always accurate.

Same with us today. Although I think we're working on a bigger puzzle today, with many more pieces in play.

[Franktalk]

How does one follow the guidelines in Acts 17? For those who only had verbal tradition and the book of Job it may have seemed easy to search the scriptures. But most doctrine was missing. Then as time went on Moses wrote the Torah. And of course the Law was formed. For those people who had the Torah and the Book of Job it was still a small set of scripture. Then book after book was written and then came the prophets. At each step new relation was added. Then Jesus came and added still. Then the Gospels and the letters. Then the book of Revelation. At each step searching the scriptures was different than it was for all previous people. This pattern is not over. The BOM is just one more step. There will be others. I do not see this pattern changing. If people deny the incremental revelation of scripture then they deny history. God is not done.

The very act of writing Acts brings the message of Acts into play. Does one search before Acts or does one include it. I believe that the message is clear that additional scripture is coming. If someone feels that a stake has been placed in the ground and no more revelation is coming they must throw out lots of prophecy that tells us more is coming.

[Franktalk]

nackhadlow,

Great post. Those who think that they have all of the parts are the most dangerous. They fill in many areas with their own earthly wisdom. They of course are fools. Scripture is designed to give us a lifetime of searching. We will never come close to a full understanding. But the point is we are searching scripture and not some Hollywood movie for answers. It is our commitment to Christ not a measure of understanding that He seeks. For those things He wants clear He has made them clear.

Those who use the Bible as a tool or weapon better be careful. Christ does not like His scripture twisted.

Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

Mat 15:6 And honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

We all must be careful in this regard.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Franktalk

[KevinG]

Bill,

Ah, but whose continuing revelation? Monson's? Jeffs's?

Revelation is received by every faithful member of the LDS Church. An religious researcher should know that.