LDS testimonies...built on sand?

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I've got a good friend who's probably a lot like you.  He loves the Bible and does his best to read it and live it every day.  There's one problem.  Some of his friends say the Bible isn’t true, and he's not always sure how to respond.   

If he's like me, he would

1.Find new friends.  Actually I have no friends to speak of, so he isn't like me at all.

2. Talk about the weather.

3. Give them a quick lesson on quantum mechanics, and how scientists themselves admit how utterly absurd it is, 
or something equally esoteric -- some scientists believe that they can prove we are not living in a real world, but exist in a computer simulation.

Finally, the issue is clearly NOT the Bible, but that they do not believe in God.  And I would deal directly with that issue.

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by cdowis

[Foreigner]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies

Sorry, you have pointed a site where atheists deride the Bible. If you trust them, ask them about BoM and BoA.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Sorry, you have pointed a site where atheists deride the Bible. If you trust them, ask them about BoM and BoA.

Oh, I was merely pointing out that fulfillment of prophecy is in the eye of the beholder.
There are atheists who claim unfulfilled Bible prophecies prove it false.
Same problem there as with anti's who claim their interpretation of LDS prophecies as unfulfilled prove Mormonism false.

All completely subjective.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Sorry, you have pointed a site where atheists deride the Bible. If you trust them, ask them about BoM and BoA.

You can reject their conclusions, but the information presented is still the reference you were looking for.  However, here is someone (who believes in the bible) who makes the same point if that is easier-

This is copied from Jeff Lindsay's website here.

If any prophecy of a so-called prophet proves to be wrong, shouldn't we reject him? Isn't that the standard of Deut. 18:22? 

Deut. 18:22 reads:

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

This doesn't exactly say that one mistake makes a false prophet. James L. Mays, editor of Harper's Bible Commentary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988, p. 226), writes:

Prophecy in the names of other gods is easily rejected, but false prophecy in God's name is a more serious matter. This dilemma requires the application of a pragmatic criterion that, although clearly useless for judgments on individual oracles, is certainly a way to evaluate a prophet's overall performance.

The problem with applying Deut. 18:22 to a single, individual prophecy is that some prophecies can be fulfilled in complex ways or at times much later than anticipated by the hearers. Moreover, God sometimes appears to reverse certain prophecies, as He says He is free to do in Jeremiah 18:7-10:

7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; 
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Be careful in how you apply Deut. 18:22, for you threaten to reject some true prophets in the Bible! There are examples where a true prophet prophesied something which did not happen as he stated, to the best of our knowledge. An example is found in the story of Jonah, who was told by God to prophesy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah prophesied that the people would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4) - no loopholes were offered, just imminent doom. God changed things, however, when the people repented and He chose to spare them - much to the chagrin of that imperfect (yet still divinely called) prophet, Jonah. Jonah, in fact, was "displeased ... exceedingly" and "very angry" (Jonah 4:1) about this change from God, perhaps because it made Jonah look bad. In spite of an "incorrect" prophecy and in spite of the obvious shortcomings of Jonah, he was a prophet of God and the Book of Jonah in the Bible is part of the Word of God. Yet if that sacred text had been lost, only to be restored by Joseph Smith, perhaps as part of the Book of Mormon, it would be assaulted as the most damning evidence against Joseph Smith. Just imagine how the critics would dismiss the Book of Jonah as being evil, contradictory, ludicrous, anti-Biblical, unscientific, and unchristian (of course, there are plenty already who reject it as it is, unable to believe major parts of the story).

The prophet Ezekiel provides another example of how true prophets may err or give prophecies of uncertain accuracy. In Ezekiel chapters 26, 27, and 28, we read that Tyre (a fortified island city) would be conquered, destroyed, and plundered by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The riches of Tyre would go to Babylon (Ezek. 26:12). Nebuchadnezzar's army did lay siege to Tyre, and its inhabitants were afflicted, apparently so much that they shaved their heads bald, as prophesied in Ezek. 27:31. However, the 13-year Babylonian siege apparently was not quite as successful as Ezekiel had predicted, perhaps because the land-based tactics of Babylonian sieges were less effective against a fortified island city with significant maritime power. The result of the siege may have been a compromise or treaty rather than total destruction and plunder, for Ezekiel 29:17-20 reports that the predicted plundering did not take place. Almost as if in compensation, the Lord now announces that He will give Egypt to the Babylonians, which is the theme of chapter 29. Here are verses 17-20:

17 And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 
18 Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it: 
19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army. 
20 I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.

Yes, Tyre was eventually destroyed, but its complete destruction apparently did not occur during the Babylonian siege, and certainly the Babylonian army did not get the riches of Tyre as has been prophesied. It is Ezekiel himself who reports this "prophetic failure." (The analysis above is derived from an article by Daniel C. Peterson in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1995, pp. 49-50.) 

D.C. Pyle has also commented on Ezekiel's prophecy of Tyre:

Of course, my favorite part of the prophecy against Tyre is the part found in Ezekiel 26:14 and 27:36, where the Lord states that Tyre would "not be rebuilt" and "exist no more forever."

Of course, after it was left unconquered by the Babylonian armies, it eventually fell to the Greeks under Alexander and was destroyed by his armies.

But then, the city which was never to be rebuilt forever rose again to wealth and power in 125 BCE! During the Roman period, the city rose to even more prominence and had a Christian community living in the mainland portion. Muslims reduced the city to ashes in 1291. It was rebuilt again sometime after this. In 1983, it had an estimated population of 23,000.

The prophecy stated that the place would "be a bare rockface for spreading nets and would never be rebuilt" but today, the place has become a fairly important maritime center.

To those who refuse to believe that Tyre still exists today, pictures can be see at http://tyros.leb.net/tyre/index.html. Note that there are many buildings - it has been rebuilt. A literal interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy coupled with a belief in Biblical inerrancy leads to obvious problems. 

My purpose in discussing the prophecies about Tyre is not to question the truthfulness of the Bible (it is true - we just need to struggle to understand it properly, as we must with all scripture and all prophecy, and we need to understand its potential limitations). My primary purpose in discussing Tyre is to point out that an overly critical attitude and a strict application of Deut. 18:22 may reject even true, Biblical prophets. If we try hard enough to find reasons to reject a prophet, we will surely succeed - but beware lest we judge unwisely and reject those whom God has sent and anointed, even though they be mortal and fallible. As for Tyre never being rebuilt, I think it's fair to mention that Hebrew writers used extreme words like "never" or "all" or "forever" in a rather loose way. Tyre was "never" to rebuilt and animal sacrifices were to continue "forever" - but these expressions can best be understood as figures of speech rather than absolutes. But if we're going to take the reasonable, thoughtful path of understanding the Bible rather than looking for apparent flaws to condemn it out of hand, we should extend the same courtesy to the Book of Mormon and the words of modern prophets.

Another example to consider is the prophet Jeremiah - a great and inspired prophet - who prophesied that king Zedekiah would "die in peace" (Jer. 34:4-5). Critics could argue that this prophecy did not prove to be true, for Zedekiah saw his sons killed by the conquering Babylonians and was himself blinded and put in prison, where he died in captivity - not in peace (Jer. 52:10-11). Of course, the point is that he would not be killed by the sword, but die of natural causes - albeit in prison - yet to the critics, it may look like a case of a false prophecy. This case is certainly less clear-cut than the prophecy of Ezekiel discussed above, yet also serves to warn us against harsh judgments.

Many LDS critics attempt to condemn Joseph Smith using a standard that would, if applied to Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Jonah, also condemn the Old Testament as a fraud.

Joseph Smith made some amazingly correct prophecies: predicting in 1832 that a civil war would erupt, beginning in South Carolina, with Great Britain to be involved; prophesying that tobacco is harmful to human health and giving a dietary code with nutritional principles much like the modern "food pyramid;" predicting his own martyrdom; prophesying of the global success that the restored Church would experience, with persecutions; predicting that the Saints would become established in the Rockies; and predicting other important events relative to Native Americans, the United States of America, the Church, future calamities, many details related to specific individuals, etc. Several of these fulfilled prophecies are discussed in detail on my LDSFAQ page, prophecies that have been fulfilled. The prophetic nature of the Book of Mormon is also noteworthy. Even mundane passages such as the physical description of Nephi's journey through the Arabian peninsulaserve as validated prophecies, in a sense, for none of the many accurate details in the text could have been fabricated in 1830 based on what was then known about Arabia, and the "direct hits" (e.g., the place Bountiful and the burial site named Nahom) serve as evidencesvindicating Joseph Smith as a prophet. 

The specific prophecies that are said to be false or incorrect by critics are typically based on hearsay or unreliable sources or are based on incorrect interpretations of what is said. There is no reliable evidence to say that Joseph Smith fails any sound test based on Deut. 18:22. Some of the most common specific objections are treated in my answers below, including a discussion of the Missouri temple prophecy (from Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants) and the Lord's command to David Patten (Section 114 of the Doctrine and Covenants). 

For further reading on this topic, Michael T. Griffith has a useful article, Vindicating Prophecy: Why the Anti-Mormon View of Prophecy Is Invalid, which deals with false standards applied by anti-Mormons to LDS prophecy and prophets - standards which would invalidate the Bible as well. That article is part of his book One Lord, One Faith (Horizon Publishers, 1996). Below is a portion of that article (quoted here since the Web link may have quit working):

In 2 Samuel 7:5-17, we read that the prophet Nathan unequivocally prophesied to David that through his son Solomon the Davidic empire would be established "forever," that the children of Israel would dwell in the promised land "and move no more," and that the "children of wickedness" would no longer afflict them. These things are quite clearly stated. No conditions are attached to these promises, none whatsoever. [Yet this prophecy clearly did not prove successful if it is interpreted literally.]...

[Another example of a problematic Biblical prophecy is] Judges 13:5, where it is recounted that an angel promised Samson's mother that Samson would "begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." No matter how liberal or expansive one wants to be with the facts of Israelite history (as recorded in the Bible or elsewhere), there is no way it can reasonably be concluded that Samson fulfilled this prophecy.

Not only did Samson fail to even "begin" to free Israel from the Philistines, but (1) there were times when he consorted with Philistine women, (2) he married a Philistine, (3) he himself never even led any Israelite troops against the Philistines, and (4) the Philistines eventually humiliated him.

Moreover, and most importantly, Israel actually lost ground to the Philistines during Samson's tenure. Judges 13-16 illustrates Philistine encroachment into Hebrew territory. The Samson narrative documents the eastward expansion of the Philistines by mentioning the Philistine presence in Timnah and Lehi, both in the strategic valley of Sorek (Achtemeier 1985:787-791). This Philistine expansion worsened the land shortage that eventually forced the Danites to migrate northward.

Of course, the nonfulfillment of Judges 13:5 can be attributed to Samson's failure to live according to his Nazarite calling. In addition to his sexual liaisons, he married a Philistine, ate unclean food, drank wine, and allowed his hair to be cut. Therefore, it could be said that the angel's prophecy was nullified by Samson's behavior. However, the angel placed absolutely no conditions on his promise that Samson would begin to deliver Israel from the Philistines. He simply declared that Samson would do so.

 

[Foreigner]

21 hours ago, cdowis said:

Each of these Biblical prophets made a prophecy that failed, that did not come true.  
1. Jonah 
prophecy -- Jjonah 3 [4] And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
result -- Jonah gave an UNCONDITIONAL prophecy, and it failed.

2. Isaiah
prophecy -- Isa 38 [1] In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came unto him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order: for thou shalt die, and not live.
result -- Isaiah gave an UNCONDITIONAL prophecy, and it failed.  Hezekiah did not die for another fifteen years

3.Nathan --
propnecy -- 2 Sam 7 [2] That the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains.
[3] And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the LORD is with thee. Nathan
result -- Nathan gave an UNCONDITIONAL prophecy, and it failed.  David did not build the temple, but his son built it.

See also Matt 24:2, but the Wailing Wall is still standing, which was part of the temple.

I have studied Bible prophecies a lot and never found any which failed, although not all clear.

Your first point is not about unconditional prophecy, but rather a conditional warning, as clearly seen in Jon. 1:2. Point 2 is similar. Point 3 is simply wrong. Nathan gave at first his own advice for king.

Regarding the Wailing Wall, I have checked it closely. I never suspected it caused a prophecy to fail. The temple was ruined and the site leveled for long time, and prophecy fulfilled. I am glad they cleared some part and hope to see a new one and complete at this place according to prophecy.

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

I have studied Bible prophecies a lot and never found any which failed, although not all clear.

Your first point is not about unconditional prophecy, but rather a conditional warning, as clearly seen in Jon. 1:2. Point 2 is similar. Point 3 is simply wrong. Nathan gave at first his own advice for king.

Regarding the Wailing Wall, I have checked it closely. I never suspected it caused a prophecy to fail. The temple was ruined and the site leveled for long time, and prophecy fulfilled. I am glad they cleared some part and hope to see a new one and complete at this place according to prophecy.

Thanks Foreigner, it amazes me when LDS don't come to the defence of the Bible very readily.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks Foreigner, it amazes me when LDS don't come to the defence of the Bible very readily.

I think we just like to be clear about what it is we are defending.  Defending the actual bible is different than defending someone's interpretation of a verse of the bible, which is usually what people do.  Then, when they discover that that interpretation is wrong or contradicts other parts of the bible, it leaves them in a delicate place where their testimony of the bible can become at stake.  

For example, refusing to defend a personal interpretation of a single verse in the bible which states that if a prophet ever prophesies something and it isn't 100% true then he's not a prophet (an interpretation that the bible itself does not support), is not the same thing as refusing to defend the Bible.

It amazes me when someone doesn't understand the difference between the two very readily.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

I have studied Bible prophecies a lot and never found any which failed, although not all clear.

Your first point is not about unconditional prophecy, but rather a conditional warning, as clearly seen in Jon. 1:2. Point 2 is similar. Point 3 is simply wrong. Nathan gave at first his own advice for king.

Regarding the Wailing Wall, I have checked it closely. I never suspected it caused a prophecy to fail. The temple was ruined and the site leveled for long time, and prophecy fulfilled. I am glad they cleared some part and hope to see a new one and complete at this place according to prophecy.

You point out something very important.

It's all about interpretation and understanding how God works through His prophets.  A prophecy can be changed, they are conditional based on the situation.  The prophet Nathan simply was giving his own ideas and assumptions as if they came from God.  I agree with your  observations and they fit  what we know about the prophecies of Joseph Smith as well.

Edited October 14, 2016 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

Regarding the Wailing Wall, I have checked it closely. I never suspected it caused a prophecy to fail. The temple was ruined and the site leveled for long time, and prophecy fulfilled. I am glad they cleared some part and hope to see a new one and complete at this place according to prophecy.

The prophecy was that there wouldn't be one stone upon another.  That didn't happen.

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think we just like to be clear about what it is we are defending.  Defending the actual bible is different than defending someone's interpretation of a verse of the bible, which is usually what people do.  Then, when they discover that that interpretation is wrong or contradicts other parts of the bible, it leaves them in a delicate place where their testimony of the bible can become at stake.  

For example, refusing to defend a personal interpretation of a single verse in the bible which states that if a prophet ever prophesies something and it isn't 100% true then he's not a prophet (an interpretation that the bible itself does not support), is not the same thing as refusing to defend the Bible.

It amazes me when someone doesn't understand the difference between the two very readily.

I should have said when comparing the BoM to the Bible, I see a descrepancy on the amount of defending for the BoM compared to the Bible there is.

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I should have said when comparing the BoM to the Bible, I see a descrepancy on the amount of defending for the BoM compared to the Bible there is.

I choose not to defend either since the spirit bore witness to me of both.
Looking for any kind of defensible proof became unnecessary.  And anyone looking for concrete proof of the validity of any scriptural text is unlikely to find it.
Faith.  The only answer.

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I should have said when comparing the BoM to the Bible, I see a descrepancy on the amount of defending for the BoM compared to the Bible there is.

It's probably in direct relation to the amount of trashing of the BOM compared to trashing of the Bible.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I should have said when comparing the BoM to the Bible, I see a descrepancy on the amount of defending for the BoM compared to the Bible there is.

Let's suppose that I am an atheist.  OK, the Bible has come down through tradition over the centuries and no miracle is required to accept it as secular history.  Just drop the miracles.

The BOM is a different animal.  It is a book delivered by an angel, and some divine being was involved in its translation.  If you want to study and take this book seriously, you must accept the possibility of the existence of angels.  You simply cannot allow any possibility that any portion of it represents actual history.  None of the characters, none of the cities, none of the stories can be taken as serious history.

Edited October 14, 2016 by cdowis

[Foreigner]

On 14.10.2016 at 10:46 PM, Tacenda said:

Thanks Foreigner, it amazes me when LDS don't come to the defence of the Bible very readily.

You touch a real problem. In fact, as can be seen in this topic, they do come to the charge of the Bible very readily. And the charges are relatively weak and apparent. Someone even charged the Bible with failed last days prophecies, while there is no time determined there, and general descriptions are the same in D&C. At the other hand, the Church does have last days prophecies which seem to fail quite evidently (D&C 84:1-5). Here more attention would be worthwhile.

The real problem in Mormonism is the bias regarding scriptures (and related testimonies). It can be historically explained but not justified. Let it be in Utah with their own tradition and culture, but it appears that the bias comes everywhere. I can see in Europe converts, long time in the Church, having their Bibles blank and new, while BoM underlined with all colors. They seem to exchange their heritage and Scripture with the Mormon one. Yet LDS scriptures advice something different! There is twofold way depending of the heritage. Everyone Mormon remembers Moroni 10:4, but neglects verse 1, where the address is given specifically to Lamanites...  This makes difference. The heritage makes difference. I can imagine some native Americans having to cope with great gap in their ancestry while having no other Christian resources. Such a gap may require a specific testimony to cover. All can be reduced to faith, but not everything is the same. We in Europe (and others of European descent) have rather nothing in common with Lamanites and Nefites. We have direct or indirect Jewish heritage, and not expected to give it up. This is not my private idea, this is from scriptures, especially Mormon 7:8-9 and D&C 3:16-20. It summarizes that we must know and appreciate our own heritage (Bible or BoM) first, so to find and value the heritage of others next. Not exchange but unity commanded  1 Nefi 13:41, 2 Nefi 3:12, 2 Nefi 29:8-14. There is, of course, a particular mission of the Church, to spread BoM. Yet, I am afraid, the byproduct manifests in neglecting of the Bible, while many members are justified  to consider it as the first Scripture. By the way, let's look at the BoM cover, below title. There is prescribed order. The Lord just appeared at this side first as well as accomplished his mission here, thus this testimony is the first in absolute terms.

[Tacenda]

50 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

You touch a real problem. In fact, as can be seen in this topic, they do come to the charge of the Bible very readily. And the charges are relatively weak and apparent. Someone even charged the Bible with failed last days prophecies, while there is no time determined there, and general descriptions are the same in D&C. At the other hand, the Church does have last days prophecies which seem to fail quite evidently (D&C 84:1-5). Here more attention would be worthwhile.

The real problem in Mormonism is the bias regarding scriptures (and related testimonies). It can be historically explained but not justified. Let it be in Utah with their own tradition and culture, but it appears that the bias comes everywhere. I can see in Europe converts, long time in the Church, having their Bibles blank and new, while BoM underlined with all colors. They seem to exchange their heritage and Scripture with the Mormon one. Yet LDS scriptures advice something different! There is twofold way depending of the heritage. Everyone Mormon remembers Moroni 10:4, but neglects verse 1, where the address is given specifically to Lamanites...  This makes difference. The heritage makes difference. I can imagine some native Americans having to cope with great gap in their ancestry while having no other Christian resources. Such a gap may require a specific testimony to cover. All can be reduced to faith, but not everything is the same. We in Europe (and others of European descent) have rather nothing in common with Lamanites and Nefites. We have direct or indirect Jewish heritage, and not expected to give it up. This is not my private idea, this is from scriptures, especially Mormon 7:8-9 and D&C 3:16-20. It summarizes that we must know and appreciate our own heritage (Bible or BoM) first, so to find and value the heritage of others next. Not exchange but unity commanded  1 Nefi 13:41, 2 Nefi 3:12, 2 Nefi 29:8-14. There is, of course, a particular mission of the Church, to spread BoM. Yet, I am afraid, the byproduct manifests in neglecting of the Bible, while many members are justified  to consider it as the first Scripture. By the way, let's look at the BoM cover, below title. There is prescribed order. The Lord just appeared at this side first as well as accomplished his mission here, thus this testimony is the first in absolute terms.

Glad I'm not the only one that sees what you described as far as the underlining of the scriptures and other ways the BoM seems to take precedence.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Glad I'm not the only one that sees what you described as far as the underlining of the scriptures and other ways the BoM seems to take precedence.

Considering that, according to a pew survey in 2010, mormons know the bible better than any other Christian religion, even if we do focus on the BOM more we still take the bible more seriously and study it more than everyone else.

Even with the bias, we are doing better, so maybe it's not that much of a problem.

Mormon Knowledge of Bible, Christianity Evident in National U.S. Pew Study

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Considering that, according to a pew survey in 2010, mormons know the bible better than any other Christian religion, even if we do focus on the BOM more we still take the bible more seriously and study it more than everyone else.

Even with the bias, we are doing better, so maybe it's not that much of a problem.

Mormon Knowledge of Bible, Christianity Evident in National U.S. Pew Study

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

From the author of the link you shared's opinion on the article. The actual article didn't state that Mormons read the Bible, just that they know what's in it. And lots of the Bible is in the Book of Mormon. So how is that showing they read the Bible specifically. Mormons weren't asked if they read the Bible, they were asked questions from the Bible. We do learn about the Bible two years out of the 4 years that rotate, but I don't believe we're taught to read the Bible before we're taught to read the BoM. The BoM was taught to be read by a prophet even though it was the Bible one year in Sunday School. During that year, I read on my handout during a ward council meeting at the top of the page, to make sure to read our BoM. Nothing about the Bible.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

From the author of the link you shared's opinion on the article. The actual article didn't state that Mormons read the Bible, just that they know what's in it. And lots of the Bible is in the Book of Mormon. So how is that showing they read the Bible specifically. Mormons weren't asked if they read the Bible, they were asked questions from the Bible. We do learn about the Bible two years out of the 4 years that rotate, but I don't believe we're taught to read the Bible before we're taught to read the BoM. The BoM was taught to be read by a prophet even though it was the Bible one year in Sunday School. During that year, I read on my handout during a ward council meeting at the top of the page, to make sure to read our BoM. Nothing about the Bible.

You're kidding, right?  Only 7% of the BOM comes from biblical passages.  It would be embarrassingly sad if mormons, studying just 7% of the bible, still knew it better than all other denominations.  Your idea that mormons only know the bible better because it's in the BOM makes other Christian religions look really really bad so let's hope that's not the reason.

Besides that, is it possible to know what's in a book better than any other group (including groups who claim to love it more than any other book on earth) and not study/read it?  

And lastly, if we know the bible better than any other Christian group, does it even matter that we aren't taught to read the bible first?  Does it even matter if we formally study the bible 2 of every 4 years?  For all the indignation that some other non-lds Christians proclaim, this study kinda shows that their money isn't really where their mouth is.  

Maybe it's a "stop pointing out the mote that is in your neighbor's eye when you have a giant beam in your own" sort of situation.  That's a pretty good passage from the bible that we could all learn a little better.

[Jeanne]

Perhaps this doesn't really matter pertaining to the subject at hand..but when my kids were little, all their friends that were not LDS, were attending Bible classes for 2 weeks when school got out.
Some of their LDS ward/primary friends tried to discourage them from going because it was not "the church" and was held at the post chapel by other Christian denominations.  Huh.where did they get this from??  Anyway, they had fun..I didn't see a problem and it was stories, pictures, games and a huge picnic the last day.  They had a great time.  Are children not allowed to  go to Bible schools???  And why not the LDS have their own?

[cdowis]

In this case, the motes are being mass produced and has become a profitable industry.

Edited October 16, 2016 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You're kidding, right?  Only 7% of the BOM comes from biblical passages.  It would be embarrassingly sad if mormons, studying just 7% of the bible, still knew it better than all other denominations.  Your idea that mormons only know the bible better because it's in the BOM makes other Christian religions look really really bad so let's hope that's not the reason.

Besides that, is it possible to know what's in a book better than any other group (including groups who claim to love it more than any other book on earth) and not study/read it?  

And lastly, if we know the bible better than any other Christian group, does it even matter that we aren't taught to read the bible first?  Does it even matter if we formally study the bible 2 of every 4 years?  For all the indignation that some other non-lds Christians proclaim, this study kinda shows that their money isn't really where their mouth is.  

Maybe it's a "stop pointing out the mote that is in your neighbor's eye when you have a giant beam in your own" sort of situation.  That's a pretty good passage from the bible that we could all learn a little better.

I'm not saying Mormons don't read the Bible, I'm just saying the BoM is the shining star out of the two, and we're often told to read it. I'd love proof otherwise. I'd love to have references showing that our members are told to read the Bible, not just to read the standard works of the church. But to say the Bible like they do the Book of Mormon.

I wish it was taught to read the Bible just as much as the BoM. Or I live in a totally different environment then you. 

I do believe that maybe we're reading it more if we're asked to give talks or teach lessons and that sure helps. Where some religions leave it to their pastor to teach them.

I'm definitely a good candidate for the scripture you mention about the giant beam in my eye. I just think we need to revere it as much of the BoM. Sorry, if I don't see that and don't see it on this board.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Perhaps this doesn't really matter pertaining to the subject at hand..but when my kids were little, all their friends that were not LDS, were attending Bible classes for 2 weeks when school got out.
Some of their LDS ward/primary friends tried to discourage them from going because it was not "the church" and was held at the post chapel by other Christian denominations.  Huh.where did they get this from??  Anyway, they had fun..I didn't see a problem and it was stories, pictures, games and a huge picnic the last day.  They had a great time.  Are children not allowed to  go to Bible schools???  And why not the LDS have their own?

Thanks for the imput! I remember once when visiting teaching an older woman, with my companion. I mentioned that I thought it would be fun to go to a Bible study. They looked at me like I was going to study Satanism. They were aghast that I would want to do that. It's no wonder that some on this board could no longer have a belief in Jesus or God if Mormonism and the Book of Mormon is found to be false. They must not have a belief in the Bible much, IMO.

[Rain]

I can understand being more confident of the Bible than the Book of Mormon, espcially if you are having any other LDS  centered doubts. 

Geography is a big thing, though now that I have visited Israel I wonder if it would change things for Tacenda. The advantage of the bible is I can go and visit Jerusalem, Nazareth etc. The disadvantage was actually going and seeing how much things had changed. I went and stood by those Jerusalem walls and buildings and I knew they were old, but they were not there when Christ was, especially in the Jewish quarter. So if we learn about the geography from a distance we may get much more belief of its realness. Our minds just picture things there that we assume were there in Christ's time and are still there. That isn't too say our testimony falls away when we visit, but there is a disconnect that happens that you have to reconnect in other ways. 

On another thing, thinking over this I wonder if people who live in a society that is not predomonently Christian have an easier or harder time with the bible or the BoM. In the US we rarely teach someone to pray about the bible. The assumption is the person already believes in it or if we are helping someone gain a testimony of Christ and they get it we don't often ask them to gain a testimony of the bible. The assumption is if they now believe in Christ they also believe in the bible. 

When on my mission I started asking people how they knew the bible was true so I could help then find their testimony of the BoM as well.  I have never been able to get anyone to answer that really. Lots of things said, but nothing towards how they knew or gained their testimony of it.

While it is critical that someone gains their own testimony of each thing, when we put out that one needs to pray over the BoM we are also putting out that element of doubt. We don't do this with the Bible.  We let them express doubt of the bible first and then lead them to testimony if needed. Otherwise it is assumed the testimony is there. It's no wonder that some will believe in the bible over the BoM. 

I wonder if we started asking people to pray over the bible if it would change anything. 

Edited October 16, 2016 by Rain

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not saying Mormons don't read the Bible, I'm just saying the BoM is the shining star out of the two, and we're often told to read it. I'd love proof otherwise. I'd love to have references showing that our members are told to read the Bible, not just to read the standard works of the church. But to say the Bible like they do the Book of Mormon.

You haven't yet answered the question of why it matters?

Is there a "thou shalt love the Bible more than any other scriptures" commandment somewhere that I don't know about?

Where does your belief that no other scripture should be studied more than the biblical scriptures come from?

[Garden Girl]

59 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not saying Mormons don't read the Bible, I'm just saying the BoM is the shining star out of the two, and we're often told to read it. I'd love proof otherwise. I'd love to have references showing that our members are told to read the Bible, not just to read the standard works of the church. But to say the Bible like they do the Book of Mormon.

I wish it was taught to read the Bible just as much as the BoM. Or I live in a totally different environment then you. 

I do believe that maybe we're reading it more if we're asked to give talks or teach lessons and that sure helps. Where some religions leave it to their pastor to teach them.

I'm definitely a good candidate for the scripture you mention about the giant beam in my eye. I just think we need to revere it as much of the BoM. Sorry, if I don't see that and don't see it on this board.

Hello Tacenda...

You say these things often...  on one hand I can see why because we refer to the BoM as the keystone of our religion... and why shouldn't it be, based on the role it played in the establishment of the Church.  But you don't seem to acknowledge that our assigned scripture study is focused on a 4-year rotation of... Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and Doc & Covs... with a year given to each, and beginning again every 4 years.  However, in addition, we are admonished to "study the scriptures" daily on our own.  The standard works of the Church include the Bible.  Whenever I study the scriptures, and assume most LDS likewise, I have my quad and take from all of the scriptures, using the Topical Guide to assist in navigating the scriptures between the four works.  

I must admit that, personally, as a 17 year-old seminary student (again studying formally on a 4-year rotation of the standard works) at the end of the Book of Mormon year, I took Moroni's challenge and prayed deeply and seriously for an answer... what happened to me was a powerful witness that goes well beyond any "fuzzy feelings" our critics like to mock.  Suffice it to say that it was so strong and sure that I can remember it today, 58 years later at age 75, as if it was yesterday.  That witness... that answer to my prayer... was such that it anchored my faith and testimony all my life, particularly through the 35 years that I was an inactive member of the Church (I was inactive from age 20 to age 55).  My inactivity came mainly because I married a wonderful but non-LDS man, and eventually slipped into inactivity as so often happens.  But through the years the Spirit would tug at me, until I finally answered... It was an easier transition back into the Church because of my remembering the witness I had received as a 17 year old girl in answer to my prayer about the Book of Mormon... I love all of the scriptures of our standard works... and study them all regularly... but I do have a special feeling regarding the BoM... and why wouldn't I?  I love that it is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ."

from the beach on a rainy Sabbath afternoon... the winds have subsided and the storm moving to the north... I read something recently.  "Life isn't about how to survive the storm, but how to dance in the rain."

GG