Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[coolrok7]

No one here speaks officially for the Church, the General Authorities do. Joseph Smith said that the Bible is not sufficient to know the truth.

[Calm]

Do you believe that if you read the Bible without the Spirit that you would be able to know the truth sufficiently?

Edited December 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[coolrok7]

Peter says that Holy men of God were moved and spoke. We have these words as a part of the sixty-six canonical books identified as the Bible and accepted by the General Authorities as such. People led by the Holy Spirit can understand its teachings correctly while those who listen to lying spirits can twist it to their own destruction as well.

[Calm]

So then you agree the Bible in and of itself is not enough since lying spirits may mislead and we need the Holy Spirit ot understand its teachings correctly?

[Anakin7]

       The Question that needs to be asked/addressed is which of the 50 + translations at the Christian bookstores throughout the world is the perfect Bible.They all read differently, verses added/missing in the manuscripts and on to the pages we read.

 

In Hisn Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

[Canadaigua]

       The Question that needs to be asked/addressed is which of the 50 + translations at the Christian bookstores throughout the world is the perfect Bible.They all read differently, verses added/missing in the manuscripts and on to the pages we read.

 

In Hisn Debt/Grace

       Anakin7

Can you give me some examples of how they read differently so I can take a look at them?

[coolrok7]

As far as Scripture is concerned, it is enough. We don't need any other claimed holy book to know the truth as the Holy Spirit inspired those whose writings are in the Old/New Testaments.

Anakin7, according to you General Authorities, it's the KJV.

I can use a lot of the different translations with no major problems.

I was given a KJV for my confirmation. I prefer the New American Standard though. I now have an ESV translation to go along with the others I have.

Edited December 20, 2014 by coolrok7

[danielwoods]

". . .but the LDS article of faith comes across to me as a blanket excuse for dismissing parts of the text, whether or not there is evidence that it wasn't translated correctly or not."

 

Your conclusion is inaccurate. 

 

. . .and praise God we have near original copies, in the original language Prophets and Other revealed scripture to double check the translations

 

This is a fundamental example of our divergent views. 

 

The difficulty becomes when something like the "third heaven" is changed into three different and separate kingdoms in heaven. When people claiming to be prophets make claims that are contrary to known teachings.

 

Who a person puts their trust in is key. 

[Tacenda]

How do you know this? Could it not that what we have are copies of some heavily edited writings of the originals? How could you tell the difference if all the evidence one had was of copies of these copies?

Why is there doubt with the Bible writers' meticulous copies of when Jesus walked the earth, but no doubt, I'm assuming, of JS's translation of the BoM? Which IMO, Joseph translated using some of those writings.you seem to doubt.

[danielwoods]

How do you know this?  Could it not that what we have are copies of some heavily edited writings of the originals?  How could you tell the difference if all the evidence one had was of copies of these copies?  

 

If you were teaching a class, and had 5,000 plus students all taking notes. And you lost your notes for one day last month. So, you collected everyone's notes in the class, don't you think your notes could be reconstructed from their copies of yours? 

 

The accuracy of what we have compared to the theoretical originals is said to be in the 98% plus range. The reason for this is that some were edited, and we can tell this by the vast majority that were not edited. With over 25,000 extent copies, we have quite a large data set to draw from. 

 

 

 

Having a different interpretation of the verses rarely means "dismissing the text" in my experience.  Dismissing the text would be ignoring it, not trying to find nuances or even explaining it in a contorted way (which is not what LDS do imo).

 

That you describe what LDS do as "dismissing the text" is probably indicative of why ERayR sees you as completely misunderstanding how LDS approach the scriptures….all of them.

 

Well, what I observe happening the most is not a reference to an actual evidence of a mis-translation, rather, has ERayR demonstrated above, but a paradigm shift to trusting a supposed prophet's interpretation, as if he was actually re-translating a text accurately. When it really has nothing to do with translation or mis-translating.

Edited December 20, 2014 by danielwoods

[ERayR]

This is a fundamental example of our divergent views. 

 

The difficulty becomes when something like the "third heaven" is changed into three different and separate kingdoms in heaven. When people claiming to be prophets make claims that are contrary to known teachings.

 

Who a person puts their trust in is key. 

 

I think you are mistaking "known teachings" with interpretations of known teachings.  Also known teachings of who?

[ERayR]

If you were teaching a class, and had 5,000 plus students all taking notes. And you lost your notes for one day last month. So, you collected everyone's notes in the class, don't you think your notes could be reconstructed from their copies of yours? 

 

The accuracy of what we have compared to the theoretical originals is said to be in the 98% plus range. The reason for this is that some were edited, and we can tell this by the vast majority that were not edited. With over 25,000 extent copies, we have quite a large data set to draw from. 

 

Please produce those 5,000 sets of notes.

 

 

Well, what I observe happening the most is not a reference to an actual evidence of a mis-translation, rather, has ERayR demonstrated above, but a paradigm shift to trusting a supposed prophet's interpretation, as if he was actually re-translating a text accurately. When it really has nothing to do with translation or mis-translating.

 

It all comes down to whose interpretation you choose to believe and yes it has everything to do with translating. 

[Calm]

Why is there doubt with the Bible writers' meticulous copies of when Jesus walked the earth, but no doubt, I'm assuming, of JS's translation of the BoM? Which IMO, Joseph translated using some of those writings.you seem to doubt.

 

I apply the same standard to the BoM as I do the Bible, it is what experience of the Spirit tells me as I study the scriptures that matters to me, not the text itself.  I have no problem adding "as far as translated" to the BoM as well as the Bible.  The BoM itself speaks of the likelihood of the errors of men being included in it.

[Tacenda]

I apply the same standard to the BoM as I do the Bible, it is what experience of the Spirit tells me as I study the scriptures that matters to me, not the text itself.  I have no problem adding "as far as translated" to the BoM as well as the Bible.  The BoM itself speaks of the likelihood of the errors of men being included in it.

Thanks for your honesty Cal.  I don't know why I'm tearing up right now but it means a lot.  I come from a large family of in laws that seem to think black and white of a lot of things in Mormonism and probably think the BoM is perfect.  Recently had a difficult time being at a Christmas party with them and my own family and not being the perfect LDS that I think they are.  Sorry for the derail in mentioning something personal.  

[Calm]

If you were teaching a class, and had 5,000 plus students all taking notes. And you lost your notes for one day last month. So, you collected everyone's notes in the class, don't you think your notes could be reconstructed from their copies of yours? 

 

In your analogy you know how many were supposed to take notes and I assume you can tell in class if the majority are taking notes then.  However, what happens if only a couple make notes and then let other students some of whom who weren't actually paying attention at the time take notes off of their notes and then those students let others copy their copies, etc. but at least some of these students copying pick out only those notes that seem important to them and don't include everything the other student provides as well as adding in from their own memory possibly inaccurate ideas of what you had said (and it is not a couple of weeks but at the end of the semester while the lecture was in the first week) and this goes on for quite a few steps (say you have about 10 students who actually took notes and each have ten who make copies, who then have ten, who then have five more or less). You might be able to figure out which were the first and foremost notes if you are assured that you collected all the students' notes and you had some decent copiers in the group but what if you ask for only for the first hundred that are turned in as extra credit that can help if someone is only below a certain grade (so you may get reports from good students, but you are likely to get at least some from those who aren't the most accurate reporters) and now you have no way of knowing how well these students copied off of others, how many steps downline they were, etc. or even if any of the original were turned in your group.  You may have ended up with only bad copies that were ten steps away or you may have ended up with great copies that were only step or two or a mix.

 

Plus it is likely for the New Testament that none of the Gospels' texts were written down as they happened but only many years later so even the original may not be a good copy of the "lecture" given.  How is one to tell if this is a reconstruction off of memory from decades later only or taken from "notes" made at the lecture itself or something else?

Edited December 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 

Well, what I observe happening the most is not a reference to an actual evidence of a mis-translation, rather, has ERayR demonstrated above, but a paradigm shift to trusting a supposed prophet's interpretation, as if he was actually re-translating a text accurately. When it really has nothing to do with translation or mis-translating.

If it was revelation through the Spirit, then it doesn't really matter if it was translation of text because it comes from God, right?

 

So the issue is whether or not one has had a spiritual witness of the claimed prophet.

 

If the Spirit witnessed to you that you were listening to a prophet, would you reject him if something he said contradicted an interpretation of a verse you hadn't received a witness of but just assumed it was right because that was what you had been taught?

[Calm]

 not being the perfect LDS that I think they are.  

No one is perfect, you need to stop worrying about what other people are and put your energy into helping yourself become the person you want.  The Lord doesn't measure you by looking at the people around you and what they are doing, but by looking at your heart and what you do to express what is in there.

Edited December 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

If you were teaching a class, and had 5,000 plus students all taking notes. And you lost your notes for one day last month. So, you collected everyone's notes in the class, don't you think your notes could be reconstructed from their copies of yours? 

 

The accuracy of what we have compared to the theoretical originals is said to be in the 98% plus range. The reason for this is that some were edited, and we can tell this by the vast majority that were not edited. With over 25,000 extent copies, we have quite a large data set to draw from. 

 

Please produce those 5,000 sets of notes.

 

 

Well, what I observe happening the most is not a reference to an actual evidence of a mis-translation, rather, has ERayR demonstrated above, but a paradigm shift to trusting a supposed prophet's interpretation, as if he was actually re-translating a text accurately. When it really has nothing to do with translation or mis-translating.

 

It all comes down to whose interpretation you choose to believe and yes it has everything to do with translating. 

If you'd like to check out the manuscript evidence: http://C***.org/manuscript-evidence

[danielwoods]

In your analogy you know how many were supposed to take notes and I assume you can tell in class if the majority are taking notes then.  However, what happens if only a couple make notes and then let other students some of whom who weren't actually paying attention at the time take notes off of their notes and then those students let others copy their copies, etc. but at least some of these students copying pick out only those notes that seem important to them and don't include everything the other student provides as well as adding in from their own memory possibly inaccurate ideas of what you had said (and it is not a couple of weeks but at the end of the semester while the lecture was in the first week) and this goes on for quite a few steps (say you have about 10 students who actually took notes and each have ten who make copies, who then have ten, who then have five more or less). You might be able to figure out which were the first and foremost notes if you are assured that you collected all the students' notes and you had some decent copiers in the group but what if you ask for only for the first hundred that are turned in as extra credit that can help if someone is only below a certain grade (so you may get reports from good students, but you are likely to get at least some from those who aren't the most accurate reporters) and now you have no way of knowing how well these students copied off of others, how many steps downline they were, etc. or even if any of the original were turned in your group.  You may have ended up with only bad copies that were ten steps away or you may have ended up with great copies that were only step or two or a mix.

There are many hypothetical situations that could be created. Where does the evidence lead though? That is the question. Do you have evidence that supports this view?

 

Plus it is likely for the New Testament that none of the Gospels' texts were written down as they happened but only many years later so even the original may not be a good copy of the "lecture" given.  How is one to tell if this is a reconstruction off of memory from decades later only or taken from "notes" made at the lecture itself or something else?

As Jesus stated, "25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." (John 14)

So, the writers were reminded of everything Jesus said, and they wrote it down.

 

[danielwoods]

If it was revelation through the Spirit, then it doesn't really matter if it was translation of text because it comes from God, right?

 

So the issue is whether or not one has had a spiritual witness of the claimed prophet.

 

If the Spirit witnessed to you that you were listening to a prophet, would you reject him if something he said contradicted an interpretation of a verse you hadn't received a witness of but just assumed it was right because that was what you had been taught?

 

Even if an angel appeared to me and stated things that contradicted what I knew to be true, I wouldn't believe the angel. A prophet's message is under his control and power. When his message contradicts known teachings then yes, I wouldn't believe it to be true. 

[Calm]

"what I knew to be true"

 

How do you know they are true to begin with?

 

If a man taught you what other men had taught them and there was no Spirit witnessing the truth but the man himself claimed he was taught it was a teaching of God and then a prophet spoke something contradicting that man and the Spirit witnessed that the prophet was speaking the truth, would you still deny the truth of the second because you had believed the first was true?

Edited December 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[danielwoods]

I think you are mistaking "known teachings" with interpretations of known teachings.  Also known teachings of who?

 

We work with what we know to be true. When the LDS claim that Paul's usage of "third Heaven" isn't what Paul intended, then the claims of the LDS are known to be false. 

 

IF the LDS simply want to say that they have a new revelation, and a new teaching, which has nothing what-so-ever to do with the teaching of Paul's "third Heaven" then that's fine, many religious groups do that. 

[danielwoods]

I don't think there is an easy "pithy" answer to this question. There are some guiding principles though. 

 

God word connects us to God himself. He is our ultimate guide on interpretation. 

 

We work from what we know, and is plain to us to what we don't know and what isn't so plain. 

 

We trust those who bear the fruit of the spirit. But test all things.

 

Ultimately we trust that God is able and willing to lead us. 

I quoted myself above, because this is my answer to your first question below. 

 

"what I knew to be true"

 

How do you know they are true to begin with?

 

If a man taught you what other men had taught them and there was no Spirit witnessing the truth but the man himself claimed he was taught it was a teaching of God and then a prophet spoke something contradicting that man and the Spirit witnessed that the prophet was speaking the truth, would you still deny the truth of the second because you had believed the first was true?

 

A) what someone is teaching has to line up with the principles and teachings already known to be true from known sources (such as the bible).

 

B) What a claimed "prophet" teaches has to line up as well. 

 

C) I don't see the principle of the Spirit witnessing that a prophet is true or a organization is true in the Bible. What I see, is that the Spirit will lead us into all truth. That might be from those specific sources, but it's the Spirit that leads. 

[Vance]

If you'd like to check out the manuscript evidence: http://C***.org/manuscript-evidence

Just so you know, CARM has negative credibility around here.  You should find a better source.

[ERayR]

If you'd like to check out the manuscript evidence: http://C***.org/manuscript-evidence

 

It all comes down to whose interpretation you choose to believe and yes it has everything to do with translating.  I would find a better source than CARM.  They do not have a history of credibility.