Role of the Bible in Mormonism

[Jane_Doe]

@mickydo

A

You are 100% bulls-eye on everything you're saying here. 

However, instead of coming up with a list ripping at 1000's of Bible translations and other beliefs system, LDS missionaries take a different route: just teach Truth.  For example: the Truth that God still speaks, still issues revelation, and still personally leads His church.  We teach this Truth.  Sometimes a person will bring up an idea contrary to this, usually based upon a misunderstanding of certain Bible verses.  In that case, we'll talk about those verse, tie them in with the bigger picture of rest of scripture, and work from there.

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[Sunday21]

On September 19, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Right now my personal scripture study is topic based (about the promises we make with God) and I am constantly pulling in references from ALL books of scripture. 

This sounds pretty cool!  Would love to hear about that!

[Sunday21]

On September 20, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Apparently the covering is called "Sisal".  The exmo forums seem absolutely fascinated by the stuff (the poor dears!)

Who knew that we could be so interesting! I know when I see someone with that certain glint in their eye that they are going to pull me aside and discuss polygam! . 

[Guest]

On 9/21/2016 at 0:59 PM, mickydo said:

Hello all,

Thanks for your replies... Carborendum.. I read the whole post....  thank you..

New revelation from God is dangerous.. we are to test it against the word of God...

Is'nt there something in your evangelical literature dealing with errors in the bible?  How do you teach missionaries how to respond to doctrine from faulty translations? Im just thinking this must come up...

Thank you for taking the time to read that whole quotation.  It must have taken some dedication on your part.  It is appreciated.

For the remainder of your post, I'm not certain if I understand your question -- mainly because I think you're asking multiple separate questions and conflating them.  One thing I keep stressing on these boards is consistency.  I get confused when multiple topics are mixed up and treated as one.  It's just my thinking pattern.  I'm guessing that on some level you're thinking they are all one topic.  Ok.  That's just not the way I see them.

You talk about what Jesus said about false teaching.  That's true.  And we also follow that same philosophy.  But that is another topic.  And I'd be overjoyed should you start a new thread on that topic.

You have the disclamer "idk...I'm askin..."  Ok.  you're confused by some things.  I can certainly understand confusion.  The world is filled with it.  BTW, I also can't stand the "flashing html" websites.  They hurt my eyes.

I'm going to try to respond, but it may be a bit stream of consciousness because there was an ebb and flow to your post to begin with, so here it is.

We use the KJV because it was a common English version at the time of Joseph Smith.  Nowhere is there any quote or declaration from any LDS authorities that states "The Bible is False".  IOW, the great majority of many biblical verses are perfectly fine as they are.  It is certainly NOT to be thrown away.

Joseph also had a personal taste for the KJV because it was the version he grew up with.  To him, there was a majesty to the archaic language.  Today as I read it, I understand why he thought that.  People don't write like that anymore.  Furthermore, some LDS authorities have said that of all English versions, it has probably the fewest errors.  Ok.  I'm not sure about that personally.  Joseph Smith actually said that of all the versions he had read, the German Bible was what he found to be most accurate.  Unfortunately, I don't know which German Bible he was talking about (perhaps the Gutenberg) nor do I know if that version has a literal translation into English.  Perhaps someone else on the board can help out in that regard.

There is nothing wrong with using other English versions.  But it is important in a classroom setting to at least agree on a "standard" version for discussion, quotation, and cross-referencing purposes.  At the same time, there is nothing wrong with bringing up alternate translations as long as it is clear that it is from another version for the sake of quotation.  As we read other versions and see the differences, it becomes pretty clear that there are disagreements between the English versions alone.  

You were raised Catholic.  The Apocrypha was part of your religious education.  Why is that missing from other versions in other sects?  What about Gnostic Texts?  Disagreements on what is and is not scripture or even what the correct translation is already existed without any Mormon statements or involvement.  So this is not a new concept.  I'd encourage you to ask the same questions about the pre-existing disagreements before you take too much exception to the LDS position on it.

Further, the word "translation" is not simply the word meanings from one language to another.  It is about how the message is presented to you.  As any student of the Bible knows, any passage can be interpreted a number of ways.  Then those interpretations can be applied in a number of ways.  Translation is also about how the message is conveyed to an individual.  While we may agree on the words of a particular verse, the meaning may be something completely different to you than it does to me.  And some corrupt priest throughout history (not just the Catholic Church or monks) have decided to twist things in their favor.  

Example: Many ministers in the antebellum South used Bible verses to show that slavery was commanded of God.  Many believed it.  Some still do.  There is no disagreement on the words themselves (in this example).  It is the application.

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Guest

[estradling75]

19 hours ago, mickydo said:

Is'nt there something in your evangelical literature dealing with errors in the bible?  How do you teach missionaries how to respond to doctrine from faulty translations? Im just thinking this must come up...

We teach member/missionaries/investigators the Doctrine.  We back that Doctrine with many, many, scriptural sources. (Be they biblical or what we consider modern revelation Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants etc.)

We don't need to teach the errors...  because we teach truth.  And Truth properly understood is the best and most sure way of recognizing and countering error.

Now you might say well how do you convince people who disagree with you...  And the answer is we don't.  This is God's work... He does the convincing.  We are simply the messengers that he uses as tools to give voice to His Words.  And the scriptures are quite clear that his sheep will hear his voice.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 9/21/2016 at 11:59 AM, mickydo said:

I'm assuming Mormons have a defense of the faith.  New doctrine that alters who Jesus is or the Gospel of Christ need to be defended. . . .

Is'nt there something in your evangelical literature dealing with errors in the bible?  How do you teach missionaries how to respond to doctrine from faulty translations? Im just thinking this must come up...

The thing is, to be defended, it must first have been attacked.  So in that regard--if you take a specific Mormon teaching (say, Mormonism's rejection of Trinitarianism) and say "this isn't Biblical"--then sure; you're going to see a lot of LDS authors (including some pretty official ones) defending the LDS position on that topic while reconciling various Biblical verses and, occasionally, pointing out Biblical errors (the "Johannine comma", for example).* 

But that's different from the sort of comprehensive list of Biblical errors that you seem to be requesting; and as @Jane_Doe says, that sort of approach just isn't needed in our style of proselytizing.  One thing to understand about Mormonism, is that it is not primarily a legalistic enterprise bent on reconciling superficially contradictory holy texts; nor is it really supposed to be a system of textual analysis.  Mormonism grew up around a notion that was, at the time, pretty rare in orthodox Christianity:  That not only could a person talk to God, but that He could and would talk back.  For those of us who served as Mormon missionaries--our training was to help potential converts to identify times when they have already heard the Holy Spirit speaking to them; and then we were supposed to to help them to refine their ability to detect, understand, and apply the messages God gives to them individually.  Certainly those revelations need to be weighed both against the corpus of existing scripture and against the mainstream teachings of the Church; and to the degree that any conflicts might present themselves a missionary will work to resolve that conflict as (s)he goes.  But in those early stages of conversion the main focus is on getting the channels of revelation flowing; not on trying to put God in a box or limit the sorts of things He might choose to reveal.

 

 

*I would also note that when a critic of Mormonism tries to cite some Biblical verse for the proposition that this Mormon teaching or that is somehow "un-Biblical"--my experience is that at least 90% of the time, I can usually find another verse in the Bible that stands for the exact opposite proposition.  Thus, rather than undermining my Mormon faith; the ambiguities present in the Bible often tend to reinforce my faith by confirming the need for additional scripture. 

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 9:34 AM, mickydo said:

hello people,

I am studying Mormonism.  My background is Catholic and then charismatic for a little while.

I read something somewhere about Mormons believing the bible was "revered" but was corrupted by monks.  

This idea about the bible was part of a list of things that I think had something to do with wisdom?  I cant find this list of like ten things now.  It was a Mormon list not a internet thing.

What I want to get at is what role does the bible play in the practical life of a Mormon.  

What are the corrupted parts of the bible that should be avoided according to Mormonism?  

Did Joseph Smith say the bible was corrupt?  

If so where does He say that in His writings?

Thanks a bunch

Mike

 

Greetings Mike, 

I am devout Mormon and a scientist working in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.  One does not have to study the ancient Biblical text very long to realize that what we have in our modern “versions” not only vary from each other but also depart somewhat from the ancient text.  In addition there are errors so blatantly obvious that a grade school student can tell something is not right.  For example, let’s start with the first chapter of Genesis with the creation account.  Starting with verse 9 through verse 19 where the 3rd and 4th “day” of creation is highlighted and explained.   But any reasonable person will realize that day 3 and day 4 are backwards and that there is no way in creation that there were trees producing fruit and grass going to seed on earth before there was a sun in the earth’s sky providing heat for the planet and governing our solar system.

Hope this gives some insight to problems in the thinking of absolute credibility of the Bible.

 

The Traveler

[mickydo]

Thanks again.. great responses...

The Mormon Article of Faith asserts that the bible can be incorrectly translated...  Number 8 reads..  We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Im just askin ... ok where?   I can go the other way and cite what I think is a biblical truth and then assert the Mormon position to be false teaching but..  that can get offensive or argumentative... I thought at first Id just ask you all what those problems are in translation.  I was thinkin there are common ones that come up regularly..

Hi travler.. about your Genesis question... Light first appears in gen 1:3... That light must be sufficient to grow whatever until the additional "lights to divide day and night" arrive in Verse 14...  creation account matters are not distinctive to mormonism...  Could we talk about some kinda topic that is distinctive to Mormonism like becoming Gods or Celestial Marriage.  

One of the things that has always interested me is that Joseph Smith claims to "restore" the church.  What little I know about Mormanism... it seems he rather added completely new material... and isn't restoring the church but altering it.  Im interested in the preisthoods Joseph Smith seems to be re-establishing..

Does anyone want to school me on the mormon position as to why priesthoods are necessary?  You need to tell what to read so I can read the Mormon teaching for myself and then we can talk about it.  Im good for one to three responses per day till we exhaust the topic.  

Im open to whatever.. but I dont want to be hassled if I make you defend your faith... If you have the truth lay it on me...

Lookin for someone with good grounding in Mormon Theology for respectful dialog...  

Thanks

Mike

[Jane_Doe]

48 minutes ago, mickydo said:

Could we talk about some kinda topic that is distinctive to Mormonism like becoming Gods or Celestial Marriage.  

Actually a lot of those supporting verses come straight from the Bible.  Here's a really good official essay on becoming like God: https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

48 minutes ago, mickydo said:

Does anyone want to school me on the mormon position as to why priesthoods are necessary?  You need to tell what to read so I can read the Mormon teaching for myself and then we can talk about it.  Im good for one to three responses per day till we exhaust the topic.  

Priesthood is the eternal power and authority of God.  It cannot go away and essential.  God delegates His power to His servants to do His work.  It is necessary for things like baptism-- after all what good is a baptism done by one who has no authority from God?  Our God is a God of order, not chaos.

Here is some more information on Priesthood: https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-13-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Note: a lot of people when the think of "priests" they think of some old guy with a funny hat, who lives in a church and does nothing but church stuff all day.  LDS priests are not like that- the point of the priesthood is not to cloister a few people away from the community, but to get out their and lead all to God.   Almost all adult LDS men are priests, who work to serve their families, their communities, and God.  They work day jobs as accountants, fireman, real estate agents, etc.  Majority of them are married with children.  

Edited September 23, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, mickydo said:

Thanks again.. great responses...

The Mormon Article of Faith asserts that the bible can be incorrectly translated...  Number 8 reads..  We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Im just askin ... ok where?   I can go the other way and cite what I think is a biblical truth and then assert the Mormon position to be false teaching but..  that can get offensive or argumentative... I thought at first Id just ask you all what those problems are in translation.  I was thinkin there are common ones that come up regularly..

Hi travler.. about your Genesis question... Light first appears in gen 1:3... That light must be sufficient to grow whatever until the additional "lights to divide day and night" arrive in Verse 14...  creation account matters are not distinctive to mormonism...  Could we talk about some kinda topic that is distinctive to Mormonism like becoming Gods or Celestial Marriage.  

One of the things that has always interested me is that Joseph Smith claims to "restore" the church.  What little I know about Mormanism... it seems he rather added completely new material... and isn't restoring the church but altering it.  Im interested in the preisthoods Joseph Smith seems to be re-establishing..

Does anyone want to school me on the mormon position as to why priesthoods are necessary?  You need to tell what to read so I can read the Mormon teaching for myself and then we can talk about it.  Im good for one to three responses per day till we exhaust the topic.  

Im open to whatever.. but I dont want to be hassled if I make you defend your faith... If you have the truth lay it on me...

Lookin for someone with good grounding in Mormon Theology for respectful dialog...  

Thanks

Mike

You are getting good answers...  The problem is that you have a preconceived notion of what our answers should be... so you are not understanding what they are...

Lets talk translation... every time anyone takes a verse of scripture and says "this is what this scripture means" they are translating it...  Therefore it is important to translate it correctly.

For example many times other Christians will challenge what they think is the Mormon Works based theology...  they will trot out scripture that say things like it is by Grace we are saved not of works etc... etc...  All of which are true scriptures but their translation that all they need to do is "profess Christ" and nothing else matters run counter to several other biblical scriptures.  We consider such translation faulty, incomplete, missing part.  Yes we must "profess Christ" but the scriptures seem quite clear that our actions speak louder then our words and so actions need to line up with our words... which bring up the importance repentance because our actions don't always line up.

As for new material you need to consider the idea that it just appears New because it was lost.  Lets take the Gospel of Christ... To the Jewish converts the Gospel of Christ was new... it was an addition/replacement of the Law of Moses they knew and understood.  But per the Mormon understanding the Gospel of Christ was taught from the beginning (aka Adam) but the Jews lost it when they worshiped the Gold calf.  So it only seemed 'new' to those that had to look outside of what they used to accept as the final word of truth

With the idea of things being lost we have to search a bit outside the bible to find it...(otherwise it would not be lost).  And guess what... the new Mormon things aren't really lost if we look outside the standard Christian groups to religious groups that have been rejected because they believe in things outside the bible

As for Priesthood it is necessary simply because God said so.  God's house is a house of order.  Order is kept by everyone knowing who God put in charge.  The entirety of the New Testament exist because God built his church on a foundation of Prophets and Apostles (aka Priesthood holders) and those Apostles worked to keep the church in order and called local leaders and wrote letters to correct and give guidance.  

In addition if one believed that ordinance like baptism are required then it is reasonable to think that such ordinances require an someone God has authorized to perform such.

Now if you are Catholic this something you already know and accept and the Catholics claim the Priesthood through Peter.  If you are Protestant then you have a problem.  Protestants generally consider the Catholic church fallen... and if they are fallen then their authority/priesthood is non-exisitant.  So they have to twist and turn and try to justify a church that doesn't need Priesthood or Apostles or Prophets...  And they end up with something like the Priesthood of Believers were everyone can do whatever.

If we accept that priesthood is important then either the Catholic have it or it was lost and needed to be restored... The later is the position of the Mormon faith.

 

 

 

 

[zil]

37 minutes ago, mickydo said:

Im just askin ... ok where?

I'm thinking we already gave you our perspective on this question: there is no list, only understanding and teaching doctrine and scripture.  It would be a waste of time to build a list of what not to believe when one can simply teach the Gospel instead.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, mickydo said:

One of the things that has always interested me is that Joseph Smith claims to "restore" the church.  What little I know about Mormanism... it seems he rather added completely new material... and isn't restoring the church but altering it.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it--is the "new material" really new, or is it just old material that was lost or redacted from the Bible or what-have-you and is therefore new to us?  The latter scenario is very much in line with a restoration; the former, not so much.

I'm in the middle of listening to a book-on-tape of Terryl Givens' Wrestling the Angel (Givens is a Mormon, but is approaching it from an academic standpoint and he's much more informed by traditional theological studies than most Mormons would be).  One of the points he makes about "restoration" is the existence of the "restorationist" movement, which was big during the Second Great Awakening and from which Mormonism drew many of its early converts.  Most of these restorationists were not actually trying to find lost truths, so much as to restore the simplicity and purity of the early Christian church by peeling away the rituals and dogmas of Catholicism and high-church Protestantism.   

Mormonism wasn't exactly in line with this trend, because Smith openly declared from the get-go that the heavens had opened and that truths--whether new, or just old truths that had gotten lost--would thereafter be revealed.  However, other than a strong millennialist streak and the acceptance of an open canon, Mormonism in 1831-1832 didn't really have a lot of these distinctive teachings that seem to fascinate you so much; and it probably would have fit reasonably well within the traditional "restorationist" milieu. 

Quote

Does anyone want to school me on the mormon position as to why priesthoods are necessary?  

In addition to @Jane_Doe's excellent answer, I would refer you back to something you yourself said--"New revelation from God is dangerous."  And that doesn't just apply to some third party who sets himself up as a revelator from God:  the revelations we think we have received ourselves, may turn out to be deception.  In the absence of one infallible line of revelation, Mormons believe that God has given us three lines of revelation which are to be weighed against each other and, ideally, reconciled on any given topic.  One line of revelation, as you suggest, is scripture.  Another is the individual's own ability to receive revelations directly from God; and the third is inspired authoritative leaders who can warn us against specific means of deception both individually, and collectively as a church. 

For more on how the "priesthood line" of divine communication interplays with the "personal line" of divine communication, you might enjoy this talk by Mormon apostle Dallin Oaks. 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Larry Cotrell]

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

For example, let’s start with the first chapter of Genesis with the creation account.  Starting with verse 9 through verse 19 where the 3rd and 4th “day” of creation is highlighted and explained.   But any reasonable person will realize that day 3 and day 4 are backwards and that there is no way in creation that there were trees producing fruit and grass going to seed on earth before there was a sun in the earth’s sky providing heat for the planet and governing our solar system.

Moses 2:11-19 says the same thing

Day 3 (verses 11-13) And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself upon the earth, and it was so even as I spake. And the earth brought forth grass, every herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself, after his kind; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good; And the evening and the morning were the third day. 

Day 4 (verses 14-19) And I, God, said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years; And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so. And I, God, made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the greater light was the sun, and the lesser light was the moon; and the stars also were made even according to my word. And I, God, set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And the sun to rule over the day, and the moon to rule over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good; And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

God is fully capable of keeping the plants alive for a day while He makes the sun.

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Larry Cotrell

[Traveler]

34 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Moses 2:11-19 says the same thing

Day 3 (verses 11-13) And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself upon the earth, and it was so even as I spake. And the earth brought forth grass, every herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed should be in itself, after his kind; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good; And the evening and the morning were the third day. 

Day 4 (verses 14-19) And I, God, said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years; And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so. And I, God, made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the greater light was the sun, and the lesser light was the moon; and the stars also were made even according to my word. And I, God, set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And the sun to rule over the day, and the moon to rule over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and I, God, saw that all things which I had made were good; And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

We could explorer the reasons that Moses mirrors Genesis.  The point is that an average person with average intelligence would understand that the scripture is at best misleading as a description of verifiable reality.  Obviously it is incorrect and thus scripture is not without mistakes.  I am concerned with the attitude that scripture cannot be wrong.  That idea has two problems – the first is demonstrated by these verses – obviously this is not how the universe works or an order of things that can be demonstrated.  The second problem is that even if the scriptures are absolutely credible the translation from ancient concepts to modern concepts and then interpreted by various religious leaders into concept of things not to be questioned is in rather stark contrast to what the same religious leaders claim to be the nature and intelligence of G-d.

My question to you is – do you believe that grass can survive and trees produce fruit in an environment void of the warmth of the sun? – Because the scriptures seem to imply such?  If you believe such to be true – I would ask you why? By what means do you verify your ideas and notions?  And expect a reasonable and credible answer related to something real and then I would be left to wonder; if you cannot get something so obvious wrong in our physical empirical universe to be wrong – how can you be trusted to have any clue of what is true for things spiritual?

I have asked many that believe the Bible concerning these verses and no one has given me an answer – which makes we wonder if they even realized this order of creation in Genesis and just accept it without question because it was in the Bible – I wonder what they would think of someone believing something so absurd from some other ancient source thought to be credible from other religions.

 

The Traveler

 

PS - just in case you are wondering LDS teach the principle of creation in our Temples in the correct order.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Traveler

[Larry Cotrell]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

My question to you is – do you believe that grass can survive and trees produce fruit in an environment void of the warmth of the sun? – Because the scriptures seem to imply such?  If you believe such to be true – I would ask you why? By what means do you verify your ideas and notions?  

I believe that God can keep plants alive for a day while He makes the sun.

Luke 1:37

For with God nothing shall be impossible.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, mickydo said:

Thanks again.. great responses...

The Mormon Article of Faith asserts that the bible can be incorrectly translated...  Number 8 reads..  We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Im just askin ... ok where?   I can go the other way and cite what I think is a biblical truth and then assert the Mormon position to be false teaching but..  that can get offensive or argumentative... I thought at first Id just ask you all what those problems are in translation.  I was thinkin there are common ones that come up regularly..

Hi travler.. about your Genesis question... Light first appears in gen 1:3... That light must be sufficient to grow whatever until the additional "lights to divide day and night" arrive in Verse 14...  creation account matters are not distinctive to mormonism...  Could we talk about some kinda topic that is distinctive to Mormonism like becoming Gods or Celestial Marriage.  

One of the things that has always interested me is that Joseph Smith claims to "restore" the church.  What little I know about Mormanism... it seems he rather added completely new material... and isn't restoring the church but altering it.  Im interested in the preisthoods Joseph Smith seems to be re-establishing..

Does anyone want to school me on the mormon position as to why priesthoods are necessary?  You need to tell what to read so I can read the Mormon teaching for myself and then we can talk about it.  Im good for one to three responses per day till we exhaust the topic.  

Im open to whatever.. but I dont want to be hassled if I make you defend your faith... If you have the truth lay it on me...

Lookin for someone with good grounding in Mormon Theology for respectful dialog...  

Thanks

Mike

There is no official effort in the LDS church to find and catalog the errors from ancient scripture.  The problem I gave is from my own studies.  I believe it to be obvious.  The LDS doctrine, as I understand, is that everyone is responsible to G-d for what they believe, say and do.  We are not responsible to scripture – we do now worship scripture as such.  We are taught that when we have questions – we study them and take our questions to G-d for answers – because it is to him we are responsible.  The idea that there are things missing in the Bible are given as guidelines and the effort to find truth an exercise left for the student.  I believe this is in part so we can validate before G-d what is true and not so much to other men.

From my personal studies – it seem that there is a great deal missing from the scripture narrative.  I am of the opinion that G-d intends it to be so.

The Traveler

[mickydo]

estradling75,

Yeah.. first thing I said was "Thanks.. Good responses..."  I meant it.

You bring up salvation by works.. What do Mormons do with Galatians?  The Galatians are practicing circumcision as a necessity for salvation, they have added a "work".  Paul says... ch1 "

⁶ I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; ⁷ which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! '

Later in chapter 5 he states that adding even one work to the completed works renders Christ work null and void.  He states it twice like this...  "

² Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. ³ And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. ⁴ You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

James 2 states That faith without works is useless...  Works are proof of a regenerated spirit within the believer.  Works are the natural by-product of a true conversion.  If someone states they believe then it ought to be evident in the things they do i.e. "works".  Therefore "works" are not the means to salvation they are the result of it.  

Notice James cites Abraham in Gen 15... a chapter in which he was declared righteous because of his belief.  That belief many chapters later in Genesis manifests itself with obedience.  So should it be for all believers... faith that results in works pleasing to God.  We have been saved...(past tense) by  

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; ⁹ not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 

Adding works seems extremely dangerous to me.. I am not Catholic btw.. ive moved on...  lets focus in on this topic... Anything from Joseph Smith himself would be interesting to me.. so thanks for the response.

 

Mike

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, mickydo said:

estradling75,

Yeah.. first thing I said was "Thanks.. Good responses..."  I meant it.

You bring up salvation by works.. What do Mormons do with Galatians?  The Galatians are practicing circumcision as a necessity for salvation, they have added a "work".  Paul says... ch1 "

The same thing you do.  I don't read Estradling as saying that works is the instrumentality of our salvation; merely the product thereof.  (an important product, to be sure--sufficiently so that a regimen of repentance becomes appropriate to help us develop Christlike attributes.  See also Joseph Smith's Lectures on Faith, Lecture Seventh). 

Estradling is reacting to the notion of "cheap grace" that is, if not prevalent, certainly common among Christianity, especially Protestantism.  One can certainly reject the notion without appealing to Mormon teaching (as you seem to), but once again: the lack of consensus over the issue within the Christian community, just confirms to us why Mormonism was necessary.

(I do quibble with your interpretation of why Paul was so ticked off with the Galatians--it's not that they were doing what they perceived to be good works or expecting other members of their community to act similarly; it's that they were relapsing into a mentality where they viewed the Torah and its prescriptions, rather than Christ, as the mediator of their covenant.  See, e.g., here--an LDS writer, but drawing on mainline Christian scholars drawing from the so-called "New Perspective on Paul".)

Edited September 24, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Jane_Doe]

16 minutes ago, mickydo said:

⁶ I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; ⁷ which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! '

LDS enthusiastically believe in this verse, which warns us against false teaching.  Let's not overlook rest of the chapter:

 11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it,but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1 is in great support of continuing revelation from Jesus Christ, and condemns preaching after men.

James 2 states That faith without works is useless...  Works are proof of a regenerated spirit within the believer.  Works are the natural by-product of a true conversion.  If someone states they believe then it ought to be evident in the things they do i.e. "works".  Therefore "works" are not the means to salvation they are the result of it.  

Who said otherwise????

 

 

[mickydo]

Hi Traveler,

I visit a older guy once a week who is pretty steeped in Creation theories.. there are quite a few..  I dont go all in on this topic because its not central to salvation.  But lemme answer some of your questions, with what occurs to me.

You say...  My question to you is – do you believe that grass can survive and trees produce fruit in an environment void of the warmth of the sun?

My answer is...Yes!  Light first appears in creation in Gen 1 verse three...  Why cant that light be photosynthesized?

 In Johns gospel.. " There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." Is that the light in Gen 1:3???  i dont know either.  But God is not bound by the natural laws of his creation is He.  I think we would agree on that.  

I do believe God is capable of inspiring and preserving a book...  I think anyone willing to alter God's word because it does'nt add up to your current scientific understanding is presumptuous.  Either God's word goes on eternally (like it says) or the creatures get to have there way rearranging it, because they know better...? ...the order is the order in Gen 1,  my answer may not be satisfying to you but it also not disprovable. 

thanks

Mike

 

Edited September 24, 2016 by mickydo

[estradling75]

56 minutes ago, mickydo said:

estradling75,

Yeah.. first thing I said was "Thanks.. Good responses..."  I meant it.

You bring up salvation by works.. What do Mormons do with Galatians?  The Galatians are practicing circumcision as a necessity for salvation, they have added a "work".  Paul says... ch1 "

⁶ I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; ⁷ which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! '

Later in chapter 5 he states that adding even one work to the completed works renders Christ work null and void.  He states it twice like this...  "

² Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. ³ And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. ⁴ You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

James 2 states That faith without works is useless...  Works are proof of a regenerated spirit within the believer.  Works are the natural by-product of a true conversion.  If someone states they believe then it ought to be evident in the things they do i.e. "works".  Therefore "works" are not the means to salvation they are the result of it.  

Notice James cites Abraham in Gen 15... a chapter in which he was declared righteous because of his belief.  That belief many chapters later in Genesis manifests itself with obedience.  So should it be for all believers... faith that results in works pleasing to God.  We have been saved...(past tense) by  

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; ⁹ not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 

Adding works seems extremely dangerous to me.. I am not Catholic btw.. ive moved on...  lets focus in on this topic... Anything from Joseph Smith himself would be interesting to me.. so thanks for the response.

 

Mike

Thank you for so utterly making my point...

A Stereotypical Christian (there are varieties of course) will claim that to be Saved (By Christ Grace clearly) one must Accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.  If they do they are saved... if they don't they are damned.  If you ask is it possible that one could be saved by Christ grace without accepting him and most of the time they will say No, that accepting Christ is the only way.  Fair enough.  But no matter how you try to slice it accepting Christ is a "Work."  It is something a person must do to be saved.  Its not a manifestation of their salvation, instead it is a trigger for it, in the stereotypical Christian belief system.

The reasoning is simple if we want to be saved we have to do what Christ instructs us to do.  The typical Christian knows they have to accept Christ to be saved, as instructed, yet when they hear a Mormon say we have to do what Christ tells us to do to be saved they get all hypocritical and quote scriptures right and left about how it all an only about grace totally trying hide the required "works" innate to their own system...

[mickydo]

estradling75,

Jesus in discussing being born again with Nicodemus.  Jesus says

" You must be born again.’⁸ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Salvation is Gods action not ours.a profession of faith may be evidence of being born again only.

 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, ¹³ who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

No works invovled...

thanks

Mike

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, mickydo said:

estradling75,

Jesus in discussing being born again with Nicodemus.  Jesus says

" You must be born again.’⁸ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Salvation is Gods action not ours.a profession of faith may be evidence of being born again only.

 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, ¹³ who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

No works invovled...

thanks

Mike

Estradling's point was being born again is an work (it is an action).  Same with having faith, and repenting.  To say that a person is saved with ZERO works is to say that they can be saved without being born again, without having faith, and without repenting.  

Note: no one is arguing here that Christ and His atonement is the one who saves.  We're just saying that He doesn't save a sack of potatoes. 

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, mickydo said:

estradling75,

Jesus in discussing being born again with Nicodemus.  Jesus says

" You must be born again.’⁸ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Salvation is Gods action not ours.a profession of faith may be evidence of being born again only.

 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, ¹³ who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

No works invovled...

thanks

Mike

Mike, if I understand you right then it would seem that there is no connection whatsoever between whether or not a person has been saved, and whether or not that person has lived, or accepted, or even heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Do I summarize your position accurately?

If Jesus tells Nicodemus that Nicodemus must be born again--but that there is nothing Nicodemus can do to bring about this spiritual rebirth--then is Jesus really proselytizing to Nicodemus?  Or is He just taunting him?

Edited September 24, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, mickydo said:

estradling75,

Jesus in discussing being born again with Nicodemus.  Jesus says

" You must be born again.’⁸ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Salvation is Gods action not ours.a profession of faith may be evidence of being born again only.

 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, ¹³ who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

No works invovled...

thanks

Mike

If you wish to state that you believe that nothing we do matters...  That God and only God chooses the people he will save.. (And by inference chooses everyone else for damnation) well that is your belief and you are entitled to it...  If however you believe that we can do something... no matter how small then you are in works territory.

If you do truly believe that nothing we do matters... then your actions are inconstant with said belief...  If nothing you do matter then any effort you spend here is a vanity you can't change God's mind on your status or ours...  If however you are here with some faint hope that you might convince someone here to come unto Christ, then you are a believer in the need of works to be born again and be saved by the Grace of God.