“And now if there are faults they are the mistakes of men…..” (Preface to “The Book of Mormon”)
It was a couple years ago now that I read the “Book of Mormon” After which I began to commentate on it on my blog. I started that project because there are so many things about the book that don’t add up. It is not consistent with itself. It is not consistent with Mormon doctrine. It is not consistent with historical facts or geography. It is most certainly not consistent with the Holy Canonical Scriptures as we have them in the Old and New Testaments recorded by the prophets who pointed to Jesus Christ as our savior, and in the case of the New Testament his apostles whom he commissioned to write with the promise of the Holy Spirit who would lead them into all truth, the final verification of which is his death and resurrection that shows he is who he says, that is God.
Would one care to investigate the veracity of the New Testament, which affirms the Old, one could look at a variety of books today which argue for its faithful transmission and so forth. The best of which I have found to date, especially for its conciseness, but also for its foot notes and citations, is “Religion on Trial” by Craig Parton. In many ways it is the cliff notes to “Tractatus Logico-Theologicus” by John Warwick Montgomery, which is much more in depth, but a great read.
But all that brings us back to these words that hang over the “Book of Mormon” “And now if there are faults they are the mistakes of men…..” These words are from the hand of Joseph Smith, who says he translated them from the plates.
Perhaps if I had taken notice of these words at the beginning, I would not have read further. I don’t know. I’m not sure why I had not taken notice of them before. They are rather peculiar words for a book that Joseph Smith claimed to be true. They are peculiar words for a book that claims to be in anyway the word of God, as Jesus tells us all in John 17 that the word of God is truth.
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” John 17:17 (ESV)
But now the Book of Mormon would like me to believe that it is the word of God even if it is possibly contaminated by the mistakes of men. How can this be? It does not in any way tell me where these mistakes may or may not be. It does not tell me what these mistakes are, whether matters of spelling and syntax, or doctrine itself, or facts of history.
And this is very problematic. As now that I started commenting on the Book of Mormon, I have people telling me that even the doctrine that is contained therein could be erroneous. So it offers no certainty, and has no authority for matters of doctrine, faith and morals. One cannot point to any section of this book, even from a Mormon standpoint, to tell you what God is like, or who he is, or what he has or has not done for you, or even what is morally acceptable or not, because any section of it may actually be the mistake of a man, by Joseph Smiths own admission. This is all to say, that Mormons do not actually believe the Book of Mormon. It does not, and cannot in there system speak with any authority regarding faith and morals, as the Bible does for Christians because we see the writings of Christ’s apostles and the prophets before them as being the sanctifying truth that is the word of God.
The question then must be asked. If Mormons do not believe The Book of Mormon, why should you?
70 comments:
The Latter Day Saint movement rejects Sola Scriptura as a byproduct of the Protestant Reformation which was not held by the original church of Christ.
To view the Book of Mormon through the glasses of Sola Scriptura is to entirely misunderstand the claim that it makes about the nature of scripture. If you think Catholics don't really believe in the Bible, then it might readily follow that nobody anywhere really believes in the Book of Mormon because it doesn't cater to Protestantism OR Catholicism.
Benjamin,
Sola Scriptura is nothing more than the byproduct of Scripture claiming to be the word of God and having the seal and approval of Jesus Christ himself.
It is for this reason that scripture and not church tradition etc. was appealed to by the early church when it went to formulate and defend the doctrines it did as contained in the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed, or the Apostles Creed.
Scripture when it is read and listened to, will not tolerate any contradiction or any authority above it. Because God's word remains forever and does not change.
And though the Catholics have been infected with all sorts of extra biblical doctrines, to the point of which I do entertain the idea now and then that they don't actually believe the Bible, And I got in a row with an EV. Free Pastor yesterday to the effect that though he claimed to believe the Bible he infact discounted it in many places. Yet he was willing at least to be corrected in his understanding if it could be shown from Scripture. And this is the heart of sola Scriptura, that we allow it to speak to us in matters of faith and life, and do not allow another authority to over ride it.
And this often tends to be true even in the Catholic Church, where the Bible may not have as much authority as it does in my conservative Lutheran circles, but is given more authority in their church than the Book of Mormon is given in the LDS.
as for ignoring the claims it makes about scripture, how do I know those claims aren't the mistakes of men?
I stand with the claims of Holy Writ, as I have them in the New Testament, Galatians 1:8 (ESV)
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Joseph Smith was very familiar with the bible. It was a major staple to him and his family. So if a person believes the Book of Mormon was made up by Joseph Smith, then either Joseph Smith purposely made up doctrine that was contrary to the bible or it is possible that protestants may not be interpreting the bible correctly.
Also, if you wanted to make up a religion and gain followers, would you risk writing a 400 page book of scripture and history, then tell everyone that an angel gave it to you and that you could know by the power of the Holy Ghost that it is true? Tnen get 11 others to testify in writing that they saw the plates and that 3 of these people were show the plates by an angel? Pretty bold.
Anon,
Perhaps you fail to see what I am getting at. Joseph Smith made this stuff up. I have stronger words for what he did but I'll save them for now.
As a matter of fact though, I am in favor of the Spalding theory as it is laid out in "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon." And believe he was heavily influenced by every heterodox idea and heresy floating about in the protestant world of the 19th century, through his friendship with Rigdon, and the general Zeitgeist.
As for the rest of it, his co conspirators don't really stand in good light even in Mormon circles do they? That they are liars is established fact is it not? the only question being were they lying when they agreed with Joseph Smith, or when they disagreed with him. Either way their testimony is shot.
So bold or not, it is what it is, a sham.
Mr. Anonymous though you are obviously also a Latter Day Saint of some kind, I'm not sure I can agree with your analysis of Joseph Smith's situation. The Book of Mormon was and pretty much always has been the main reason people believe Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet and believed in his teachings.
Mr. Erickson, if you or the owner of this blog wants to study the Book of Mormon you should keep in mind that you're peeking into another religion. The way Protestants view the Bible is somewhat unique. Muslims do not view the Qur'an the same way, nor do Taoists the Tao Te Ching, so the Mormon view of scripture shouldn't be expected to coincide with the Protestant view of scripture either. Imagine you are reading a Hindu Upanishad - something of another religion that's not even trying to pretend to be acceptable within Protestant standards. It would be somewhat important to understand what Hindus believe an Upanishad is in order to understand what the particular Upanishad you are reading means.
Benjamin,
I am very aware that I am Peering into another religion, and btw, I am the owner of this blog, and my title is Pastor,Rev. Or Fr. Not Mr. But Bror, my name, will do.
Now Mormons ask that one read this book, to see if it is true, which is then supposed to some how verify that Joseph Smith is true and a prophet in the same manner as the prophets of the Old Testament were true. Now that means that I am going to scrutinize the texta as they present themselves. The Book of Momon presents itself as being history but fails to live up to the standards of historical inquirery. The Book of Mormon presents itself to be a religious text on par with the Bible which those who tout the BOM also claim to believe. Yet it contrdicts itself and the Bible, and gives me no reason to believe it is true.
So pretty much you're willing to consider that the Book of Mormon could be scripture but only if it conforms absolutely to your pre-existing interpretation of the Bible.
This approach doesn't seem to allow for the possibility of a revelation from God telling you that you're wrong about anything. And if you are already certain you're right about absolutely everything and are not open to the possibility of being wrong, what could any revelation from God in any scripture, be it the Bible or the Book of Mormon or a personal revelation or anything else of the kind ever tell you?
Benjamin,
Yep! There just happens to be that verse in Gal 1, among various others, which I know to have been penned by the Holy Spirit that prohibit me from believing things contrary to what has been revealed.
But perhaps larger is the question if god has revealed himself in jesus Christ who died for my sins and rose for my justification. What else would I need to have revealed to me? What? That black people are inferior, and have black skin because they are cursed and white people aren't? Except now they are better because of some "special revelation"? That God has a body and lives on Kolob, where despite the words of his Son in John 3 about flesh giving birth to flesh he is cranking out spirit children? That Jesus and Satan are brothers despite Jesus being the only begotten Son of the Father? That Jesus christ was born of a Virgin through the use of artificial insemination, after God filled a specimen cup with his sperm? That Wine and alcohol are not allowed, because god changed his mind about that. These by the way are all things I've heard Mormons argue. Sorry, for not wanting to jump on the roller coaster of on going prophecy. But perhaps you just meant the Ten foot quakers on the moon? Any other prophcies you'd like to share? Would you like to take my coffee too?
> "hat black people are inferior, and have black skin because they are cursed and white people aren't? Except now they are better because of some "special revelation"?"
The Book of Mormon doesn't say that.
> "That God has a body and lives on Kolob, where despite the words of his Son in John 3 about flesh giving birth to flesh he is cranking out spirit children?"
The Book of Mormon doesn't say that.
> "That Jesus and Satan are brothers"
The Book of Mormon doesn't say that.
> "That Jesus christ was born of a Virgin through the use of artificial insemination, after God filled a specimen cup with his sperm?"
The Book of Mormon doesn't say that.
> "That Wine and alcohol are not allowed, because god changed his mind about that."
The Book of Mormon doesn't say that.
None of the stuff you just mentioned is in the Book of Mormon!! Alot of it *is* very silly, you're right. But you won't find any of it in the Book of Mormon!
Benjamin,
Did I say it was in the BOM? No. But you are arguing that for some reason what is revealed in the Holy scripture as we have it in the Bible is not enough. So I just listed a bunch of things that have been revealed to the majority, if not all of those who follow the book of Mormon. And the bit about black people having black skin as the result of being cursed is in there.
But perhaps Benjamin, you could answer the question, what revelation am I missing? Or why should I need any thing more than has already been revealed to me in the Holy apostolic scripture as we have it in the Bible?
> "And the bit about black people having black skin as the result of being cursed is in there."
I believe it says dark, not black. It is definitely not referring to Africans.
Mr. Erickson I suggest you read Joseph Smith Jr's autobiography in order to understand the context of his claim about the nature of scripture. He says, "the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." This is part of the premise of the whole movement, that the differences between churches cannot be settled by an appeal to the Bible alone due to differences in interpretation.
http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/testimonies/joseph-ownstory/part1.htm
Benjamin,
One last time, you can feel free to use my first name, otherwise I go by Pr. Rev. or Fr. Erickson, I let USAA address me as Lt. Erickson, but only because at first I was enlisted. Those are titles I have earned. I am not Mr. It is condescending to address me as such. So it is up to you whether you want this to continue to be friendly or not. I'll take a few jabs, I dish them in the midst of debate too. But custom dictates that if a man introduces himself with his first name that is what you address him back as. Otherwise you use the title that is most fitting for that man.
Now, I'm glad to hear Joseph Smith did not just mean black people, but all people with darker skin then himself. What? How is that any better. And you still have to wrestle with the fact that for a long time the singled out Black People, those of African descent.
"I suggest you read Joseph Smith Jr's autobiography in order to understand the context of his claim about the nature of scripture. He says, "the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." This is part of the premise of the whole movement, that the differences between churches cannot be settled by an appeal to the Bible alone due to differences in interpretation.'
Yes his proposal has worked so much better I see that now, what with RLDS, LDS, FLDS, and numerous polygamous clans running around the west.
Really, Scripture is quite clear, and interprets itself quite nicely. That there are divisions in the church is not due to the lack of clarity in scripture but the sinfulness of man who refuses to believe it.
In any case, Joseph Smith Jr. certainly did not make the situation any better with "his" Book of Mormon, or by starting another religious body claiming to be Christian but holding no semblance of Christianity.
His book, and his revelations do nothing to settle any of the controversies between the churches. So I fail to see how that is any reason to follow him at all. Now we don't have to argue over scripture, we just get to argue over who the proper successor of Joseph Smith is? right.
As for your comment on the other post. You say burden is on me to show how the BOM is contradictory? I think if you read through these posts you will see it, and I plan to continue through to expose more. The fact though is the book of Mormon contradicts itself, contradicts Mormon doctrine, contradicts the Bible, and offers no reason to believe in it, even saying of itself that it contains mistakes. I expect better from God's word, which is truth.
Now, would you please answer why you think I might need more revelation than what I already have in the Bible? Why it is that somehow what is in there is not enough anymore?
Well, you're right about one thing, that the Book of Mormon contradicts Mormon doctrine.
Let's see, can't trust scripture or Christian Doctrine, including the great Solas of the Reformation, all of which found their way into the Lutheran Confessions, which the Christian church has always believed, taught and confessed since Adam. No, can't even believe the BOM, except where it jives with current ongoing revelation.
It really is no different than any other religionism program. It has divorced itself from the external, alien Word. It has opted instead, as all others do, for navel-gazing, boot-strapping, law-hashing, gnostic religionism. It assumes instead of trusting The external Alien Word, that it will istead turn inward to the belly-burning word written on everyone's heart--that is the Law. And so they just keep adding to the law project. Law just breeds more and more law. So it is that you end up with the BOM and it's ilk.
That's why you need more revelation, if you reject the external Alien Word, you've got nothing left to cling to except the law run amok--and there you go.
If you start from the assumption that Lutheranism is right, then of course any position which contradicts what is right is wrong, and Latter Day Saintism certainly contradicts Lutheranism, so if Lutheranism is right then Latter Day Saintism is wrong. However, in pointing this out, you haven't proven anything.
I'm reminded of a story in which there are two different churches; let's call them church X and church Y. Someone from church Y dies and goes to heaven and is getting a tour of the place from an angel. He sees a group of people huddled together who won't look around and see all the wonderful things in heaven because they'll only look at each other and won't acknowledge anyone else around them. The man asks the angel, "Who are those people and why won't they talk to me?" The angel responds, "Oh, those folks are from church X and they're the laughingstock of heaven because they still think they're the only ones up here!"
I tell this story not to imply that all positions are equally valid for we know there is ultimately only one really correct position. But the story isn't about that; it's about arrogance; what the scriptures call "pride." Just because we're right doesn't mean we're more righteous or that we have warrant to act all superior to everyone else.
I'm not convinced that everyone in the entire world who interprets the scriptures in any way differently from how you do does so because they're worse sinners than you are or because you're more righteous than they are. Even if you're right and they're wrong, this does not follow and it's the height of arrogance.
Also here you are in serious error in failing to even comprehend the Latter Day Saint movement's claim about the nature of scripture. You've constructed what amounts to a strawman argument.
So not only is LDS gnostic, but it is also completely antinomian then by your stance. No one can have the truth, except apparently LDS.
The Jesus of the Gospel in the Bible claimed to be The Truth. He prayed to his Father, "Your Word is truth."
You reject that there is an objective truth in scripture and turn instead to fanciful thoughts of the subjective heart that only has the law as its only frame of reference.
And another thing, you haven't answered my previous question:
"This approach doesn't seem to allow for the possibility of a revelation from God telling you that you're wrong about anything. And if you are already certain you're right about absolutely everything and are not open to the possibility of being wrong, what could any revelation from God in any scripture, be it the Bible or the Book of Mormon or a personal revelation or anything else of the kind ever tell you?"
If I've built such a strawman, you've still not answered why another revelation is needed.
Continual revelation is needed for continual guidance. The question is when it isn't needed, not when it is.
So it's no different than any other religionist than, say, Pat Robertson, or anyone else who claims to have a new word.
Jesus of the Bible said heaven and earth will pass away, but my Word will never pass away.
According to LDS then, Jesus was wrong on that because his word has been lost and misinterpreted until Joe Smith had it re-revealed to him.
Does God change his mind on stuff? That would be very un-Godlike. More so human-like. Especially so when one is detached from the external Word.
Test every spirit to see if it is from God. Can't really do that once you've divorced yourself from the external Word though. Your left with only the burning belly and itching ears and the insatiable law written on the heart.
Do you realize that there is a difference between a logical argument and an insult? Because it seems to me you're just interested in insulting people, not in producing logical arguments.
Benjamin,
"Well, you're right about one thing, that the Book of Mormon contradicts Mormon doctrine.'
C'mon here. I have answered all your questions to my knowledge.
But of course I'm going to believe that Lutheranism is right. So show me I'm wrong, and maybe I'll give your mormonism a hearing.
Wait, I would give Mormonism a hearing, except that I can't. Why not? Because I did, I read your book, it contradicts itself, it contradicts Mormon doctrine.
Why should I believe one of your prophets? The Book they send out to everyone upon which Joseph Smith founded his religion, is contrary to what they teach, and contradicts itself. So how do I know they are true?
on the other hand, I can think of no point of Moral concern or doctrinal concern which the Bible has not addressed.
I mean I don't need a prophet or on going revelation to tell me that sodomy is a sin, or that God is 3 in one. the Scripture I have tells me all I need to know concerning my sinful nature, and The Persons and work of God. It also gives me a good litmus test with which to test the spirits.
3rd, you greatly misunderstand my position and the position of Lutheranism if you think I think I'm right because I am somehow less a sinner than anyone else. Or if you think we think we are the only ones going to heaven. We believe others are going, but they are converted to Lutheranism on the way up as it were. They may have been baptists on earth, but they aren't in heaven.
Starting from a position that Lutheranism is right in evaluating the claims of other religions is begging the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Benjamin,
So this is the problem as I see it. You want me to assume I'm wrong. I don't do that.
Now, I have not evaluated The Book of Mormon from the basis that I'm right and it is wrong.
I read the Book of Mormon, and studied it for what it had to say, comparing it with what I already know from numerous reads of the Bible, comparing it to what I know of LDS doctrine (and often giving the benefit of the doubt that I might be mistaken there, went searching the LDS official website, and sites sympathetic for more information,) And then comparing itself to itself, and to what is also known about the geography and history of pre-Columbus America. The Book has failed to show that it is true by any standards.
I am told Mormons "believe the Bible" so comparing it to the Bible is not out of bounds or begging the question.
What you would like me to do, but do not give me a satisfactory reason for doing, is to abandon my beliefs wholesale, and give yours a try.
Yet, you yourself admit there are mistakes in the book, and cannot tell me where they are.
You yourself appeal to ongoing revelation as somehow being necessary but do not give me any reason for it being necessary, nor do you inspire in me confidence in the conflicting claims of any one of the various men claiming to be the prophet and successor of Joseph Smith.
How can I know today's revelation is right, if yesterday's was wrong? This is the question.
You can moan about me believing myself to be right all you want. if I didn't believe I was right, I'd change my beliefs. It is the sensible thing to do. Do you honestly believe yourself to be wrong? Wait, you all but admit you have to be, as the book you tout is by your own admission full of mistakes. So why are you arguing with me, is it somehow noble to believe yourself wrong? Come now.
Benjamin,
I see you are getting frustrated here. I don't know what to tell you.
I'm trying to be polite, and not insulting. But your arguments are not arguments.
You have given us no reason for abandoning Scripture as we have it for yours, or for your on going revelation. Furthermore, you have failed to show why ongoing revelation would be more certain than relying on the revealed word of God.
You complain that I think I am right. I'm not going to apologize for that. show that I am wrong.
Make and argument that holds water. Let me know how adding another voice to the cacaphony of conflicting voices helps put an end to conflicting interpretations of scripture? Explain how starting a new church somehow solves the problem in a better way than anybody else whoever started a new church, of healing the divisions within the church.
> "So this is the problem as I see it. You want me to assume I'm wrong. I don't do that."
No, I want you to be open to the possibility that you could be wrong and to stop constructing these strawman arguments that make you sound like the king of Siam.
It is impossible to have an enlightened discourse without civility and mutual respect. This is seriously lacking here so i think it would be best if I just unsubscribe.
Benjamin,
Of course I could be wrong. All things are possible. But as it is I don't think, or believe I am, and you have given me no reason to believe otherwise.
As for strawmen, I do not see how any of my arguments are. I give you what your own scriptures state. You say they have mistakes in them. So why should I trust them? How is it that your admittedly flawed documents should give me reason to abandon the scriptures of the New Testament?
If the prophet's book is flawed, why then should I trust his on going revelation, how is that sure?
> "Of course I could be wrong. All things are possible. But as it is I don't think, or believe I am, and you have given me no reason to believe otherwise."
OK, fair enough. Now keep that in mind in your form of argument. "You're wrong because we disagree" doesn't cut it.
> "As for strawmen, I do not see how any of my arguments are."
You have been accusing me of teaching various Mormon heresies in the same absurd fashion as if I were to accuse you, a Lutheran, of selling indulgences.
> "I give you what your own scriptures state. You say they have mistakes in them. So why should I trust them? How is it that your admittedly flawed documents should give me reason to abandon the scriptures of the New Testament?"
This is a strawman argument, because no one, not even the Utah Mormons, is asking you to abandon the New Testament.
> "If the prophet's book is flawed, why then should I trust his on going revelation, how is that sure?"
We believe ALL written revelation may be subject to these same small sorts of error: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, ongoing revelation, all of it. It's not the text on the page in which we're meant to trust but in the Person the book is about. Scripture is not meant to stand alone in a vacuum, but to be part of an ongoing conversation.
Benjamin,
"We believe ALL written revelation may be subject to these same small sorts of error: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, ongoing revelation, all of it. It's not the text on the page in which we're meant to trust but in the Person the book is about. Scripture is not meant to stand alone in a vacuum, but to be part of an ongoing conversation."
I'm going to tackle this first.
I really don't care what you believe about the Bible if you cannot show me why you believe it. As it is I do not think there is any error in the Holy Canonical Scriptures as we have them.
Second, you here drive an untenable wedge and this is what I am getting at. To believe in Christ is to believe Christ, especially concerning what he says of himself and what he has done for us. Since the text tells us about the person we are to believe in, and since it is really the only way we can know him, it is required of the text that it be reliable. Otherwise I have not reason to believe the text or the person of which it is speaking.
Now, you are the one who would have me abandon that position, and by it the New Testament, we have gone over that, a different Gospel and all, Gal. 1.
If I were to accept your book of Mormon, I'd be accepting a text which at the very least greatly alters the over all message of Jesus Christ as we have it in the New Testament, if it does not teach an entirely different gospel.
In fact it does teach an entirely different gospel.
Furthermore it shows itself untrustworthy. in that not only does it say it has mistakes, but it doesn't tell you where they are.
Your on going revelation? well it changes every so many years.
To top that off there is this catch 22. If your Book of Mormon and on going revelation do not change anything why do I need it.
But you have failed to show me what I am lacking in the New Testament.
Now for this point of yours:> "As for strawmen, I do not see how any of my arguments are."
You have been accusing me of teaching various Mormon heresies in the same absurd fashion as if I were to accuse you, a Lutheran, of selling indulgences."
Actually I have not accused you of this, but I have used these heresies as examples of one chain of on going heresies. This is where you fail to grasp the argument I am making. But I have been asking for quite sometime, what makes your chain of on going revelation anymore reliable? What?
I know you don't agree with Utah Mormons, but then why not? by what am I supposed to test the spirits between you two.
> "Of course I could be wrong. All things are possible. But as it is I don't think, or believe I am, and you have given me no reason to believe otherwise."
OK, fair enough. Now keep that in mind in your form of argument. "You're wrong because we disagree" doesn't cut it."
Now, that Benjamin is where the problem is. I haven't to my knowledge made that argument. My argument is you are wrong, because The Book of Mormon you are trying to defend, says of itself it is wrong. Flatly contradicts itself, and flatly contradicts the Bible.
I know you haven't been here that long, but I have been writing these posts of some time, showing how and where it contradicts Scripture. In fact I added one more tonight. have another that shows the book of Mormon contradicting itself the next day, and in doing so still managing to contradict the Bible.
And your argument that ongoing revelation is needed because it is needed, doesn't hold water.
For one it ignores the fact that there were years of silence where God did not speak even in the Bible itself.
It ignores the fact that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all prophecy, which puts an end for the need of on going revelation.
It ignores the fact that even if Joseph Smith was a prophet, there is still 1800 some years with in the history of the church where there was no prophecy or ongoing revelation, and people still managed to be saved and go to heaven.
It ignores the fact that in reality there is nothing new under the sun, so while we have finally his word, and his revelation, and in that all that we need to know for life and salvation, we do not need on going revelation.
I hope that I have finally been clear enough on some of this. While maintaining civility if not "respect," which btw, goes both ways,
I am really hoping for something more than the burning bosom at this point, here.
Why do we need more revelation and why can it be trusted does seem to be the heart of the matter.
> "Since the text tells us about the person we are to believe in, and since it is really the only way we can know him, it is required of the text that it be reliable."
But not infallible. The text is reliable, just not totally infallible. If we required everything to be infallible in order to believe in it, we certainly wouldn't know very much about history.
> "Your on going revelation? well it changes every so many years."
You are speaking to a member of a movement who 20 years ago were locked out of their church buildings, which were seized because they would not accept disjunctive revelation. Because we will not accept disjunctive revelation, my local church and my father as it's former pastor is being sued for using the name of the church we belong to and it's possible that our congregation may lose all it's funds and possibly even it's building. Don't tell me about standing up against disjunctive revelation. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
> "For one it ignores the fact that there were years of silence where God did not speak even in the Bible itself."
Because people weren't listening.
> "It ignores the fact that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all prophecy, which puts an end for the need of on going revelation."
Tell that to John of Patmos.
> "It ignores the fact that even if Joseph Smith was a prophet, there is still 1800 some years with in the history of the church where there was no prophecy or ongoing revelation, and people still managed to be saved and go to heaven."
1260 years, and it doesn't ignore this fact.
That's just it. You haven't proven the BOM reliable. Are you arguing it is reliable? How do you know where the errors are and where it is reliable. Are you saying it is historically reliable even if it is fallible?
I was going to say something but your blog killed my post, I got some kind of error message and my post was lost. I haven't got time to retype it right now. Maybe another time.
There in fact is nothing in Revelation that was not already revealed to the Disciples by Jesus, and attested to in the other canonical writings of the apostles.
To give it any other interpretation than that is to abuse the book.
But that is another story.
You still have to prove that there is a need for any ongoing revelation, and you haven't done that. The apostles, those sent and promised the Holy Spirit, by Jesus Christ have died off. They left God's word, what more do we need.
And Sorry Benjamin, but your "church" after having accepted the book of Mormon and I assume also the Doctrine and covenants of Joseph Smith, accepted "disjunctive" revelation long before any current fight you might be having with your current leadership.
So who is your prophet now, and how do you know he is anymore reliable than the guy who gave you the last bogus revelation you disagree with?
We don't have a functioning prophet at the present time. The one we have now is in transgression.
This is a very strange view of St. Paul and John the Revelator, that they were shown nothing new.
Benjamin,
It isn't a strange view, it is the view of the New Testament. The Disciples were in full agreement in there preaching and teaching. What Paul received from Christ is the same thing that the other apostles received from Christ. And John of Patmos adds nothing new to any of it.
So how lost are you right now without a prophet to give you continual guidance? What are you going to do? And when the next one comes along, how will you determine who he is, and how well he is guiding you? How will you determine he isn't a false prophet? How do you get up out of bed in the morning without a prophet to guide you if one is so needed? How long have you gone without one?
I'm sorry, I said Paul when I meant Peter. Why does Peter say "Not so, Lord" in Acts 10 if he already knew what was being told him in his vision prior to having the vision?? That doesn't make sense.
Are you saying that all of John the Revelator's vision is a repeat of older stuff he already knew prior to having the vision??
> "So how lost are you right now without a prophet to give you continual guidance?"
Pretty lost, but it's not me personally that's lost, it's the condition of the church today.
> "How do you get up out of bed in the morning without a prophet to guide you if one is so needed?"
People don't depend on the "prophet seer and revelator" for personal guidance in their individual lives but for direction to guide the whole church.
> "How long have you gone without one?"
Since 1984.
> "What are you going to do?"
What the Reorganizers did in the 1850s. Organize on what level we can and pray that the Lord will give us further direction in His own good time.
> "And when the next one comes along, how will you determine who he is, and how well he is guiding you?"
There are standards by which we can measure that.
> "How will you determine he isn't a false prophet?"
The Bible gives us rules for identifying false prophets. If you think Joseph Smith Jr. doesn't pass the test(s) then that would be a good reason to regard him as a false prophet. We think he passes but Brigham Young fails.
Benjamin,
The Bible does indeed give rules for discerning whether a prophet is true or not.
So you believe the Bible is accurate?
I do too. Perhaps we can build a dialogue on that.
I would like to know what you see these rules as being and how you apply them to Joseph Smith Jr. In a way that confirms his claim as prophet to be true.
Benjamin,
You ask "I'm sorry, I said Paul when I meant Peter. Why does Peter say "Not so, Lord" in Acts 10 if he already knew what was being told him in his vision prior to having the vision?? That doesn't make sense."
I'm not sure what, given Peter's personality, does not make sense about this. Even after this event Paul has to chastise him in Antioch for reverting to Judaic customs and pressuring others to do the same.
The point of that vision was to prepare Peter to for the next phase of the ministry as it now would begin with Cornelius. That is now Peter would have to start working among the gentiles, as the disciples had been told all along, as Jesus was making apparent to them.
As for John the Revelator, and Revelation, You might just pick up a copy of Kim Riddlebargers "The Case for Amillenialism."
However, It must be taken into account that John here is writing to his congregations, and really all Revelation is is a retelling of the Gospel Story given in such a manner as to strengthen the resolve of those who hear it to remain true to the faith.
> "The Bible does indeed give rules for discerning whether a prophet is true or not.
So you believe the Bible is accurate? "
Yes. Not totally infallible and perfect in every way, but honest and accurate. And I think the same of the Book of Mormon.
I think we will have to agree to disagree because I don't accept the reasoning of your position that revelation doesn't reveal and you don't accept the reasoning of my position that revelation is revelation, and I don't see what could possibly resolve this dilemma.
Benjamin,
That is the most cowardly way out I could think of. If you don't want to answer my questions, fine. Or you could admit you have no way to do it that makes you certain.
BTW. I do believe revelation is revelation. I just believe the revelation of the O.T. and the revelation of the N.T. are of a different character, which is why the prophets and apostles are distinguished even as they lay the foundation for the Christian faith, Eph 4. And the Book of Revelation from John of Patmos, whoeever he was, is at best a coded message that reiterates what was taught and known to the apostles already, even if it was given in a vision, the vision reveals no new material outside the "analogy of faith" the requirements it had to meet to be included in the canon.
Now, how about this litmus test you have for prophets?
I'm happy to answer your questions and have. But to give up resolving differences because you might not like the shape that resolution might take, is just not honest, but what I have come to expect from Mormons, and now RLDS too, which I suspect are still called Mormons.
Well if Revelations, the book, wasn't a revelation then I don't know what is.
Benjamin,
The Apocalypse of John, or the book other wise known as Revelation, but never revelations, does not reveal anything new, it is not that it is not a revelation, though the apostolicity of it is also questioned, therefore making its benefit to the church marginal at best, and requires its interpretation, if it is to be a valid interpretation, to conform to the "analogy of faith." meaning, it must be interpreted in light of the apostolic books, and the doctrine clearly set forth in those books, if it is going to be accepted at all. But now we are getting into the history of the canon, and canonical requirements. I'd recommend Eusebius in his ecclesiastical history, for more information on that, or possibly F.F. Bruce, "the Canon of the Bible" for more information. on that. But to interpret it according to the Jewish Myths Paul warns Titus about, and as is so often done today in the Left Behind series etc. Is and abuse of the book, and not allowable by historic Christianity.
But now, you don't need all that information to answer my questions. So why don't you? Are you afraid? Are you possibly coming to the conclusion that what you have is not a very good litmus test, and are therefore embarrassed to share it? How does Joseph Smith meet these requirements? How did the last guy you disagree with get into that position if he didn't pass the test, or if he did, why don't you agree with him anymore?
No I'm just really busy that's all.
I do not agree with your view of revelation at all. It seems to me that this idea that Christ revealed absolutely everything and there was nothing left to reveal puts God in a box: a nice safe box where you'll never learn anything that upsets your applecart. And you seem to have no way of finding out from the Lord if your interpretation of the Bible is wrong; if for example it turns out the ana-baptists are right after all, or the Catholics or anyone else.
If a revelation disagrees with past revelation or contradicts itself or if it denies that Jesus came in the flesh then it cannot be true. But if it is consistent and it affirms that Jesus came in the flesh then it must be of God. See 1 John 4:2 http://bible.cc/1_john/4-2.htm
Benjamin,
Thanks, I suspect you have hit your finger on a chief difference between our concepts of revelation. And I see to answer you, I will have to spend some time explaining Biblically why I believe revelation has found its "end" in Christ, and why not only is there not any more "revelation" with the passing of the disciples, but why there doesn't even need to be.
But this far from puts God in a box. It only allows God to be who and what he says he is, and keeps us from recreating him in our own image.
As for Joseph Smith Jr. The Book of Mormon is contradictory to revelation already given. And the whole LDS religion based off of it is then also contradictory. But I have been blogging at length concerning that.
As for my interpretation of the Bible being wrong? Well, I'm open to correction but it isn't going to come in the form of a warm fuzzy. One can always use the constructs of grammar, syntax, the accepted meaning of words and the particulars of a Genre, to correct my understanding of scripture.It has had some success in the past.
Confusing the works of the spirit with mere emotions is a major problem, one which many latter day saints fail to address but I do recognize there is a difference.
I would say Christ is the end of revelation in the sense of being the purpose; the reason for it.
"Confusing the works of the spirit with mere emotions is a major problem, one which many latter day saints fail to address but I do recognize there is a difference."
Benjamin, you are right there. It, however, is not peculiar to Mormonism. This confusion has infected the history of American Christianity also,from the beginning, and so is common with Baptists, Methodists, American Evangelicals, Lutheran pietist movements, and Ev. Free.
Problematic for you though, is that the Book of Mormon fails to distinguish between the two.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against emotion. I just find it a poor indicator of truth. And not something a man should let lead him around by the nose. God made us better than that.
The gospel often brings me great joy, but I don't believe it based on the happiness I feel.
So perhaps you could fill me in on some revelations you have not found in the Bible that you have found to be particularly helpful, and could not live without?
> "Problematic for you though, is that the Book of Mormon fails to distinguish between the two."
I'm not sure that's the case. Maybe it doesn't distinguish as clearly as you would like
> "So perhaps you could fill me in on some revelations you have not found in the Bible that you have found to be particularly helpful, and could not live without?"
Wait what's this "could not live without" business? Atheists live without any revelation.
"Helpful" depends greatly on what one's goals are. It seems that any further revelation even and including seeing the book of Revelations as revelation, would seem to be extremely unhelpful to you given what your goals are and Latter Day Saint revelation in particular given what it says about the apostasy and how the Protestant churches haven't really escaped it despite the best efforts of the reformers
Benjamin,
So ongoing revelation isn't needed as you said before?
Then what exactly do you find helpful and why?
The book of mormon doesn't distinguish at all between emotion and the work of the Holy Spirit. It tells me to pray for a "burning Bosom" am I to interpret this as my "bosom" actually catching fire, or more along the lines of the Mormon anthem "I know what I have felt"? The feeling is the work of the Holy Spirit in the theology, if you can call it that, of the Book of Mormon. It is one and the same.
And, then we have it, the truth comes out, protestants are all apostate.
Quit beating around the bush.
How do you determine from Holy, Apostolic Scripture that Joseph Smith Jr. is a true prophet?
Second, what do you now find "helpful" about ongoing revelation.
I am now assuming that by helpful you mean not necessary for the salvation of my soul? But perhaps good advice, like smoking is bad for you, and two glasses of wine a day helps with your blood pressure? Or is it more important than that?
See I'd quit worrying at this point, what I might think of it, if I were you. It should not matter what my goals are. Shouldn't matter at all. If your religion is true, than my goals should be the same as yours. This is the point of debate here. See i think your goals should be the same as mine, not as concerns this life, but the life to come.
But I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of salvation, for the Jew first and then the Greek. Roman 1;16.
Which has everything to do with the fact that we need no new revelation. Salvation is the Goal, and we have the means in the Gospel. We need nothing else, than what was given by Jesus Christ through his apostles in the New Testament.
and again, Benjamin. Revelation, nor Revelations, check out the spelling.
Your site killed another of my posts. I haven't got time for dealing with this buggy web site
Benjamin,
You've been posting on this site for quite sometime, now. I have been enjoying the challenges you present. But I'm getting kind of tired of you coming up with excuses for not answering my questions. If the site was buggy for a bit, I'm sorry. I have no control over that. Yet other people are posting just fine.
Really, what revelations do you find helpful? and for what?
I did also happen to see that you were able to post the post complaining that you couldn't post. Perhaps you are being to long winded? you shouldn't have to be. Also I often type my longer responses out on a word processor and copy and paste, it works.
After Easter, and Spring break with my Son, I'll be writing my piece on why the church does not need ongoing revelation.
Post a Comment