Using The Bible To Refute Lds Doctrine

[KevinG]

Since the Bible is Mormon Doctrine that whole argument is a non-starter with me.

The sad part is you really have to start picking nits big time to avoid the fact that the Mormons believe Jesus Christ is their Savior just like the rest of traditional Christianity. Since we are saved by grace through our belief in Jesus Christ the rest is window dressing.

[Ron Beron]

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 am coming into this a bit late, but I think that most Biblical dogma disagrees with Evangelical thought as well as some Mormon beliefs. In the case of Mormon theology we are well aware that most of LDS philosophy is of modern revelation built upon the primitive thoughts once delivered.

[Balzer]

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.

"They don't get it 'cause they're ignorant" doesn't really work tho, and will never work. As has been conceded many times by many LDS posters here, at the end of the day it's all about faith.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[jo1952]

The OP opposes itself. See how within the Bible that Jews were divided on which portions of the OT were actually scripture; i.e., some held only to the Torah as scripture. Another example: see how the Sadduccees did NOT believe in a resurrection; but the Pharisees did. Yet Abraham believed in the coming Resurrection of Christ (as such, I think he would have understood the Plan of Salvation). Paul teaches us that Abraham DID understand (and the story of Abraham and Isaac is recorded in Genesis):

Hebrews 11:17-19 (Paul speaking)

¹⁷ By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

¹⁸ Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

¹⁹ Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

In fact, without even needing to point to The Pearl of Great Price, I offer the above as Biblical evidence that, if Abraham understood the Plan of Salvation, that he most likely taught this to Isaac, who then taught it to Jacob, etc. Then see how the Book of Mormon prophets also taught the Plan of Salvation...thus both books supported the Plan of Salvation long before Jesus was ever born on the earth.

It appears to me that the Book of Mormon supports what is taught in the Bible. What exactly do anti-LDS or other non-LDS think that the Book of Mormon teaches which is in contradiction with the Bible? Or is the BoM actually being judged by its contents? It seems that rather, the BoM is being judged by manufactured ideas that it couldn't possibly have been inspired by God, instead of comparing its contents with the teachings contained in the Bible.

Regards,

jo

Edited September 20, 2011 by jo1952

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I understand well the that at 4+ generations of my ancestors worshiped. The Mormon God is local because he is not a universal god. He is a creator god in the gnostic sense, the sense opposed by the 2nd century Church Fathers who favored the model of creation ex nihilo. One god transgresses the first law of thermodynamics, while the other god transgresses the second. I think it's meaningless to ask whether a god who can create something from nothing is greater than a god that can create order from chaos. It's just two different models of God. Which model is greater depends on which model you already believe.

[Storm Rider]

I understand well the that at 4+ generations of my ancestors worshiped. The Mormon God is local because he is not a universal god. He is a creator god in the gnostic sense, the sense opposed by the 2nd century Church Fathers who favored the model of creation ex nihilo. One god transgresses the first law of thermodynamics, while the other god transgresses the second. I think it's meaningless to ask whether a god who can create something from nothing is greater than a god that can create order from chaos. It's just two different models of God. Which model is greater depends on which model you already believe.

Everything you have written above has nothing to do with LDS doctrine or teachings. It is and will always be your persepective, though twisted out of recognition, of what LDS teach and believe. I assume that you have been corrected countless times before so I will not go into how badly you misunderstand LDS doctrine. Just know that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

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?

Here is a fairly clear instance in which you, as a Mormon, are setting aside the teaching of a passage in the Bible in favor of your commitment to modern revelation. Acts 17 clearly teaches that the appeal to Scripture did not fail. Luke states that the Berean Jews were more noble-minded than the Thessalonian Jews, and they eagerly listened to Paul and tested what he said by comparing it with the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). Luke's contrast of the Berean Jews with the unbelieving Thessalonian Jews indicates that the problem was not with the Scriptures but with those who were unwilling to consider Paul's teaching and sincerely and carefully compare it to the Scriptures. You will notice that Luke does not report that some of the Bereans, after their careful study of the Scriptures, concluded that Jesus was not the Messiah. Nor does he suggest that the Bereans who believed in Jesus did so only after receiving personal revelations.

Earlier in the same chapter of Acts, Luke says that Paul's custom was to go into the local synagogue and reason with the Jews there from the Scriptures, persuading them by his argumentation that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Scriptures (Acts 17:2-3). So Acts 17:11 is not an isolated text being taken out of context. This is how Luke characterized the evangelistic efforts of Paul and other Christian teachers (e.g., Apollos in Acts 18:28).

I agree with your statement that the fact of false prophets does not prove there are no true prophets. But we must test new prophets that come along in the same way noble-minded Jews tested the message of Paul and other Christian evangelists: by comparing what they proclaim with the teachings of the writings we already know and accept as Scripture.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

I know that is the official position of the LDS Church, but I don't see how that is an answer to my question.

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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

It is an axiom of LDS thought that the scriptures can be and very often are an instrument by which God conveys personal revelation to an individual. That is to say, a passage of scripture read can be a catalyst for thought by which an individual comes to understand God's personal direction to that individual, confirmed by a manifestation from the Holy Ghost.

In line with this paradigm, I therefore believe that God was already communicating with the young Joseph Smith by touching his heart and mind at the time Joseph came across this passage in James. This is clearly confirmed by the prophet's own recollection:

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.

(Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History 1:12)

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

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

Hmm, how shall I answer this question? There are so many hidden assumptions in it. It all depends on what you mean by "ask God for truth." If you mean ignore the truth he has already revealed because it doesn't satisfy you, the answer is no. If you mean asking God to give you light to understand and believe the truth he has already revealed, yes.

This isn't a complete or exhaustive response to your question. There are a lot of "rabbit trails" we could explore here.

You wrote:

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***.

This may be, but I think a CFR is in order here. Most Methodists and Presbyterians--the two denominations with whom Joseph and his family seem to have had the most contact--do not and did not teach that one must join their church to be saved. Furthermore, Joseph's account in JS-H says nothing about these different churches claiming that those who did not join them would be damned.

You wrote:

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?

You seem to be dependent here on the 1832 account of the First Vision, which Joseph abandoned and eventually replaced with the account in JS-H. In the latter, scriptural account, Joseph is quite explicit about his concern being to know which church to join--and he says nothing in that account about being worried about having his sins forgiven or finding salvation.

You wrote:

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?

I could answer your question, but I feel confident you can discover the answer for yourself by simply reading verses 2-15 in one sitting and then considering how verse 5 fits into that context.

[shalamabobbi]

Everything you have written above has nothing to do with LDS doctrine or teachings. It is and will always be your persepective, though twisted out of recognition, of what LDS teach and believe. I assume that you have been corrected countless times before so I will not go into how badly you misunderstand LDS doctrine. Just know that you don't know what you are talking about.

I suppose the objection here has to do with the extent of God's dominion, whether there are other God's with their dominions of equal stature with our Father in heaven?

I will add that Cobalt-70 is correct in his view that bringing order out of chaos is just as *impossible* as creation ex-nihilo. There is nothing in our understanding that allows for such a thing to be, yet here we are.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

Here is a fairly clear instance in which you, as a Mormon, are setting aside the teaching of a passage in the Bible in favor of your commitment to modern revelation. Acts 17 clearly teaches that the appeal to Scripture did not fail. Luke states that the Berean Jews were more noble-minded than the Thessalonian Jews, and they eagerly listened to Paul and tested what he said by comparing it with the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). Luke's contrast of the Berean Jews with the unbelieving Thessalonian Jews indicates that the problem was not with the Scriptures but with those who were unwilling to consider Paul's teaching and sincerely and carefully compare it to the Scriptures. You will notice that Luke does not report that some of the Bereans, after their careful study of the Scriptures, concluded that Jesus was not the Messiah. Nor does he suggest that the Bereans who believed in Jesus did so only after receiving personal revelations.

Earlier in the same chapter of Acts, Luke says that Paul's custom was to go into the local synagogue and reason with the Jews there from the Scriptures, persuading them by his argumentation that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Scriptures (Acts 17:2-3). So Acts 17:11 is not an isolated text being taken out of context. This is how Luke characterized the evangelistic efforts of Paul and other Christian teachers (e.g., Apollos in Acts 18:28).

I agree with your statement that the fact of false prophets does not prove there are no true prophets. But we must test new prophets that come along in the same way noble-minded Jews tested the message of Paul and other Christian evangelists: by comparing what they proclaim with the teachings of the writings we already know and accept as Scripture.

When have LDS ever said you should not reason from scripture? We believe in both--scripture and revelation. They are not contradictory nor mutually exclusive. As you can see from his letters, Paul consistently mixes revelation and scriptural exegesis in his preaching. So do LDS.

Paul's efforts to preach from the scripture was not decisive or universally successful. In Thessalonica, "some of them were persuaded" (17:4) while in Berea "many of them believed" (17:12). That means an appeal to scriptural exegesis convinced "some" for "many," but apparently not "most." Why do you think an appeal to scriptural exegesis should be more successful today. It obviously is not. Whatever you may think of the Bible, it clearly fails to produce sectarian unanimity. It is a necessary part of the Gospel, but it is not sufficient.

[Maidservant]

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

Breathtakingly bigger.

[Ahab]

When have LDS ever said you should not reason from scripture? We believe in both--scripture and revelation. They are not contradictory nor mutually exclusive. As you can see from his letters, Paul consistently mixes revelation and scriptural exegesis in his preaching. So do LDS.

Paul's efforts to preach from the scripture was not decisive or universally successful. In Thessalonica, "some of them were persuaded" (17:4) while in Berea "many of them believed" (17:12). That means an appeal to scriptural exegesis convinced "some" for "many," but apparently not "most." Why do you think an appeal to scriptural exegesis should be more successful today. It obviously is not. Whatever you may think of the Bible, it clearly fails to produce sectarian unanimity. It is a necessary part of the Gospel, but it is not sufficient.

Exactly!

Using reason alone you can come up with many interpretations of the scriptures, some of them reasonable and some of them not very if reasonable at all. From that point, what do you do? Just because something is reasonable doesn't mean it is true, and it also doesn't mean that you've thought of every reasonable interpretation of the scriptures there is.

So, from that point, I would say that what you need to do is ask God to give you wisdom to be able to understand what is true among the many reasonable interpretations you can come up with, as well as helping you to see what you may not have thought of yet.

I remember when I was first introduced to "Mormonism" and all of the questions and concerns I had with my understanding of the scriptures. For one thing, I had the idea that the Bible was all there was of God's word that is available today, based on my understanding of some scriptures, so the whole idea of there being more revelation was something I was having some trouble with even if did turn out that it really was true. But you know what? When I examined the scriptures I found there was room for the possibility that there could be more scripture, with the Bible not necessarily being the end of it, so from that point it came to examining my understanding of the scriptures and this supposedly "new" revelation I then heard about. And you know what else? I found a way to make all of the scriptures fit together, both from the Bible and those other sources, but the fact that I found a way where it could all be in harmony while still being reasonable still didn't convince me that it was true. It was possible, though. I gave it that much. And then do you want to know what happened?

Well, I'll tell you when it's all over.

[altersteve]

Hmm, how shall I answer this question? There are so many hidden assumptions in it. It all depends on what you mean by "ask God for truth." If you mean ignore the truth he has already revealed because it doesn't satisfy you, the answer is no. If you mean asking God to give you light to understand and believe the truth he has already revealed, yes.

This isn't a complete or exhaustive response to your question. There are a lot of "rabbit trails" we could explore here.

So you can't ask God about something that is in the Bible? Why not? Where does the Bible say this?

This may be, but I think a CFR is in order here. Most Methodists and Presbyterians--the two denominations with whom Joseph and his family seem to have had the most contact--do not and did not teach that one must join their church to be saved. Furthermore, Joseph's account in JS-H says nothing about these different churches claiming that those who did not join them would be damned.

You wrote:

You seem to be dependent here on the 1832 account of the First Vision, which Joseph abandoned and eventually replaced with the account in JS-H. In the latter, scriptural account, Joseph is quite explicit about his concern being to know which church to join--and he says nothing in that account about being worried about having his sins forgiven or finding salvation.

Read page 39 of Rough Stone Rolling.

I could answer your question, but I feel confident you can discover the answer for yourself by simply reading verses 2-15 in one sitting and then considering how verse 5 fits into that context.

Yeah, it's about enduring temptation. I know. But James 1:5 can obviously apply to any other situation when we are lacking wisdom.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

I know that is the official position of the LDS Church, but I don't see how that is an answer to my question.

Then you need to study how revelation works in the LDS Church more. Checks and balances and all that.

Let me give you the conclusions... Either we are controlled by a top down central authority that tells us what to think, or we are to a great degree aligned in our beliefs and understandings because we are all influenced by the Holy Spirit of God.

Let me also guess which conclusion you will come to.

P.S. Warren Jeffs ancestors were excommunicated from the LDS Church a century ago for guess what? Disobedience to the Lord's Annointed.

Feigned ignorance is no way to run a religious research institute. Of course your comparison of Jeffs to Monson was a gratuitious slam so it wasn't really an innocent question was it?

Edited September 20, 2011 by DaddyG

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

As you can see from his letters, Paul consistently mixes revelation and scriptural exegesis in his preaching. So do LDS.

First, I'd like to see an example of what you have in mind in Paul's letters. Second, does it make any difference that Paul is writing to people who have already come to faith and are associated with the Christian church?

You wrote:

Paul's efforts to preach from the scripture was not decisive or universally successful. In Thessalonica, "some of them were persuaded" (17:4) while in Berea "many of them believed" (17:12). That means an appeal to scriptural exegesis convinced "some" for "many," but apparently not "most." Why do you think an appeal to scriptural exegesis should be more successful today. It obviously is not. Whatever you may think of the Bible, it clearly fails to produce sectarian unanimity. It is a necessary part of the Gospel, but it is not sufficient.

I am trying to figure out what it was I said that suggested that I or any evangelical thinks the Bible is "sufficient" in the sense you seem to mean. Evangelicals certainly believe that faith is necessary; that the Holy Spirit is necessary; that people preaching the gospel are necessary; that the church as an institution of evangelism and discipleship is necessary; etc., etc.

The fact that not everyone believed what Paul preaches is not a reflection on the clarity or adequacy of the Scriptures. It is a reflection on the sinful hearts of unbelievers, blinded by Satan to the gospel (2 Cor. 4:4). No one standing before Jesus Christ on Judgment Day will be able to say, "Look, I did read the Bible, but it was just so unclear, I wasn't sure if you were really the Messiah and only Savior or not."

Here's what I'm saying: the meaning of the truth taught in the Bible is to be learned from the Bible; that's its purpose. Anything outside the Bible plays a role in this process insofar as it points to what the Bible says. The Bible is sufficiently clear in what it says that it is not the case that we need extrabiblical revelations to tell us what the Bible really meant to say but supposedly expressed so ambiguously that people can legitimately come to different conclusions about the basic truths of the gospel. In a real, practical, functional sense, religions that say "Come to us and we'll give you the inside, revealed truth as to what the Bible really means, a truth you can't actually get from the Bible on its own" are substituting their modern revelations for the Bible. The Bible has no authority as the word of God except indirectly as interpreted by the living prophet using the supposedly clearer revelations of the LDS scriptures. "If the Bible teaches it, that is what we must believe" does not seem to be a reality in LDS religion. Instead, the reality is "If the living prophet teaches it, that is what we must believe, whether or not we can support it from the Bible or cohere it with the Bible."

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Feigned ignorance is no way to run a religious research institute.

No, I really didn't understand the relevance of your statement to what I had written. I still don't.

You wrote:

Of course your comparison of Jeffs to Monson was a gratuitious slam so it wasn't really an innocent question was it?

Not at all. I was not drawing any sort of moral equivalency between Jeffs and Monson. Here's the point. Both men consider their leader to be a prophet of God. Both groups believe sincerely that God speaks to them today through their prophet. Both groups sincerely profess to believe in Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon. But both groups cannot be right. One of them, at least, is following a false prophet. People in both groups claim to have the Holy Ghost. So how does one tell which group is right? Clearly, thinking one is being guided by the Holy Ghost is no guarantee. This isn't a "gratuitous slam"; it is a serious question that deserves a thoughtful answer from those who think they know that their Mormon group is the true church and that the other one is not.

[Vance]

Second, does it make any difference that Paul is writing to people who have already come to faith and are associated with the Christian church?

So, they had already exercised FAITH in Christ, REPENTED of their sins, been BAPTIZED for the remission of sins, and received the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

Humm, that could explain why he doesn't spend time saying why these things were required. They already knew that.

[KevinG]

The belief of Latter-day Saints in living prophets is not an "either/or" proposition with Biblical revelations.

The Christian world in general relies a great deal on tradition and authority pastors and scholars to teach what the Bible means to them. Frankly they have come up with some weird interpretations and traditions.

I am fairly secure that with each member of the LDS Church having the gift of the Holy Ghost, plus living prophets, plus Latter-day revelation, plus traditional Christian revelation - we are on a pretty sound footing.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

No, I really didn't understand the relevance of your statement to what I had written. I still don't.

You wrote:

Not at all. I was not drawing any sort of moral equivalency between Jeffs and Monson. Here's the point. Both men consider their leader to be a prophet of God. Both groups believe sincerely that God speaks to them today through their prophet. Both groups sincerely profess to believe in Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon. But both groups cannot be right. One of them, at least, is following a false prophet. People in both groups claim to have the Holy Ghost. So how does one tell which group is right? Clearly, thinking one is being guided by the Holy Ghost is no guarantee. This isn't a "gratuitous slam"; it is a serious question that deserves a thoughtful answer from those who think they know that their Mormon group is the true church and that the other one is not.

It seems I overestimated your comprehension and underestimated your sincerity. Forgive me.

I obviously disagree with the Warren Jeffs claim to prophetic leadership, yet I don't find myself running an anti-Jeffs ministry. I figure the law can deal with his crimes and God will judge his people according to what they know.

That is the difference between you and me. I don't work to prove others wrong and I respect their claims to revelation and guidance. Even my Evangelical friends get my respect for their works and faith. Even if we disagree I don't claim to know what is better for them than they do themselves.

Edited September 20, 2011 by DaddyG

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

So you can't ask God about something that is in the Bible? Why not? Where does the Bible say this?

That's not what I said.

Regarding James 1:5, you wrote:

Yeah, it's about enduring temptation. I know. But James 1:5 can obviously apply to any other situation when we are lacking wisdom.

"Obviously" is not a reason or argument; it is a mere assertion. It isn't "obvious" to me that James 1:5 means that we can ask God which denomination to join and expect to receive an answer directly from him. Praying for wisdom is one thing; asking for a personal revelation is another.

[KevinG]

What is personal revelation worth if not for wisdom and knowledge?

If people can pray for things that are not already written in the Bible (as your denial above seems to say) then why deny the Latter-day Saints this ability?

[Vance]

"Obviously" is not a reason or argument; it is a mere assertion. It isn't "obvious" to me that James 1:5 means that we can ask God which denomination to join and expect to receive an answer directly from him. Praying for wisdom is one thing; asking for a personal revelation is another.

When you ask for wisdom, how do you know that God has given it to you?

[jo1952]

It is an axiom of LDS thought that the scriptures can be and very often are an instrument by which God conveys personal revelation to an individual. That is to say, a passage of scripture read can be a catalyst for thought by which an individual comes to understand God's personal direction to that individual, confirmed by a manifestation from the Holy Ghost.

In line with this paradigm, I therefore believe that God was already communicating with the young Joseph Smith by touching his heart and mind at the time Joseph came across this passage in James. This is clearly confirmed by the prophet's own recollection:

(Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History 1:12)

Hi Scott!

I love your comments. I had just been pondering yesterday about moments during my life time (experienced both before and after I joined the Church) when I have felt "homesick", even though I was then at my physical home. I realized that these longings and desires (which continue) are my spirit's attempt to guide me toward more Light and understanding; something which my spirit naturally thirsts for. Unfortunately we are often too effected by the temporal world to recognize that our spirit is trying to communicate to our physical self. OTOH, if we are seeking Truth, God will use our circumstances to direct us toward Truth.

Whatever level of learning we are able to grasp and understand, when the opportunity presents itself, THAT is when and where the Holy Ghost will witness to our spirit....just as He did for Joseph Smith; just as He does for each and every one of us. Thus, we are able to progress line upon line, precept upon precept. If light and understanding are not still being added upon to each of us personally, then something is preventing us from progressing. Truth has no end; if we aren't stilling learning Truth, then we are the ones who have set an imagined limit upon what the Holy Ghost is able to teach us.

Best regards,

jo