Using The Bible To Refute Lds Doctrine

[KevinG]

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

It comes in the form of the correctly interpreted Bible verse. Duh?

[Vance]

It comes in the form of the correctly interpreted Bible verse. Duh?

And you know that because?

Oh, wait, I remember, you know that because, it matches the orthodox evangelical historical interpretation, right?

[KevinG]

And you know that because?

Oh, wait, I remember, you know that because, it matches the orthodox evangelical historical interpretation, right?

Of course, the Biblical one. At least that is what my Preacher tells me.

[altersteve]

"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.

That's not obvious to me either. But we can ask God anything with faith in Christ and sincerity and know that He will eventually give us an answer one way or another.

Praying for wisdom is one thing; asking for a personal revelation is another.

They're actually the same thing.

[KevinG]

Praying for wisdom is one thing; asking for a personal revelation is another.

They're actually the same thing.

Where does praying to find your car keys fit into this?

[altersteve]

Where does praying to find your car keys fit into this?

I just meant that when you ask God for wisdom, you are asking Him to reveal something to you, giving you wisdom. So there's no difference between asking for wisdom and asking for a revelation.

[KevinG]

I just meant that when you ask God for wisdom, you are asking Him to reveal something to you, giving you wisdom. So there's no difference between asking for wisdom and asking for a revelation.

I agree. Of course that didn't prevent me from making fun of Mormons and Evangelicals all with one deft smart-alek comment.

Repenting now...

[Cobalt-70]

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 don't see how any Mormon could disagree with what I said. The Mormon God is certainly not universal, at least not compared with the trinitarian God, who is supposed to be omnipresent, who is a "necessary being," and whose will supposedly created the whole universe out of nothing and maintains its existence from moment to moment. The Mormon God is not universal because he did not create the universe. If God ceased to exist, the universe would not instantly blink out of existence. The universe existed long before the Mormon God lived his mortal life and gained his exaltation. The Mormon God is not everywhere-present, but confined to the volume of space within the outlines of his physical body. Most Mormons believe that their God has a defined kingdom, and that there are other gods and goddesses who have other kingdoms into which our God's kingdom does not extend. This is not a universal God.

But I see that as a good thing. A universal God is no God at all. A universal God is qualitatively almost indistinguishable from nature itself, so you might as well be worshiping mathematics. I prefer to think of God as being like Superman rather than like the law of gravity.

[Ahab]

I don't see how any Mormon could disagree with what I said. The Mormon God is certainly not universal, at least not compared with the trinitarian God, who is supposed to be omnipresent, who is a "necessary being," and whose will supposedly created the whole universe out of nothing and maintains its existence from moment to moment. The Mormon God is not universal because he did not create the universe. If God ceased to exist, the universe would not instantly blink out of existence. The universe existed long before the Mormon God lived his mortal life and gained his exaltation. The Mormon God is not everywhere-present, but confined to the volume of space within the outlines of his physical body. Most Mormons believe that their God has a defined kingdom, and that there are other gods and goddesses who have other kingdoms into which our God's kingdom does not extend. This is not a universal God.

But I see that as a good thing. A universal God is no God at all. A universal God is qualitatively almost indistinguishable from nature itself, so you might as well be worshiping mathematics. I prefer to think of God as being like Superman rather than like the law of gravity.

Ditto to what Storm Rider told you, although I'm not so sure about how much time someone may have taken to try to help you understand the revelations of God.

For one thing, we LDS not only accept the idea that 3 persons who are God are one in unity, but we're also the ones who taught the people who later become known as "Trinitarians" their concept of God, even though they didn't quite grasp what we tried to teach them and now have it wrong in some particulars.

Secondly, we LDS also know that God is necessary for everything, including being necesarily in being able to correctly understanding the scriptures, and not just some of the scriptures, but all of them which God has revealed and will continue to reveal. Without him to help you, personally, as you accept the Holy Ghost as your personal tutor, you're likely going to continue to get some things wrong and perhaps without even realizing you are wrong on so many things.

Thirdly, ... well, I'll stop there for now. I don't want to overwhelm you too much.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Ahab

[Bill Hamblin]

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."

I find this statement very revealing. Instead of understanding differences in biblical interpretation due to different assumptions, knowledge, expectation, culture, ambiguities in the text, you maintain that people reject the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible because of "sinful hearts" and being "blinded by Satan." So, ultimately, you cannot have a rational discussion with me about the Bible, because my rejection of your interpretation is do to my sin and Satanic influence upon me, rather than a rational disagreement of intelligent and informed men of good will. So, precisely why should I try to have any rational discussion with you at all?

[Bill Hamblin]

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."

I believe that the boldface words express exactly what happens in the real world all the time. To me it is absolutely undeniable. Indeed, the fact that the Bible has been interpreted in many different ways is probably the one indisputable fact about the Bible. The fact that you reject this clear phenomena is very revealing.

[Bill Hamblin]

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."

Of course, your tacit claim here is that Evangelicals don't do this. This claim is, of course, preposterous nonsense. The Evangelicals do precisely this, while claiming that they don't. The fact that Evangelicals can't agree among themselves regarding all sorts of issues of biblical interpretation is itself very important. But, beyond that, Evangelicals clearly interpret the Bible on the basis of all sorts of extra-biblical and non-biblical claims and beliefs. The most obvious is the Nicene Creed. No one sitting down with the Bible, would come up with the Nicene Creed unless they believed in the cosmic reality of Hellenistic philosophical categories. The Nicene Creed is incomprehensible if you don't understand Greek philosophy. (This is obvious by the fact that your average Evangelical in fact does not believe the Nicene Creed, but believes in a misunderstanding of the Nicene Creed.) The biblical Canon is another obvious example. The decision of what is and is not part of the Bible is, itself, the imposition of an extra-biblical idea on the Bible, which cannot be justified from the Bible itself. I could go on. The point is that Evangelicals interpret the Bible based on a large set of extra-biblical ideas (as does everyone, by the way.) The problem is, the Evangelicals either don't realize this obvious fact, or they refuse to admit it.

[Cobalt-70]

Ditto to what Storm Rider told you, although I'm not so sure about how much time someone may have taken to try to help you understand the revelations of God.

For one thing, we LDS not only accept the idea that 3 persons who are God are one in unity, but we're also the ones who taught the people who later become known as "Trinitarians" their concept of God, even though they didn't quite grasp what we tried to teach them and now have it wrong in some particulars.

Secondly, we LDS also know that God is necessary for everything, including being necesarily in being able to correctly understanding the scriptures, and not just some of the scriptures, but all of them which God has revealed and will continue to reveal. Without him to help you, personally, as you accept the Holy Ghost as your personal tutor, you're likely going to continue to get some things wrong and perhaps without even realizing you are wrong on so many things.

Thirdly, ... well, I'll stop there for now. I don't want to overwhelm you too much.

I don't think you understand what the term "necessary being" means. It is a theological term. God is a "necessary being" if the universe could not exist without him--in other words, if the existence of God is a prerequisite to the existence of anything. To the trinitarians, God is a necessary being, but to Mormons, he is not. If Elohim suddenly disappeared (assuming that were possible), he would not instantly take with him the whole of the universe. Elohim is a being within the universe. Mormon doctrine tells us that he was once a man; therefore, he is not the "un-caused cause" holding the universe together from moment to moment any more than you or I are that "un-caused cause." That doesn't mean that Mormons don't depend on him. That just means that the universe existed before he became God, and does not depend upon his will for its very existence.

Most Mormons are not well versed in the fundamentals of traditional Christian theology, so I understand why you think this line of thinking is foreign to Mormonism. But I'd suggest you take a look at Stirling McMurrin's seminal work on Mormon theology, which were well received by both Mormons and non-Mormons, and describes the nature of the Mormon god in theological/philosophical terms. I think it's good for any Mormon to know how their religion compares with that of other faiths, and to have a good background in academic theology.

I don't quite understand your point about LDS teaching trinitarians what they believe. Trinitarianism was developed in the the first few centuries AD, long before there were Latter-day Saints, and long before Joseph Smith developed his cosmology in the 1840s.

[Vance]

Of course, your tacit claim here is that Evangelicals don't do this. This claim is, of course, preposterous nonsense. The Evangelicals do precisely this, while claiming that they don't. The fact that Evangelicals can't agree among themselves regarding all sorts of issues of biblical interpretation is itself very important. But, beyond that, Evangelicals clearly interpret the Bible on the basis of all sorts of extra-biblical and non-biblical claims and beliefs. The most obvious is the Nicene Creed. No one sitting down with the Bible, would come up with the Nicene Creed unless they believed in the cosmic reality of Hellenistic philosophical categories. The Nicene Creed is incomprehensible if you don't understand Greek philosophy. (This is obvious by the fact that your average Evangelical in fact does not believe the Nicene Creed, but believes in a misunderstanding of the Nicene Creed.) The biblical Canon is another obvious example. The decision of what is and is not part of the Bible is, itself, the imposition of an extra-biblical idea on the Bible, which cannot be justified from the Bible itself. I could go on. The point is that Evangelicals interpret the Bible based on a large set of extra-biblical ideas (as does everyone, by the way.) The problem is, the Evangelicals either don't realize this obvious fact, or they refuse to admit it.

This thread,

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55661-is-the-spirit-in-1-kings-2219-23-embodied-or-incorporeal/page__view__findpost__p__1209045222

is a prime example. Bowman is using eisegesis to interpret the verses in question while claiming that he is only using exegesis.

But he can't answer the simple question as to why MUST we take as literal what he claims is literal and why MUST we take as figurative what he claims as figurative. Especially when the text doesn't demand it and the majority of other indicators are against it.

[jo1952]

I don't think you understand what the term "necessary being" means. It is a theological term. God is a "necessary being" if the universe could not exist without him--in other words, if the existence of God is a prerequisite to the existence of anything. To the trinitarians, God is a necessary being, but to Mormons, he is not. If Elohim suddenly disappeared (assuming that were possible), he would not instantly take with him the whole of the universe. Elohim is a being within the universe. Mormon doctrine tells us that he was once a man; therefore, he is not the "un-caused cause" holding the universe together from moment to moment any more than you or I are that "un-caused cause." That doesn't mean that Mormons don't depend on him. That just means that the universe existed before he became God, and does not depend upon his will for its very existence.

Most Mormons are not well versed in the fundamentals of traditional Christian theology, so I understand why you think this line of thinking is foreign to Mormonism. But I'd suggest you take a look at Stirling McMurrin's seminal work on Mormon theology, which were well received by both Mormons and non-Mormons, and describes the nature of the Mormon god in theological/philosophical terms. I think it's good for any Mormon to know how their religion compares with that of other faiths, and to have a good background in academic theology.

I don't quite understand your point about LDS teaching trinitarians what they believe. Trinitarianism was developed in the the first few centuries AD, long before there were Latter-day Saints, and long before Joseph Smith developed his cosmology in the 1840s.

I would offer that you do not actually understand Mormon doctrine, though you think that you do. I would also offer that the Trinity poses the same problem you perceive about Mormon belief. Let me explain. You believe that it is problematic for the LDS to consider God was ever a man due to your conclusion that the universe could no longer be held together. However, the Trinity dogma allows for Jesus (who is also God) to come to earth to be fully man (though still fully God), which separates Him from the Father and the Holy Ghost. Yet the universe still held together. You may use different words and titles and descriptions, but the results for both the Trinity belief system and the LDS belief system wind up with the same result; i.e., the universe never fell apart while a member of the Godhead/God spent time in a physical body upon an earth.

We do not believe that Elohim exists within the visible universe. Elohim created the universe(s) and exists outside of them in the invisible (to human eyes) spirit eternities. The physical universe(s) exist within the outer spiritual realm.

I will use your own words to explain and help you understand your last paragraph. You said:

Trinitarianism was developed in the the first few centuries AD, long before there were Latter-day Saints, and long before Joseph Smith developed his cosmology in the 1840s.

IOW, you admit that Trinitarianism "developed" - it is a dogma created by mankind to help man understand the "true nature" of God. However, the LDS believe that in the Restoration of Jesus' Church, man-created dogma was done away with. The Restored Church is the same as the original ancient church which Jesus established while He was here in the flesh. This included doing away with the man-created "true nature" of God Trinity which had developed AFTER Jesus and the ancient Apostles walked the earth. Thus the LDS Church teaches what Jesus taught back then; just as He teaches it today through His Restored Church.

Regards,

jo

Edited September 21, 2011 by jo1952

[Zakuska]

This thread is misnamed. There is nothing in the Bible that refutes LDS Doctrine. Everything I have found in it substantiates it.

[ebeddoulos]

Internationally Respected Ringmaster ROBBBbbb BOWMANNNnnn!

I find this statement very revealing. Instead of understanding differences in biblical interpretation due to different assumptions, knowledge, expectation, culture, ambiguities in the text, you maintain that people reject the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible because of "sinful hearts" and being "blinded by Satan." So, ultimately, you cannot have a rational discussion with me about the Bible, because my rejection of your interpretation is do to my sin and Satanic influence upon me, rather than a rational disagreement of intelligent and informed men of good will. So, precisely why should I try to have any rational discussion with you at all?

Bill, I engage Rob simply because of the entertainment value that his messages usually provide me. Shucks, his responses can be as entertaining as watching a three ring circus. Take for example the following exchange Rob is having with you:

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).

Acts 17 takes place in late autumn in 49 CE, Paul is on his Second Missionary Journey. His first canonic epistle has yet to be written. In fact, according to Zodiates (The Complete Word Study – Spiros Zodhiates, TH.D., AMG Publishers, 1992) it would be in 50 CE and possibly 51 CE before Paul would write his first epistle and before any other gospel or letter was penned, as well. The verbal message which the Bereans accepted and the Thessalonicans rejected came from an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and the scriptures to which the Bereans made their comparisons was basically the Old Testament. I find it ironic that Rob is much like a Thessalonican, in that he, too, rejects the message proclaimed by Apostles sent from the Lord. The true irony is that he fails to see the irony. His Thessalonican-like obstinacy makes me smile. Actually, for some reason the irony reminds me of a dozen circus clowns somehow fitting into a mini-clown car that is on fire. That mental image makes me belly laugh and I have the belly to do it right.

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.

The use of fallacies is one of Rob’s favorite ploys. The above fallacious argument from silence is a nice example. Like a circus side-show magician uses misdirection, Rob habitually uses fallacies. So often, in fact, that it has recently become quite fun for me to point them out to him. ~~ Are you reading this Rob? ~~

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.

Anybody care to wager that Rob has a double standard here? Just remember that the odds in the antiMormon Circus’ midway games are not for the fair minded. Case in point, in Genesis 17:13, God calls circumcision “an everlasting covenant.” Yet the Apostle Paul argued against the Mosaic Law of circumcision, saying that “circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19) and that “in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision” (Galatians 5:6). But to further complicate things, Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3) at the beginning of his Second Missionary Journey but refused to allow Titus to be (Galatians 2:3; 5:2-5). Does not the argument argued in Galatians for Titus apply to Timothy? Is there an expiration date on “everlasting”?

Definitely, this is a case of the message from an Apostle conflicting with previous scripture. Yet somehow, I doubt that Rob applies the same standard to Paul as he does to modern day Apostles

Edited September 21, 2011 by ebeddoulos

[Calm]

I don't see how any Mormon could disagree with what I said.

And yet they have. Perhaps you should reconsider your assumptions and limit them to your own personal interpretations as opposed to all LDS.

If God ceased to exist, the universe would not instantly blink out of existence

I find it logically and scripturally (Alma 45) impossible for God to cease to exist by the premises of LDS beliefs, so this sentence is nonsense. Edited September 21, 2011 by calmoriah

[Cobalt-70]

I would offer that you do not actually understand Mormon doctrine, though you think that you do. I would also offer that the Trinity poses the same problem you perceive about Mormon belief. Let me explain. You believe that it is problematic for the LDS to consider God was ever a man due to your conclusion that the universe could no longer be held together. However, the Trinity dogma allows for Jesus (who is also God) to come to earth to be fully man (though still fully God), which separates Him from the Father and the Holy Ghost. Yet the universe still held together. You may use different words and titles and descriptions, but the results for both the Trinity belief system and the LDS belief system wind up with the same result; i.e., the universe never fell apart while a member of the Godhead/God spent time in a physical body upon an earth.

I don't believe anything is problematic about Mormon theology. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't be Mormon. But I think I understand trinitarianism pretty well, and I can say that the fact that Jesus is fully God and fully human does not nullify the "necessary" nature of God's being. God's "being," after all, is considered to be a unity. In trinitarianism, any differences between the persons of God do not nullify their unity of being. In trinitarianism, Jesus was never not god. The Mormon Elohim, however, was once not God. Therefore, the Mormon Elohim cannot be the one necessary being upon which the universe is contingent.

I just want to quote Sterling McMurrin, writing about Mormon theology, who put it rather elegantly: "God is described in non-absolutistic terms as a being who is conditioned by and related to the world in which he is a part and which, because it is not ultimately his creation, is not absolutely under his dominion. As a constructor or artisan God, not entirely unlike Plato's demiurge of the Timaeus, the Mormon deity informs the continuing process of reality and determines the world's configurations, but he is not the creator of the most ultimate constituents of the world, either the fundamental material entities or the space and time that locate them. ...It is a basic article of Mormon theology that God is related to a world environment for the being of which he is not the ultimate ground and by which he therefore is in some sense conditioned." Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, p. 29 (1965).

[Cobalt-70]

We do not believe that Elohim exists within the visible universe. Elohim created the universe(s) and exists outside of them in the invisible (to human eyes) spirit eternities. The physical universe(s) exist within the outer spiritual realm.

I'm talking about the whole universe, not just the visible universe. If God created just the visible universe, but not the invisible one, then he is not an absolute creator.

[Cobalt-70]

IOW, you admit that Trinitarianism "developed" - it is a dogma created by mankind to help man understand the "true nature" of God. However, the LDS believe that in the Restoration of Jesus' Church, man-created dogma was done away with. The Restored Church is the same as the original ancient church which Jesus established while He was here in the flesh. This included doing away with the man-created "true nature" of God Trinity which had developed AFTER Jesus and the ancient Apostles walked the earth. Thus the LDS Church teaches what Jesus taught back then; just as He teaches it today through His Restored Church.

Yes, I'm saying trinitarianism "developed." Jesus didn't teach it. Rather, it was the invention of the 2nd century Church Fathers, and came to prominence as a reaction to various other doctrines more similar to Mormonism that were at the time labeled heresy. But if you think that the LDS Church and all its doctrines are the same as the original church and all its doctrines, you are overstating things. Mormons believe in a principle called "line upon line." If Peter were a trinitarian (which he was not), his views would have been essentially the same as early Mormons prior to about 1840. History demonstrates that It is possible to be both Mormon and trinitarian.

[zerinus]

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.

That is utterly incorrect by any standards. The Lord and His prophets want Latter-day Saints to be sufficiently well versed and acquainted with the scriptures to be able to hold their own in a theological debate with their opponents.

[zerinus]

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.

I agree.

[zerinus]

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.

That is okay with me. I think that the Book of Mormon can withstand that kind of examination.

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.

You lost me with that one. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

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.

Several questions here: (1) What do you think James 1:5 actually means, and how can it be applied? (2) What problem do you see with the way Joseph Smith applied it? (3) Why can't scripture study be combined with asking God for wisdom?

Joseph Smith was just a 14 year old boy when he decided to apply that scripture to receive wisdom to know what to do. He writes: "but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong" (JS-H 1:8 ). And again: "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" (JS-H 1:12). What in your opinion is so abnormal for a 14 year old boy putting his trust in God to gain wisdom to make up his mind about such a weighty matter when all else seems of little help?

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 am utterly baffled as to how you see a contradiction. How can studying the scriptures and asking God's help be a contradiction?

Edited September 21, 2011 by zerinus

[Storm Rider]

Rob, you stated, "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." When I read that that verse: "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and asearched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

A few points:

1. No where in Acts 17:11 does it dictate how one is to find truth.
   
2. Do you understand this to make any recommendation?
   
3. What I read is that those in Berea were ready to hear the word of the apostles, once heard, they then reviewed scripture, and were being complimented for it. However, there is no inference that this "the" way to find truth.
   
4. James 1:5 is a simple statement, if you lack wisdom ask God for it and he will give it to you freely. What is the conflict?
   
5. Does the Bible proscribe a single method for finding truth?
   

I don't see any conflict between the two books/verses. I look forward to read your response, but at present I don't understand your point.