David Miller wrote: >> I don't have a problem considering that the Book >> of Mormon might be Scripture. The idea itself is >> not wrong, in my opinion. I see no valid authority >> from God that has closed the Canon of Scripture.
DAVEH: > I think there are many Protestants who might disagree > with you on that! Yes, you are correct. I consider them Protestants with an insecurity problem. :-) David Miller wrote: >> However, where the Book of Mormon seriously >> fails is when it criticizes the Scriptures before >> it as not being what God had intended. DAVEH: > You seem intent on limiting "Scriptures" as being only > what is found in the Bible. Yet above you suggested > "This is not to say that another book might not also be > considered Scripture." If you really believe such, then > why would you not think it possible that there is more > of the Lord's will that may be revealed elsewhere than > the Bible? Doesn't that imply that the Bible may lack > some important information? I think it is possible that more of the Lord's will is revealed elsewhere than the Bible. It is possible that Scriptures of the past that are now lost might yet be discovered. However, I doubt that even they would be added to the present canon of Scripture. Note that I think more of the Lord's will is revealed in other writings, but I don't consider them Scripture. Scripture holds a special place of authority, as that collection of writings as a whole which might be relied upon with confidence and serve as a base of authority by which to judge and consider all present day revelations. David Miller wrote: >> Jesus and the apostles, on the other hand, never >> claimed any sort of problem with the Scriptures >> that came before them. DAVEH: > Yet it was THEY who contributed significantly to > EXPANDING Scripture! And why should they > complain? They had more OT Scripture than > we do now! We should be the ones who are > wondering what happened to the material they > referenced. But don't miss the point that these holy men never made allegations that the Scriptures were corrupted. They accepted all of what was preserved as Scripture and did not attribute Satan's power to corrupted and altered texts which the Pharisees and other Jews went after. The Samaritans of the day, on the other hand, harshly criticized the unreliability of the writings of the prophets, and so they accepted only the Torah as Scripture. We see the disrespectful attitude of Jesus toward their religion when he talked to the woman at the well. I too wonder what happened to Scripture that they referenced, but this is only curiosity on my part. I know that God has preserved that which he desired to preserve. David Miller wrote: >> On the contrary, they affirmed the authority of >> Scripture and testified to God's hand of >> Providence in preserving them for mankind. >> Do you see the difference here? DAVEH: > Yep......they were working with a full deck. Our > deck, even though expanded since then, is > obviously lacking material they considered from > God. I think their deck was a "full deck" for them at that time. In other words, the purpose of Scripture was being fulfilled in what they needed at that time. For our time, I believe that our Bible represents a "full deck" of Scripture. There is enough in the Bible to lead men to Jesus and to the receiving of the Holy Spirit, that they might receive the full knowledge of God. It may very well be that if we had all the Scriptures that they had, then it would be more of a stumbling block for the present generation. DAVEH: >>> Because the Bible is an "arbitrary" collection of books. David Miller wrote: >> I respectfully disagree. :-) Arbitrary? ??? >> Why do you assume that? DAVEH: > Because of the way the Apocrypha was treated. > At one time is was included in the Bible, and > now it has fallen in disfavor, and has be discarded > as questionable material. The King James scholars > felt it was pertinent. Since then, somebody made a > decision to remove it? Why? Did the teachings there > seem problematic now, but didn't 4 centuries ago? I think your view of history is skewed here. Yes, there were apocryphal books included in Bibles compiled 200 years before Jesus, as well as Bibles of the 17th century. However, these additional books were not jumbled in with the other books, but they were demarcated as a separate collection. In my perspective, they were never considered "Scripture." They were simply historical books that filled in knowledge concerning the inter-testament times. People who wondered what was going on from the time of the last Old Testament Prophet Malachi to John the Baptist could read these books to learn about that period. Have you read the Apocrypha? If so, don't you find them on a different level from the other Scriptures? What about these books lead you to think they should be considered Scripture? Make your case. Regardless, I still don't understand why the dispute about the Apocryphal books lead you to say that the Bible is arbitrary. That implies that there was no debate, nor reasons, about why it should not be included with the Bible. In contrast, history shows that there was debate about it. Part of the problem in this reformation era was the allegation that priests were quoting church fathers at the same level of authority as they did the Scriptures. The place of church tradition held such prominence that it was very difficult to expose falsehood within Roman Catholicism. This led to the need for more clearly demarcating what was inspired Scripture and what was not, and this led to treating the Apocrypha as separate from Scripture (by the Protestants), and to the Roman Catholics canonizing some of the Apocryphal books. David Miller wrote: >> You underestimate the power and >> sovereignty of God. DAVEH: > And I think you underestimate his promise of free > will to men. Where did God ever promise free will to men? DaveH wrote: > If men truly have agency to do wrong, then there is > a possible conflict if you seem to believe God would > deny them that right to add/subtract something from > the Bible. I feel that I keep repeating myself. Men can add and subtract things from the Bible all they like, but that doesn't mean that God can't also preserve his Word in the midst of it. Many modern translations, such as the NIV, are based upon texts of the Bible with many parts removed from it, but that doesn't mean that God did not also preserve manuscripts that contained these missing parts. The pressure to keep these removed parts has been so great that even these modern translations have put them back into the text, sometimes as text with footnotes suggesting that they should not be there, and sometimes missing but with a footnote to the text itself as an alternate addition. >From my perspective, despite the efforts of many men to corrupt and change the Bible, whether we are talking about unknown manuscripts from the ancient past, or modern texts like those produced by Joseph Smith, God has acted in his Providential way to preserve the Bible. His acts might have included destroying would be corrupters, such as what happened when Joseph Smith was killed, or it might just be by directing the true followers to disregard the corrupted texts being produced. In either case, his power in Providential Acts worked through history to preserve the Scriptures that He desired to preserve for future generations. DAVEH: > The revealed Word of God (Gospel) is the > Owner's Manual for the Book of Life. I cannot say that I agree. DaveH wrote: > The fewer pages we have, the more chance of > misunderstanding and misdirection. Who is > content with a portion of the Lord's revealed > Gospel? Logically, can we really be comfortable > knowing there is more of God's revealed will than > we have, but it is was lost? I'm content because the Bible promises that the author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit, will indwell me and teach me all things. Why would I desire more written revelation when I have living revelation indwelling me? Only those who lack the indwelling revelation would seek for more written revelation in order to get better clarification on the things not covered thoroughly. David Miller wrote: >> Note that Blaine led us all into this discussion by claiming >> that the Book of Mormon was clear and simple, compared >> to the Bible. He was explaining how the Bible was missing >> "plain and precious parts" but the Book of Mormon was not. DAVEH: > I do not recall Blaine saying ".....the Book of Mormon was not". > Are you sure he said such? I don't want to go back and look it up, but what I remember him saying is that the Book of Mormon was much more clear and easier to understand than the Bible. This is what led him to quote 1 Nephi 13 and what led to us seeing the words there that the Bible, which the abominable church followed after, led an exceedingly great many people to stumble and come under Satan's power, because of all the "plain and precious parts" which were taken out of it. DaveH wrote: > The Lord has revealed much of the Gospel in what > we call the Scriptures. Protestants normally limit that > to just the Bible. LDS theology does not limit the > revealed will of God in such a way. Anything/anybody > who detracts (or changes) from what God has revealed, > only detracts from the Gospel and impedes mans' > eternal progression. The less mankind knows of the > Gospel, the more power Satan has, IMHO. Does that > give you a better understanding of my perspective, > DavidM? It reinforces my perspective that "eternal progression" in your viewpoint is based upon knowledge. You seem to perceive that men fail to progress eternally when they lack God's revealed will. In contrast, I see sin as the major stumbling block for men. When men sin, their eternal progression is impeded. Satan has power over them when they sin. If they walk in righteousness and holiness, then their understanding becomes enlightened. They have no need for further written revelation because they receive a living revelation within them, which is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit teaches them and guides them into all truth, revealing everything to them that is from the Father above. The difference here is very important because it is the reason that I consider you involved with a false religion. Your religion has perverted the truth of the gospel in that it has caused you to think that salvation is tied into the acceptance of "additional revelation," i.e., the Standard Works. This is seen through your comments above, and by Blaine's comments to Glenn concerning his efforts to save his soul from the place where Dives went. Men should not seek after additional written revelation, but they should seek Jesus and walk in holiness, without sin, and then their understanding will be opened. They should follow the indwelling Holy Spirit and not look to other writings so-called Scriptures to guide them. It seems to me that these other writings have replaced the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Mormons. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
