Part 2 David Miller wrote:
> David Miller wrote: > >> according to the Book of Mormon? The problem > >> IS the Bible in its alledged ALTERED state. > > DAVEH: > > Due to the nature of the various translations and transcriptions > > .........EVERY Bible is in an altered state. While that may lead > > to confusion depending on the quality of the translations/transcriptions, > > I do not blame God or the Bible for that. > > I agree.� I do not blame God for it either.� However, I do blame Joseph > Smith for saying that these problems are so great that it has led an > exceedingly great number of people under the power of Satan. DAVEH:� Hmmmmmm........Would you think that there are many millions of Catholics who have been influenced by the power of Satan?� Assuming (and that's a big assumption) that you would say 'yes', then I would point out that they use the same Scriptures to define their beliefs as you, except they have ADDED (or have the Protestants SUBTRACTED---the Apocrypha?) from the Bible! > �The Bible is > one of the few books that is a light to the world.� It is a book that I can > encourage people to read with confidence, that they will see God if they > seriously read it and study it and follow its teachings. DAVEH:� And it does seem that there are a diversity of beliefs derived from its teachings, are there not? > DaveH wrote: > > I assume that many of the men who worked with/on > > the Bible did the best they could under the circumstances. > > If the Gospel could have been revealed and conveyed in > > one single book, don't you think it would have been much > > easier for the Lord to do it that way? But no......the Gospel > > was 'dribbled' out over time through many different prophets. > > And it was subject to translational variations and 'errors' > > (hold the anger, please) and perhaps more serious----- > > tampering by exclusion. Is there evidence that what we > > Biblically have today is lacking books that were written by > > prophets of old and accepted as Scripture? IOW, the > > Bible is incomplete as far as revealing all that God has revealed. > > I have never disagreed with you on the idea that God has revealed to men > more than what is contained in the Bible.� Nevertheless, the Bible is what > God has designed to preserve as Scripture. DAVEH:� Do you believe the Bible represents ALL that the Lord has intended Scripture to be?� Or do you allow room for more Scripture from the Lord? > �It is one thing to say that the > Bible is a subset of God's revealed knowledge, and quite another thing to > say that the Bible brings an exceedingly great number of people under > Satan's power. DAVEH:� That isn't what the BofM said........ ".......because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceeding great many do stumble, yea insomuch that Satan hath great power over them."� 1Nep 13:29 .......to reiterate, it is not the Bible that causes men to stumble, but that which is removed from the Bible that causes confusion.� I've previously pointed out examples such as baptism of infants as being one of those confusing doctrines that is practiced differently by those who solely rely on the Bible for the Lord's Word. > With regard to the gospel, we need no other books than the Bible to reveal > the good news of Jesus Christ. DAVEH:� From my perspective, it would seem the gospel has been perverted by Protestantism as evidenced by the diversity of beliefs amongst Bible believers who interpret the Bible differently, and hence many have conflicting and confusing doctrines. � > This is not to say that other books cannot also illuminate and show forth the >gospel, but rather it simply means that > the revelation of the gospel is not incomplete in the Bible.� Can more be > shown to a person about the gospel than what is shown forth directly in the > Bible? DAVEH:� Sure.� Years ago I explained the nature of the "pre-mortal existence".� That is a fundamentally important part of the "plan of salvation" that is not included in Protestantism due to the dearth of references of it in the Bible.� So those that do refer to the "pre-mortal existence" are then either ignored or twisted to subvert the truth. > �Of course, but the Bible leads a person even to that by testifying > about the Holy Spirit and how the Holy Spirit is our teacher and guide in > these matters. > > In summary, I think you gloss over a grave passage in the Book of Mormon > when you down play what it says about the Bible bringing an exceedingly > great number of people under Satan's power. DAVEH:� And I think you will persist in misunderstanding the nature of Nephi's comment. > DaveH wrote: > > That those 66 books may not contain all that the Lord has > > revealed is not all that serious, IF one believes the Lord can > > continue to reveal as needed. > > Of course.� You know that I believe in continued revelation and I receive > such revelation myself.� To deny continued revelation would be to deny > myself and my relationship and covenant with Jesus.� The problem is not with > the idea that the Lord has spoken more than what is contained in the Bible, > but rather the problem is with the idea that the Bible in its present form > brings an exceedingly great many under the power of Satan. DAVEH:� Again.....I disagree with the way you have interpreted this matter. > DaveH wrote: > > And.....would not the missing doctrinal information explain > > why there are doctrinal differences today? > > Absolutely not. DAVEH:� To me, the answer is plain and contrary to yours. > �Doctrinal differences today are because men have different > agendas and motivations. DAVEH:� Would you say that Satan has some influence in persuading these men to have "different agendas and motivations."? > �It is a work of the flesh which seeks to work > doctrinal division. DAVEH:� And each "doctrinal division" is claimed to be rooted in the Bible. > �The Mormons have plenty of extra doctrine that > supposedly explains things not explained in the Bible, but it does nothing > to resolve doctrinal differences today. DAVEH:� It would solve many of them, IF those in dispute would take LDS Scripture seriously. > �Mormonism has only created even > more doctrinal division and more denominations with its alledged > revelations, as you well know. DAVEH:� As Blaine pointed out, you are assuming that is because they all believe the BofM differently.� From the LDS perspective, the BofM is the only thing (excepting JS) that is relatively consistent amongst the factions of the LDS realm. > David Miller wrote: > >> Jesus said to let the little children come unto him. > >> That is enough, isn't it? > > DAVEH wrote: > > Be serious, DavidM. If it were enough, then why do > > some churches baptize children? Obviously, there are > > some folks stumbling over this doctrine!!! > > No doubt that people have varied ideas about this.� You have to understand > that I was forbidden baptism as a child because I was a child.� This is > contrary to the teachings of Jesus on this matter.� Jesus said to let the > little children come unto him.� When the children are old enough to come, > then let them be baptized.� Later, as a child nearing my 9th year, I was > baptized.� I consider that baptism being done years too late.� By then I did > it "to fulfill all righteousness." > > You say that Jesus could have clarified the truth on this matter, DAVEH:� He did clarify the truth on this matter......in the BofM.� However, the Bible lacks that clarity, hence the disparity of practice. > but in my > opinion, he said enough for people to understand that children should be > baptized. DAVEH:� I probably did not clarify my point adequately when I used the term, "children".� I was inferring "infants". > By the way, have your children been baptized? DAVEH:� Yes. > �At what age do you allow > baptism for your children? DAVEH:� At age 8. > DAVEH wrote: > > Do you think there is a reasonable chance that one of the > > Lord's disciples asked him if they should baptize the children, > > and he told them "no"? But.....that "no" didn't make it into the > > Bible.....or if it did, it was later removed by somebody who > > found it profitable to baptize children? > > No, I don't think it is reasonable because Jesus rebuked the disciples for > not allowing the children to come unto him. DAVEH:� Again, my lack of differentiating children/infants has muddied the baptismal water here!� <G> > DAVEH wrote: > > I accept Jesus' words........ > > "He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved > > ....." Mk 16:16 > > I accept these words too.� Those who believe and are baptized will be saved. > I preach this often. DAVEH:� You just fail to preach the opposite....."Those who do not believe won't be able to participate in the covenantal ordinance of baptism. > DaveH wrote: > > ........If you or any other Christian wishes to believe baptism > > is not a requirement of salvation, then your argument is with > > our Saviour who went to the trouble to show us in both words > > and deed that baptism is necessary. The BofM is merely a > > second witness to what Jesus said in the Bible. > > The Book of Mormon is a false witness when it says that the Bible leads an > exceedingly great many under the power of Satan. DAVEH:� As before, the BofM does not say such.� It is you and Glenn who want it to read that way, but as I pointed out....those words are not in the BofM.� The message of the BofM is clear......the Bible is the Word of God and it is the things that are removed from the Word of God that cause men to stumble and that is what empowers Satan---the (doctrinal) confusion perpetrated by stumbling men. > �I'm glad that Blaine > brought this passage to my attention. > > With regard to baptism, the Book of Mormon has mixed you guys all up.� You > think baptism is some kind of magic ritual such that a person lacking such > can never be accepted by God. DAVEH:� A person lacking such, simply has not made a formal baptismal covenant (of acceptance) with the Lord. > You carry this magic ritual view so far that > you baptize people in proxy for dead people who were never baptized while > they were alive.� So the Book of Mormon has led you into superstitious > practices, DAVEH:� Nonsense.� The BofM does nothing of the such.� You have a copy....go ahead and read what is says about baptism.� In many places it explains the necessity of baptism.� However, we do not practice baptism of the dead because of the BofM.� Between the BofM and the Bible, it is the Bible that would lead one to the knowledge that early Christians practiced baptism for the dead.� So why would you blame the BofM for the alleged "superstitious practices"?.......If anything, you could make that claim for the Bible! ���� From a logical standpoint, non-LDS folks believe that LDS folks baptize for the dead because we have misunderstood Paul's comment about it.� IF (and that is an 'if' of conjecture) that were true, then it would seem the Bible doesn't clarify baptism for the dead enough.� Paul could have made a comment that those heretic Christians who were practicing baptism for the dead were wrong, because baptism is not important for salvation.� By not clarifying that practice, it seems to leave the door open in a sense. ��� Now if we look at it from another angle, Glenn believes everything we need to know is included in the Bible (if I remember him correctly), and that the Lord has put everything necessary for salvation in the Bible.� I would suggest that the Lord's inclusion of baptism for the dead in the Bible is to prove that baptism IS a necessary covenant, and that the early Christians thought it was so important that they baptized their unbaptized dead relatives.� That the passage was intended as evidence of the resurrection, it certainly compliments the belief for the need of baptism for salvation. > just like the Corinthians, DAVEH:� FTR........The fact that Paul did not condemn the Corinthians for practicing baptism for the dead only lends credence to my belief that baptism is an important aspect of salvation. > and then you call it God's Holy Word > so that by it you can deceive others as well. > > Baptism saves a person, not by the act of washing the body with water, but > by its effect upon the conscience of a person who does it in faith. DAVEH:� As you know, I view this differently.� To me, baptism is the covenant we make to accept Jesus.� In return, he forgives (washes away, so to speak) our sins. > David Miller wrote: > >> The earliest Christians had doctrinal disputations, just as the Jews > >> before the Christians had them. I would say that if there is evidence > >> in a religious sect of the end of doctrinal disputations then that group > >> is outside God's will. > > DAVEH wrote: > > Yes....and when they had those disputations, did the Lord just > > throw up his hands and suggest that confusion amongst his people > > was OK? Or did he send them prophets to set them straight and > > to reveal more of his Gospel! Did the Lord intend for the Bible > > to be confusing and hard to understand so that there would be > > a lot of Christians disputing doctrines? Is God the author of > > confusion? > > It gives God good pleasure to see his children search out a matter and > resolve it peacefully among themselves. DAVEH:� Unfortunately, there have been more than a few who settled such matters less than peacefully! > God does not desire us to be like > the horse or mule, that when he pulls the reigns one direction, we follow. > God desires us to be living, breathing, thinking disciples. DAVEH:� Do those attributes supersede 'obedient'? > If you read Acts 15, you will find heated discussion among the apostles and > elders in the church of Jerusalem.� Visit a yeshiva and see how emotional > Jews get when they discuss matters.� Many people in our culture look at such > with disdain, but I definitely think God has a different perspective. DAVEH:� What makes you think so?� Is there anything in the Bible that says "God desires us to be living, breathing, thinking disciples"?� Just because the disciples had heated discussions does not mean that the Lord approved. > Yes, the Lord did intend the Bible to be somewhat mysterious with regard to > its deeper knowledge, but plain enough also on the surface so that those > simple men who are called to eternal life will see the Truth of the gospel. DAVEH:� You are losing me on that, DavidM.� Are the mysteries meant to be understood by the "simple men"? > No, God is not the author of confusion, but he does speak truth in a mystery > and he hides his knowledge from those who consider themselves wise.� God > clearly forsaw that men would argue and fight over the meaning of his Words, > and he considered that in the end, this would be a good thing. DAVEH:� I'm not sure I'd agree with you on that, DavidM.� IMO, it is your wishful thinking that this confusion " would be a good thing" to the Lord. > �God designed > it this way that those who are approved of him would be made manifest by it. > > For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be > divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also > heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among > you.� (1Co 11:18-19) DAVEH:� I don't think that means the Lord likes to see the confusion and arguing. > Look at it this way.� If God had wanted to settle all matters with dogma > spoken by a prophet, it was certainly within his power to do that. DAVEH:� And he has. > �God > obviously chose a different path. DAVEH:� That is not so obvious to me.� If it is obvious to you, it may be because you do not see the necessity of prophets to reveal the will of the Lord. > Peace be with you. > David Miller. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ � ---------- "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.
