LDS beliefs and the Bible

[*Paul*]

He definitely was not "a witness of the resurrection" even though he ultimately saw the risen Christ.

They all saw the risen Christ, none of them saw Him resurrect, just after the event, Paul a few years after the others. This then is obviously what is meant by being a "witness of the resurrection".
So do all or any of your apostles claim to have seen the risen Christ?

Yeah, well, so did Joseph Smith. :yes:

The Holy Ghost confirmed authenticity of the first apostles' ministry with mighty signs and wonders and wisdom in the scriptures so that the people weren't just going by their word with blind faith.
How did He confirm the ministry of Joseph Smith?

 

[*Paul*]

a Special witness of Christ. exactly what our apostles today are.

All witnesses of Christ are special, but specifcally the apostles said that when they appoint a new one he is to be a witness of the resurrection. Are your apostles today a witness of the resurrection, if so then in what way? Remember Paul' appeal to clarify his apostleship "am i not an apostle? have I not seen Christ?"

How are the saints to be perfected if there is no continual revelation in an ever changing world with new evils around every corner. nipping at the heels of our children?

Because all scripture is given by inspiriation of God that the man of God may be perfect unto every good work.

Yes, they have

Yes, they do. those miracles are performed every Day, gifts of Tongues prophecy, revelation, interpitation of tongues, healing, and so forth

These claims are not unique to them.

And the Aposltes today do not overturn anything, the foundation has been laid, Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. and upon that foundation has the kingdom of God been built upon the earth today, just as Isaiah, Daniel, Elijah, Amos, and John the Revelator all prophesied.

The overturn if they contradict the teachings or teach contrary to them.

 

[madhatter85]

All witnesses of Christ are special, but specifcally the apostles said that when they appoint a new one he is to be a witness of the resurrection. Are your apostles today a witness of the resurrection, if so then in what way? Remember Paul' appeal to clarify his apostleship "am i not an apostle? have I not seen Christ?"
Because all scripture is given by inspiriation of God that the man of God may be perfect unto every good work.

These claims are not unique to them.

they are unique to them in the fact that they have indeed seen christ, and they have indeed the power to perform miracles. my wife has seen them, i have seen then, I have been the reciever of miacles (especially healing)

The overturn if they contradict the teachings or teach contrary to them.

where oh where do we teach doctrine contrary to the Bible?

 

[madhatter85]

They all saw the risen Christ, none of them saw Him resurrect, just after the event, Paul a few years after the others. This then is obviously what is meant by being a "witness of the resurrection".
So do all or any of your apostles claim to have seen the risen Christ?

They commune with him and recieve direction from him in how his church should operate.

The Holy Ghost confirmed authenticity of the first apostles' ministry with mighty signs and wonders and wisdom in the scriptures so that the people weren't just going by their word with blind faith.
How did He confirm the ministry of Joseph Smith?

by exactly the same way!

 

[Orontes]

Let me make sure I understand your position: you hold to sola scriptura and include in that understanding the text is infallible. Any literal translation is acceptable in your church and your church doesn't make any claim as to which Bible is the correct version. Is this correct?

We view any literal translation as a good translation of scripture provided they are drawn from the traditional / recieved and majority text.

So, based on the noted proviso, infallibility claims rest on an appeal to tradition?

You also stated God authenticates the Bible. What does this mean? Does this mean the truth value of the text comes from outside the text i.e. from God?

What I mean is the deeper spiritual truths are hidden from the unregenerate mind and are shown to man when the Spirit of God indwells him and he grows from feeding on the word and sees the complete authenticity of God's word because the Spirit confirms it to his mind.

So, the truth value of the text depends on the indwelling spirit of God?

Another sola scriptura question: do you consider all translations of the Bible infallible or only English translations? If you have differing translations, what is the resolution?

Any literal translation of scripture into any language is the word of God in that language, On Christ's cross His accusation was written in different languages, all said the same thing to the people who could read the languages.

If you've studied languages other than English you are no doubt aware that there is no direct conceptual correlation between languages. In simple terms: meaning is not reducible. Given that fact, how can you make an infallibility claim for each language and Bible version when each language is distinct?

How do you justify claiming loyalty to sola scriptura if you reject a traditional portion of the Bible i.e. the deuterocanon?

It is only traditional to some. It was not in the palestinian canon and I think orthodox judaism is a cleaner stream than hellenised judaism.

This dichotomy between orthodox Judaism and Hellenized Judaism is flawed. "orthodox" begs the question and the term Hellenized Judaism is only meaningful if "Hellenized" is applied to the Septuagint which was written in Greek. Of course, by that standard Christianity is likewise "Hellenized Christianity" by the fact its unique texts were all written in Greek. One cannot condemn one without condemning the other. Moreover, the various canonical claims within Jewry are of no consequence unless you are arguing from a Jewish perspective. The Christian community always accepted the deuterocanon. From the Vulgate forward this was uniform among Oriental, Greek and Latin Christian Traditions. It is only with Protestants that removing Bible texts gained sway. Oddly, it is also within this same Protestant Tradition that sola scriptura was born. The two notions contradict.

 

[*Paul*]

[/size]
they are unique to them in the fact that they have indeed seen christ,

Could you post me an account of their experiences of seeing the risen Christ?

where oh where do we teach doctrine contrary to the Bible?

Remind me you asked this question if I do not respond within a few days.

 

[madhatter85]

Could you post me an account of their experiences of seeing the risen Christ?



Remind me you asked this question if I do not respond within a few days.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
LDS.org - Liahona Article - We Testify of Jesus Christ

 

[*Paul*]

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
LDS.org - Liahona Article - We Testify of Jesus Christ

Interesting though these were they do not say that your mormon apsotles have seen the risen Christ. At best it says Joseph Smith said he did. Can your mormon apostles say, I am not an apostle, have I not seen Christ? 1Cor 9:1 Or that they are witnesses of the ressurection Acts 1:21-22

 

[Katzpur]

Interesting though these were they do not say that your mormon apsotles have seen the risen Christ. At best it says Joseph Smith said he did. Can your mormon apostles say, I am not an apostle, have I not seen Christ? 1Cor 9:1 Or that they are witnesses of the ressurection Acts 1:21-22

Seeing the risen Christ is not a requirement for being called to the Apostleship. Christ called His original twelve during His ministry. They were called and ordained to their positions based on His knowledge of their character. The fact that the original twelve initially looked for replacements among those who had witnessed the Resurrection does not mean it is a requirement for the calling. Paul said that both prophets and apostles were to remain part of the Church until we came into the unity of the faith. Had all future apostles been required to have witnessed the Resurrection, Christ would have had to return almost immediately.

 

[*Paul*]

So, based on the noted proviso, infallibility claims rest on an appeal to tradition?[/quote**

Infallibillity claims rest on an appeal to God’s promise:
Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
God has promised to preserve His words and I do not doubt Him and I am convinced that He did not keep them hiding in a trash can or library for centuries hiding them from His church.

So, the truth value of the text depends on the indwelling spirit of God?

No, the truth value of the text does not change regardless of who understands it, the simple gospel is there for anyone to understand but the deeper things of God are for His children only.

If you've studied languages other than English you are no doubt aware that there is no direct conceptual correlation between languages. In simple terms: meaning is not reducible. Given that fact, how can you make an infallibility claim for each language and Bible version when each language is distinct?

The message is the same in each language, the same verses are appealed to to support the same doctrines, I simply say along with the KJV translators:
[An answer to the imputations of our adversaries.]
• 1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
• 2 As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
• 3 For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all [James 3:2]) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars.
• 4 No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
• 5 For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?
• 6 The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express.
• 7 Judge by an example or two.
• 8 Plutarch writeth, [Plutarch. in Camillo.] that after that Rome had been burnt by the Gauls, they fell soon to build it again: but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the house in such comely fashion as had been most sightly and convenient; was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good patriot, that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good prince, that did indeed set it on fire?
• 9 So, by the story of Ezra and the prophecy of Haggai it may be gathered that the Temple built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon was by no means to be compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former wept [Ezra 3:12] when they considered the latter notwithstanding, might this latter either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned by the Greeks?
• 10 The like we are to think of translations.
• 11 The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it?
• 12 Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and the most learned men to confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God.
• 13 And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics, forsooth, were the authors of the translations, (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong) we marvel what divinity taught them so.
• 14 We are sure Tertullian [Tertul. de præscript. contra hæreses.] was of another mind: Expersonis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Do we try men's faith by their persons? we should try their persons by their faith.
• 15 Also S.Augustine was of another mind: for he, lighting upon certain rules made by Tychonius, a Donatist, for the better understanding of the Word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his own book, with giving commendation to them so far forth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seen in S.Augustine's third book De Doctrinâ Christianâ. [S.August. 3. de doct. Christ. cap. 30.]
• 16 To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot, (much more from burning) the translation of Aquila, a proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics, that they joined them together with the Hebrew original, and the translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all.
• 17 But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.

 

[*Paul*]

This dichotomy between orthodox Judaism and Hellenized Judaism is flawed. "orthodox" begs the question and the term Hellenized Judaism is only meaningful if "Hellenized" is applied to the Septuagint which was written in Greek.

We appeal to the Hebrew scriptures as that is the language of the people to whom it was delivered. And besides the apocryphal books were not part literature but Jewish therefore it was for the Jews to decide if they were canonical for:

Epistle to Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

They were not quoted as authoritative by Jesus or the apostles, they are never appealed to by them, what was canonical for the Jews or “to be read” in the temples was decided by the men of the great assembly”, this was never challenged by any Christian authority. Philo (20bc-40ad) quotes from every old testament book but not from the apocrypha. And Josephus wrote:

Against Apion/Book 1/Section 8:

8. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, [the tanakh] which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.

Of course, by that standard Christianity is likewise "Hellenized Christianity"

It would not matter for Christianity is for all nations, Judaism was specifically for a chosen nation.

Moreover, the various canonical claims within Jewry are of no consequence unless you are arguing from a Jewish perspective.

They are of much consequence to us as theirs is the foundation of Christianity.

The Christian community always accepted the deuterocanon.

That is a very mis-informed opinion. E.g the orthodox church omitted the deutro canon from the larger catechism (1839) because it was not included in the Hebrew bible (b.t.w Augustine himself knew that the Jewish community did not accept them as part of the canon Augustine, 19.36–38.) Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius had the same canon as us prtoestants.

From the Vulgate forward this was uniform among Oriental, Greek and Latin Christian Traditions.

As was infant baptism, persecution of unbelievers / heretics. It is of very little relevance to me.

 

[*Paul*]

They commune with him and recieve direction from him in how his church should operate.

How does He communicate with them? Audio? Letter? Feelings?


by exactly the same way![/quote]

Then why aren't they healing multitudes as were Peter and Paul, where are the verifiable miracles that can be scrutinized such as a blind man given sight, a dead man raised, a cripple made to walk etc. I think I would have read about these apostles miracles, or are they for mormons only?

 

[madhatter85]

How does He communicate with them? Audio? Letter? Feelings?

Through the Holy Ghost and Directly face to face i am positive.

Then why aren't they healing multitudes as were Peter and Paul, where are the verifiable miracles that can be scrutinized such as a blind man given sight, a dead man raised, a cripple made to walk etc. I think I would have read about these apostles miracles, or are they for mormons only?

But they are, and they do. Blessings for the sick and afflicted. many times have i heard of wonderful miracle stories because of the priesthood power which is on the earth today, Prophecy and Revelation especially. I myself have been made a partaker of these gifts through the priesthood. I have also witnessed it for others i know. Such events are commonplace in the LDS lifestyle, Ask any of them i'm sure many instances have come up.

Where is the Pope doing these things? =/

 

[McBell]

Where is the Pope doing these things? =/

I have heard many Catholics claim that the Pope has healed them or people they know.
Interesting that.

 

[Watchmen]

Where is the Pope doing these things? =/

Hi. I know I'm new here so I probably shouldn't say anything, but your comment seems a bit unfriendly. I think we should be the best LDS we can be and not worry about what the Pope is or isn't doing.

Your friend.

 

[madhatter85]

Hi. I know I'm new here so I probably shouldn't say anything, but your comment seems a bit unfriendly. I think we should be the best LDS we can be and not worry about what the Pope is or isn't doing.

Your friend.

Yes i totally agree, it was snide. and if i could delete that part i would

 

[Sententia]

Through the Holy Ghost and Directly face to face i am positive.

Its your belief but lets say you were giving testimony for or against someone in a court of law. If was your defense council I would advise you not to mention this particular story because it could be used to decredit you as a rational witness.

It stands to reason people who have met our fictional version of god face to face and who sees wonderful miracles in their everyday life would also know why its not rational.

True to you perhaps. In real life... No ghosts, aliens, monsters in the closet or gods in the skies, wind or elsewhere. No miracles or faith healers. Not one shred of real evidence exists for any of these supernatural events that will verify and prove any of them as any more real then unicorns, leprechauns, magic, voodoo and pegasi.

Bill Wiese has said he spent 23 minutes in hell. He wrote a book about the experience and god spoke to him too. God told Bill that he is coming very, very soon. I don't believe Bill either. But he does back his story up with a lot of scripture and maybe his story will interest you.

Matthew Dovel said he has seen both heaven and hell and he would had stayed in heaven except Jesus spoke to him. Jesus told him he had to go back. He was so mad at god and jesus that he was sent back that he decided to commit suicide... Jesus talked to him again and after a brief glimpse of hell told him he had work to do and sent him back here again.

I could list stories for hours but none of them will be verifiable. All will be very predictable. In short I don't believe them and think their dishonest. Not only are they being dishonest with me but they are also being dishonest with themselves.

 

[McBell]

I could list stories for hours but none of them will be verifiable. All will be very predictable. In short I don't believe them and think their dishonest. Not only are they being dishonest with me but they are also being dishonest with themselves.

If someone honestly, truly believes something and shares that belief with others, is it being dishonest?
Personally, I do not think so.

Does it make thm right?
No, not any more so than it makes them dishonest.

 

[Sententia]

If someone honestly, truly believes something and shares that belief with others, is it being dishonest?
Personally, I do not think so.

Does it make thm right?
No, not any more so than it makes them dishonest.

I don't think many truly believe it. They know its false but its easier and better to pretend and act as if its true. I have confronted many people who were outright lying to me face to face and I knew they were lying. They lied and lied. (Not regarding religion in this particular event) I let it go on for 3 days. The embellishments. The clothes people were wearing. The smell of the lake. I mean they had put themselves in this situation and convinced themselves of their own lie. Idle chit chat that went on. What the temperture was. A funny story someone said. When I finally called them on their original lie they stood in mute silence. She tried to speak... he face flushed red. She hasn't talked to me since and I did nothing wrong but call her on her own dishonesty.

Its the boy who cried wolf story... God talked to me, and me, and me, and me. God sent me back, god wants me here god told me this, god has a plan for me and for you, he told me, god is still speaking.... If god ever does talk to someone I dont think anyone will be listening hehe.

 

[madhatter85]

I don't think many truly believe it. They know its false but its easier and better to pretend and act as if its true. I have confronted many people who were outright lying to me face to face and I knew they were lying. They lied and lied. (Not regarding religion in this particular event) I let it go on for 3 days. The embellishments. The clothes people were wearing. The smell of the lake. I mean they had put themselves in this situation and convinced themselves of their own lie. Idle chit chat that went on. What the temperture was. A funny story someone said. When I finally called them on their original lie they stood in mute silence. She tried to speak... he face flushed red. She hasn't talked to me since and I did nothing wrong but call her on her own dishonesty.

Its the boy who cried wolf story... God talked to me, and me, and me, and me. God sent me back, god wants me here god told me this, god has a plan for me and for you, he told me, god is still speaking.... If god ever does talk to someone I dont think anyone will be listening hehe.

I think that you're right that peopel will say things and convice themselves certaint hings have happened even though they haven't, it's human nature, and most will deny what has happened in the face of troubled times, or to get what they want. If you have ever seen "There will be blood" you will know what i'm talking about. the guyw ho claims to be a prophet and then denys it at the end for the propsect of money.

the difference is i could never deny what i know to be true. too many thing have indeed happened that testify of the truthfulness of it. you may not believe me but you don't have to believe something for it to be true.