Re: [TruthTalk] Is the Bible Complete?--Part 1

[Dave]

 

David Miller wrote:

Hi Dave.  We seem to be getting into a stalemate,

DAVEH:  I'm not sure I'd call it a stalemate, as much as to say that we mutually respectfully disagree.  (Note to Glenn:  FLAG)

so I'm going to summarize
my thoughts rather than answering specific line items.  It seems to me that
there are two main differences between us.

1.  You seem to consider eternal judgment as being based upon knowledge that
is accepted or rejected.  I consider eternal judgment to be based upon man's
works.  Therefore, I consider men who have sinned as being condemned whether
or not they have heard the gospel, but you consider men who have not yet
heard the gospel as being neutral, and as men who cannot be judged, until
they are first presented the gospel.

DAVEH:  I think that is close to what I believe.  All men will come to know that Jesus is our Lord and Redeemer before they are judged.  And yes....everybody will have a chance to hear the gospel, if not in this life, in the succeeding one.

If eternal judgment is based upon the
acceptance or rejection of knowledge, then I might be inclined to agree with
you.  However, because I consider eternal judgment to be based upon whether
or not men have sinned,

DAVEH:  Since all men have sinned, are you suggesting that it is relevant to the degree/quantity of sinning that determines the outcome of the judgment?

then I disagree with you.  In your opinion, is this
a correct assessment of our differences on this particular point?

DAVEH:  If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you've clarified our positions pretty well.  I would say though that your first statement isn't quite accurate as to my belief......

"You seem to consider eternal judgment as being based upon knowledge that
is accepted or rejected."

........IMO it is a bit more than that, viz., making and keeping covenants with the Lord.

2.  I understand that you revere the Bible IF

DAVEH:  Not IF.....it IS associated with our other works.  And yes.....we DO revere the Bible.

it is associated with your
other works, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl
of Great Price.  However, if the Bible is alone, and not associated with
these other works, then your Scriptures teach that the Bible is something
that the abominable church stumbles upon and something by which an exceeding
great many are brought under the power of Satan.  From your perspective, am
I right or wrong on this point?

DAVEH:  I think you are somewhere in the middle on this.  Any of God's (literary) works can stand alone, but they are so much stronger and better defined if taken as a whole.  If you take any particular verse from the Bible (viz. 1Cor 15:29) and base a baptism for the dead doctrine on it, it would be considered proof texting and not carry the same weight as say another passage (viz., Mk 16:16) that has numerous references to the importance of baptism.  Likewise, having several sources of Scripture available that substantiate doctrines mentioned in the other sources gives added weight to understanding the meaning of any/all of them.  Does that make sense, DavidM?  IOW....it is easier to understand the writings of somebody like Paul if you ponder all his epistles instead of a single one.

Let me quote Blaine's most recent comments in this regard.

**** Blaine wrote ****
If you are under the influence of Satan, it is because these
doctrines have not been fully clarified by the Bible ...
This is what brings you under condemnation now in this life
and will follow you into the next world.  So, you need
to read God's remedy for this lack of clarity--the BoM.
Failure to do so is to rebel against God and his word
****

I hear your denials regarding my understanding that Mormon doctrine teaches
that the Bible alone brings men under the power of Satan, and I hear your
denials of my understanding that Blaine teaches this, but again and again
this idea is brought forward.

DAVEH:  I don't view it that way at all.  IF God has revealed his Word in several places, and one refuses to accept his revealed word in some of those places, then it seems logical that rejecting some his revealed Word only allows the influence of Satan to work his will despite the fact that you are accepting some of the Lord's Word.  Does that make sense?  It isn't that the Bible is bringing anybody under the influence of Satan, but rather the rejection of further light and knowledge that causes the impedance of one's eternal progression.

 Note that I am talking about the Bible ALONE.

DAVEH:  I know that is how many think, but to LDS folks the "Bible ALONE" to the rejection of the rest of the Lord's revealed Word is a sad thought.

I understand that you find the Bible useful if it is translated correctly

DAVEH:  Not quite so.  Even translated poorly, it would still be useful, especially if there were other material available that were revealed from the Lord.  It was you who suggested that if it were blemished, you would toss the whole thing out.  That attitude seems rather harsh and unnecessary to me.  As a prophet, could you not make any needed corrections???

and associated with your the other 3 works, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine
& Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.  But what about the Bible ALONE?

DAVEH:  The Bible alone is better than no Bible at all, for sure.  IMHO, the more of the Lord's revealed Word, the better.  And, it will be better yet in future years when the Lord reveals more of his will and it is canonized.

Does the Bible ALONE lead people to God

DAVEH:  Yes.

and receiving the Holy Spirit,

DAVEH:  A qualified, 'yes'.  "Receiving the Holy Spirit" denotes a particular ordinance in LDS theology, which is not available to those who do not receive it via priesthood confirmation.  However, being influenced by the HS is certainly something that comes to those who read and believe the Bible.  And that can (and has a multitude of times) happen to people who have never heard of LDS theology or latter-day revelation, but rather simply read the Bible and have faith in the Lord.

or
does reading and studying the Bible ALONE cause them to come under Satan's
power, because of its missing parts?

DAVEH:  No......I don't believe one comes under Satan's influence by reading the Bible.  But, they can subject themselves to the Deceiver's influence by reading too much into the Bible when it doesn't clarify it enough.  For instance, if one does not find specific comments in the Bible that says that small children should not be baptized, and one starts thinking that baptizing small children is what the Lord wants......then perhaps that thought is influenced by Satan if it is not the will of the Lord.

    Another example could be the ordination of women to the clergy.  The Bible may not specifically forbid it, but unless it specifically 'OKs' it, then perhaps it is not the Lord's will.    And if it isn't the Lord's will, who is the influence behind those who condone and practice it?  IMHO, it is not the fault of the Bible that men practice such things I believe are contrary to the Lord's will, but it is either the deliberate manipulation of recorded revelation (which I don't recall ever making that accusation in TT), the lack of recorded revelation pertinent to the matter, or the rejection of recorded revelation that causes men to wander from the path the Lord wants us to follow.  And, who do you suppose is there to lead us off that heavenly path......?.....Satan.

Look at what Blaine just wrote to Glenn:

**** Blaine wrote ****
I am getting frustrated trying to save your soul, and you
won't allow it.  I am really, really afraid you are going
to end up in that "place," where Dives went ...
****

>From the context in which he wrote this, it seems to me that Blaine
considers Glenn lost because of his attitude toward the Book of Mormon.  Am
I wrong?

DAVEH:  Probably not.  But when I read Blaine's comment, I detected more than a hint of humor.  I don't know Blaine other than what I've read of his posts and a couple of private letters.  He seemed like a 'normal' LDS guy to me, and I seriously doubt that he had any aspirations of saving Glenn's soul.  Both his sentences are so 'un-LDS' that I can only presume he was bouncing back to Glenn the typical Protestant perspective as a sly joke.  (I think he subscribed after your previous explanations of when and why one should use smilies) I hope Blaine is reading this, as I'd like to hear his thoughts about why he wrote what he did.  (I'll copy this to him in case he's unsubscribed at the moment.)  If he was really serious in his comment to Glenn......well......I'd frankly be shocked.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~