Using The Bible To Refute Lds Doctrine

[zerinus]

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 agree with that. But there is also another side to the issue. That is that by knowing our scriptures very well as commanded by the Lord (and having the Holy Spirit to be with us), we can use that knowledge to reason out of the scriptures to convincingly correct the errors of those who have erred in their interpretations, and put them straight. The scriptures suggest that it is actually possible to do that:

.

D&C 11

:

.

21 Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and then shall your tongue be loosed; then, if you desire, you shall have my Spirit and my word, yea, the power of God unto the convincing of men.

.

D&C 71

:

.

6 For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even power.

7 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.

8 Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.

.

D&C 84

:

.

85 Neither take ye thought beforehand what ye shall say; but treasure up in your minds continually the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion that shall be meted unto every man.

That goes contrary to what a lot of LDS here seem to be saying; that effectively you can't use scripture "exegesis" to debate with the opponents of the Church. "Exegesis" is nothing more than "reasoning out of the scriptures" (Acts 17:2), which is what we are instructed to do. It is possible "confound your enemies" by knowing and effectively reasoning out of the scriptures. They may have "erred in their interpretations;" but if we know our scriptures well enough, it is possible to show them their errors convincingly enough that they need not remain in that error any longer, unless they choose to or want to.

Edited September 21, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

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.

So how do you explain the fact that there are so many Christian denomination (especially Protestant denominations) who differ from each other precisely on their interpretations of the Bible?

[zerinus]

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.

At that point everyone is on his own. You remember the parable of the ten virgins? Each was responsible for the oil in her own lamp. They could neither borrow nor lend. It is only when the day of reckoning come that it becomes apparent who had enough oil in their lamps and who didn't; or who had the wrong kind of oil and who had the right kind. There is a passage in LDS scripture that speaks to that:

.

D&C 45

:

.

56 And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins.

57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have

taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived

—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.

Edited September 21, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

"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.

How do you distinguish revelation from wisdom? Joseph Smith didn't go to the woods to ask for revelation. He went there to ask for wisdom. And wisdom is what he got.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

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.

If you care about the people adversely affected spiritually, morally, socially, and psychologically by Jeffs, why wouldn't you want someone to expose his false teachings and false claims to divine revelation? It's okay that you don't choose to do it, but would you oppose someone doing it, and if so, why?

You wrote:

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.

Your religion sends out missionaries that seek to win people out of evangelical churches to the Mormon religion. Your missionaries proclaim that all Christianity outside of the LDS religion is apostate. You personally may not claim to know what is better for other people than they do themselves, but your religion does.

[KevinG]

If you care about the people adversely affected spiritually, morally, socially, and psychologically by Jeffs, why wouldn't you want someone to expose his false teachings and false claims to divine revelation? It's okay that you don't choose to do it, but would you oppose someone doing it, and if so, why?

The best way to oppose unrighteousness is to be an example of righteiousness and offer a better way. In those cases where someone breaks the law or is a predator we seek redress through the law. However we don't have ecclesiastical authority over those who do not claim membership in our religion. In fact overreaching legal or moral authority results in travesties of justice like locking up and threatening to separate the innocent mothers and children among Jeffs followers.

Your religion sends out missionaries that seek to win people out of evangelical churches to the Mormon religion. Your missionaries proclaim that all Christianity outside of the LDS religion is apostate. You personally may not claim to know what is better for other people than they do themselves, but your religion does.

Claiming to know better and being missionaries is a far cry from trying to "debunk" other religions. It is sad that you cannot see the difference.

Regarding "sheep stealing" charges. For the record here is what the Missionary's are instructed to teach: http://lds.org/langu..._36617_eng_.pdf I see nothing in there about "winning people out of Evangelical churches" or any other Church. The missionaries teach, the Holy Spirit converts. My oldest returned from the Phillipines last year. He taught thousands the Gospel of Jesus Christ just as the Lord commissioned him to do. He served thousands with physical labor. Most remained faithful to their traditional religion but had more knowledge of Christ and received Christian service. A few converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with their families. None were "stolen" as none were property of any religion. All did so with more knowledge and education.

Edited September 21, 2011 by DaddyG

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I had written:

"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'" (your emphasis).

You replied:

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."

It isn't "my" statement, it's Paul's statement:

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor. 4:3-4 ESV).

Do you agree or disagree with Paul?

I don't have any problem acknowledging the fact that, among believers, differences of interpretation of the Bible arise due to the kinds of factors that you mention. But I wasn't talking about differences among believers. I was talking about the disbelief of those who reject Paul's teaching.

You wrote:

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?

See above.

Since I do not know definitively who is or is not an unbeliever, or who might be unbelieving now but be in the process of having their spiritual blindness lifted by the Holy Spirit, I can attempt to reason in good faith with anyone. However, there is a spiritual dimension not only to rank unbelief but also to heresy or false doctrine:

"But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.... For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:3, 13-14).

"The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders" (2 Thess. 2:9).

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons" (1 Tim. 4:1).

Do you agree or disagree with Paul?

[zerinus]

Your religion sends out missionaries that seek to win people out of evangelical churches to the Mormon religion. Your missionaries proclaim that all Christianity outside of the LDS religion is apostate. You personally may not claim to know what is better for other people than they do themselves, but your religion does.

We don't claim to know what is better for other people than they know themselves. On the contrary, we trust their ability to know what is best for them by presenting to them what we know, and letting them to make up their own minds. As our past leaders have often said, they can keep all the good that they already have, and come to us and get some more.

[Storm Rider]

If you care about the people adversely affected spiritually, morally, socially, and psychologically by Jeffs, why wouldn't you want someone to expose his false teachings and false claims to divine revelation? It's okay that you don't choose to do it, but would you oppose someone doing it, and if so, why?

Your religion sends out missionaries that seek to win people out of evangelical churches to the Mormon religion. Your missionaries proclaim that all Christianity outside of the LDS religion is apostate. You personally may not claim to know what is better for other people than they do themselves, but your religion does.

The LDS Church does have a successful missionary program. It can easily be said that the LDS Church takes the Great Commission seriously and seeks to fulfill the charge of Jesus to preach to all the world.

It is impossible to know who is searching and who is not. As a result, LDS missionaries seek to talk with anyone that is willing to listen without interest in their current religious affiliations. If they are seeking for the truth, that is the criteria to teach and that individual is the target. The LDS Church does not target a specific church or group; it is the whole world.

The LDS Church does believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ will bring both joy and peace to all those that embrace it and live it. We believe firmly and invite all to bring the truths they have and we will provide the fullness of the gospel in order that each may live more fully in the embrace of the Savior.

If you have a way of finding only those that are seeking, please share it. It would save the missionaries countless hours of searching and make them much more effective in their labors.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

Claiming to know better and being missionaries is a far cry from trying to "debunk" other religions. It is sad that you cannot see the difference.

Earlier you denied claiming to know better. Now you apparently admit that you do claim to know better. So we are making progress.

Just to clarify, is it your position that it is always wrong to try to "debunk" other religions?

You wrote:

Regarding "sheep stealing" charges.

I didn't use that language or make that implication. I said that Mormon missionaries try to convert people in evangelical churches. If they knock on a door and find out that the people living there are Presbyterians, do they immediately excuse themselves and move on?

You wrote:

For the record here is what the Missionary's are instructed to teach: http://lds.org/langu..._36617_eng_.pdf I see nothing in there about "winning people out of Evangelical churches" or any other Church. The missionaries teach, the Holy Spirit converts.

I am familiar with the manual. Your distinction between what the missionaries do and what the Holy Spirit does is not relevant, since the missionaries do seek to teach evangelicals with the hope of them converting to the LDS religion.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

We don't claim to know what is better for other people than they know themselves. On the contrary, we trust their ability to know what is best for them by presenting to them what we know, and letting them to make up their own minds. As our past leaders have often said, they can keep all the good that they already have, and come to us and get some more.

In that sense, I could say the same thing. I am seeking to present what I know and let others make up their own minds. And indeed, anything good you already have you should keep. So what's the problem?

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

Suppose Mormon missionaries knock on a door and the people who answer identify themselves as Christians. They testify that they believe in Jesus Christ and that they are seeking to follow him daily. Do your missionaries thank them for their time and move on, or do they try to share the "restored gospel" with those Christians?

The LDS Church does have a successful missionary program. It can easily be said that the LDS Church takes the Great Commission seriously and seeks to fulfill the charge of Jesus to preach to all the world.

It is impossible to know who is searching and who is not. As a result, LDS missionaries seek to talk with anyone that is willing to listen without interest in their current religious affiliations. If they are seeking for the truth, that is the criteria to teach and that individual is the target. The LDS Church does not target a specific church or group; it is the whole world.

The LDS Church does believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ will bring both joy and peace to all those that embrace it and live it. We believe firmly and invite all to bring the truths they have and we will provide the fullness of the gospel in order that each may live more fully in the embrace of the Savior.

If you have a way of finding only those that are seeking, please share it. It would save the missionaries countless hours of searching and make them much more effective in their labors.

[zerinus]

"But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.... For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:3, 13-14).

"The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders" (2 Thess. 2:9).

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons" (1 Tim. 4:1).

Do you agree or disagree with Paul?

I agree with what Paul says; but not sure about the conclusion you intend to draw from it.

[zerinus]

In that sense, I could say the same thing. I am seeking to present what I know and let others make up their own minds. And indeed, anything good you already have you should keep. So what's the problem?

Nothing. What kind of a problem were you expecting?

[zerinus]

Storm Rider,

Suppose Mormon missionaries knock on a door and the people who answer identify themselves as Christians. They testify that they believe in Jesus Christ and that they are seeking to follow him daily. Do your missionaries thank them for their time and move on, or do they try to share the "restored gospel" with those Christians?

Of course they will share the Restored gospel with them. Why shouldn't they?

[Storm Rider]

Storm Rider,

Suppose Mormon missionaries knock on a door and the people who answer identify themselves as Christians. They testify that they believe in Jesus Christ and that they are seeking to follow him daily. Do your missionaries thank them for their time and move on, or do they try to share the "restored gospel" with those Christians?

There is not a single answer to this proposition. Identifying oneself as Christian is not the equivalent of saying I am not interested, thank you. Being a Christian is an invitation to discuss Jesus Christ; it is not a declaration of anything else. If a Baptist knocks on your door do you say, I am Christian and shut the door?

If the person is willing to talk, they will talk. If they are not willing to talk, some missionaries will say thank you for your time and move on. Other missionaries will push to determine if there is any way to stir interest. The more firm the reply the quicker the missioanries will be on their way. They do not enjoy wasting their time or the time of others. Their objective is to teach the gospel; best to find someone who listens rather than ignores and is disinterested. Make sense?

[randyj]

Rob,

I have appreciated very much your thoughts and participation in these various threads. Thank you.

I will say this though, having been born and raised here in Indep. Mo....as members of the LDS church we have had, and continue to have a unique opportunity and challenge when it comes to sharing the gospel with our friends. Many of my friends are members of the other "Restoration flavors" if you will, so my approach in sharing the gospel with them is somewhat uniquely tailored because of those affilliations.

What I have learned and where I have finalled matured to is this....I simply share the gospel as I've come to know and understand it..to the best of my ability, regardless of religious affilliations. I have no preset agenda of "converting" anyone. I simply share. That's it. I wouldn't and have never felt compelled to create a website dedicated to trying to "debunk' or critique what it is my friends believe in hopes of showing them the errors of their ways. I just share with them what has brought me and my family joy and allow them to either accept or reject it.

So yes, I would have to agree with the others here when they draw that distinction between the methods and purposes of your website and the methods and purposes employed by members of the LDS church as they desire to attempt to share the gospel with others.

[Ahab]

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.

I do understand. If God didn't exist neither would anything else, including us. I get it, and I and The (true) Church of Jesus Christ totally agree with that.

To the trinitarians, God is a necessary being, but to Mormons, he is not.

For one thing, LDS are true trinitarians, and for another thing, Yes, to us he actually is.

If Elohim suddenly disappeared (assuming that were possible), he would not instantly take with him the whole of the universe.

Yes he would, and for that matter, if he didn't exist neither would the entire universe.

God and all the elements he consists of must exist for there to be an existence of anything in all of existence.

Elohim is a being within the universe.

Yes, and Elohim is a being which must exist for the universe to be what it is.

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."

Regardless of what God is and what he once was and what he will be in the future... regardless of ALL of that... God must exist for anything else to exist in existence.

God is not dependent on how YOU think he exist, so thinking that God must exist as you think he must exist doesn't mean God has to exist in that way before he can exist.

That doesn't mean that Mormons don't depend on him.

I know. Your gibberish about how you think God must exist doesn't make any difference in all of reality.

That just means that the universe existed before he became God, and does not depend upon his will for its very existence.

Try thinking of God and the universe existing simultaneosly together. If there was no God, there would be no universe, either, and vice versa.

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.

I have yet to meet an anti-Mormon who correctly understands our Lord's doctrine, even though they all think they do, so I understand why you think you understand our doctrine when you really don't.

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 need to see someone else's book to understand our Lord's doctrine because I can just read the actual scriptures and teachings given by our Lord to understand his doctrine.

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.

LDS are members of the same Church of Christ which existed in the days of our Lord's mortal ministry, and even before that going back to Adam and Eve. We didn't get our start in 1830. That's just when our Church was restored among the churches which were all then apostate versions of our Lord's church. Thus, all that the "Trinitarians" have they got from us, even though their teachings are apostate versions of what we taught them, including their apostate understanding of our scriptures.

Get it now? You're not contending against a group that started in 1830. Your contending against our Lord's church and against our Lord, himself, with all of your apostate understanding.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Ahab

[LeSellers]

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.

Define "absolute creator".

If you are alluding to some magical being whose m.o. is creatio ex nihil, as “Questing Beast” and the Trinitarians here are wont to do, then, no, God is not an "absolute creator". But, if you believe, along with Joseph Smith, et al., that matter is eternal, and that it took God to organize it in the great creative processes He has accomplished (and continues to do) since "the beginning", then, yes, He is the absolute Creator".

It should be obvious where I stand.

Lehi

[Bill Hamblin]

I don't have any problem acknowledging the fact that, among believers, differences of interpretation of the Bible arise due to the kinds of factors that you mention. But I wasn't talking about differences among believers. I was talking about the disbelief of those who reject Paul's teaching.

I agree that men can be blinded by sin or Satan. I do not believe that everyone (or even most people) who disagree with my interpretation of the Bible are blinded by sin or Satan. I believe intelligent and informed people of good will can interpret the Bible differently. This is in part due to the nature of the Biblical text, and in part due to differing assumptions, perspectives, etc. of the readers of the text.

But hat was not the question. Your citation of Paul seems to me to imply that you believe that everyone who rejects the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible is blinded by sin and Satan. Have I understood you correctly?

It is also puzzling that you seem to admit that Evangelicals can disagree with each other about the interpretation of the Bible for legitimate reasons, but when others disagree with Evangelicals it is because of sin and Satan. Have I understood you correctly?

Edited September 21, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[cdowis]

That goes contrary to what a lot of LDS here seem to be saying; that effectively you can't use scripture "exegesis" to debate with the opponents of the Church. "Exegesis" is nothing more than "reasoning out of the scriptures" (Acts 17:2), which is what we are instructed to do. It is possible "confound your enemies" by knowing and effectively reasoning out of the scriptures. They may have "erred in their interpretations;" but if we know our scriptures well enough, it is possible to show them their errors convincingly enough that they need not remain in that error any longer, unless they choose to or want to.

There is one tiny problem that you are missing. The opponents are unwilling to use all of the word of God, restricting themselves to the Bible only. Why would I, for example, discuss the doctrines of Christ using only the Old Testament.

Exegesis works only if we are using the complete canon of the word of God. For the "opponents", exegesis has replaced the scriptures which they refuse to acknowledge. They have replaced the prophets, modern revelation with theologians and scholars.

[Bill Hamblin]

"But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.... For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:3, 13-14).

"The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders" (2 Thess. 2:9).

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons" (1 Tim. 4:1).

Do you agree or disagree with Paul?

Yes, there are false prophets, teachings of demons, etc. I agree with Paul. That does not mean that all differences of opinion are due to sin and Satan. But that was not the question.

The question is: are differences in Bible interpretation between Evangelicals and LDS (or another other group) due solely to sinful hearts and demonic teachings of the LDS? Can one be sincere, intelligent, and informed, and still mistakenly believe LDS teachings? Can an informed sincere seeker come to the conclusion that the LDS Church is right (even if it is wrong)?

My impression is that you are one of those Evangelicals who believe in the "spiritual warfare" model of relations with the LDS. That is to say, you believe that JS was a false prophet inspired by the Devil, and probably demon-possessed. You believe that (at least some of) Joseph's visions were real, but that it was Satan as an "angel of light" who manifest himself to JS, not God or Christ. Have I understood you correctly?

Now as a tactical method, telling LDS that they are a Satanic cult has proven unfruitful, so most anti-Mormons have dropped that tactic. However, many Evangelicals still believe it, even thought they generally won't admit it.

I note that you ignored my other two more important responses to you. Too bad.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[cdowis]

My impression is that you are one of those Evangelicals who believe in the "spiritual warfare" model of relations with the LDS. That is to say, you believe that JS was a false prophet inspired by the Devil, and probably demon-possessed. You believe that (at least some of) Joseph's visions were real, but that it was Satan as an "angel of light" who manifest himself to JS, not God or Christ. Have I understood you correctly?

Now as a tactical method, telling LDS that they are a Satanic cult has proven unfruitful, so most anti-Mormons have dropped that tactic. However, many Evangelicals still believe it, even thought they generally won't admit it.

He states that he has read and prayed about the BOM, and was told that it is false. He is being consistent with that experience, that the BOM is designed to deceive the Christians, thus coming from Satan.

The logic is simple and straight forward.

I do not find it useful to engage him personally, but to expose his errors and tactics to those who may be vulnerable to his arguments. He has chosen his own path and is determined to follow it wherever it leads him.

Edited September 21, 2011 by cdowis

[wenglund]

He states that he has read and prayed about the BOM, and was told that it is false. He is being consistent with that experience, that the BOM is designed to deceive the Christians, thus coming from Satan.

The logic is simple and straight forward.

I do not find it useful to engage him personally, but to expose his errors and tactics to those who may be vulnerable to his arguments. He has chosen his own path and is determined to follow it wherever it leads him.

Please let Rob answer for himself. He has, in the past, tended to answer for us, and I don't wish to give him an excuse to do so again. Besides, the issue is differing interpretations of the Bible, and not the verity of the Book of Mormon.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

I had written:

"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" (your emphasis).

You replied:

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, I never denied that the Bible has been interpreted in many different ways. Please try reading what I said again.