David Miller wrote: >> 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 wrote: > Hmmmmmm........Would you think that there are many > millions of Catholics who have been influenced by the > power of Satan? Yes, I do, but I also believe that millions of Protestants have too. The difference between us is that you and Joe Smith blame the inadequecy of the Bible for this, while I blame the sinful hearts of men for it. If I believed the way you guys do, then I would be writing Scripture to try and fix the world too. The problem is that this doctrine of the inadequecy of Scripture and the need for more Scripture is false doctrine. David Miller wrote: >> 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 wrote: > And it does seem that there are a diversity of beliefs > derived from its teachings, are there not? Yes, of course, because not everybody obeys the teachings of the Bible. 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? I do not consider it my place to say whether there will be more Scripture or not. That is in God's hands, not mine. However, it has been a long time since God has added to the Scriptures, and time is short, very short, so it does not seem reasonable to me to think that more Scripture will be added. David Miller wrote: >> 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. If the parts that were removed were added back to the Bible, would it cause even more confusion? Of course not. The parts that were removed, if there were any, were divinely inspired. So the parts that were removed do not cause people to stumble. You are misreading your own Scriptures. Think about the logic here for a moment. What is the OBJECT which causes stumbling? Is it "THAT WHICH IS REMOVED" as you assert above? No, it is BECAUSE of that which is removed. The OBJECT of stumbling is the "altered Bible," the Bible that has parts removed from it. This is simple logic and any unbiased person without any care one way or the other can readily see that your efforts to perserve the Bible that we have it today as God's Word has caused you to make an error in logic. The object which causes people to stumble is THE BOOK which, according to the Book of Mormon, has had many plain and precious parts removed, and because of those removed parts, it is THE BOOK which they run after which causes them to stumble. Read the first part of that verse that you quote. It says, "after these plain and precious parts were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles..." So the "book" here is the object of discussion. In the previous verse, it says, "thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious parts taken from the book." So clearly, as I have maintained, the Book of Mormon discredits the Bible that we now have. It claims that the Bible which the "abominable church" goes after [Protestants? Catholics? Eastern Orthodox?] causes an exceedingly great many people to stumble and come under Satan's power, because of these plain and precious parts which the abominable church removed from the book. So the doctrine being communicated here is that rather than being the custodians and keepers of God's Words, the abominable church [? undefined by the Book of Mormon, very unclear as to its meaning] perverted the Bible, that they "might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men" (1 Nephi 13:27). How did these men who had "the book" do these things? By removing things and then sharing that book with others. It is the book, not the parts which were removed, but the book which lacked certain parts, which was the tool that these perverted men used to deceive others. No matter how many times you claim that it was the parts that were removed which caused people to stumble, it does not change what the Book of Mormon says, nor does it change common sense and the rules of logic. You can say that it was BECAUSE of parts that were removed that the Bible has caused people to come under Satan's power, but you cannot say that it was the precious removed parts that caused them to stumble. Please be precise with your words and you will see that what I say is the truth. DAVEH wrote: > 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. The diversity of beliefs among Bible believers is evidence of sin in the camp, not of a problem with the Bible. The Bible is meant to be interpreted, that those who are truly following God, might be manifest in the midst of those who bear false witness to the truth. DAVEH: > 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. I do not consider "pre-mortal existence" as part of the gospel (good news). It might be considered fair game for discussion, but how is it that you consider it important for the gospel? A person does not have to hear anything about a pre-mortal existence to come to trust Jesus Christ as his Savior. DaveH wrote: >>> And.....would not the missing doctrinal information explain >>> why there are doctrinal differences today? David Miller wrote: >> Absolutely not. DAVEH: > To me, the answer is plain and contrary to yours. That's because you see knowledge as the key to salvation. You think that God has tried, rather unsuccessfully, to let men know the way of Salvation through writing. Men pervert the writings, so then God brings along another prophet to add to it. >From my perspective, knowledge is not the problem. God has given us plenty of knowledge. The problem is that people love their sin more than God. To me, you sound like Dives in the place of torment. "Please, father Abraham, send Lazarus to my five brothers, so they won't come here too." Dives thought that the problem was knowledge from a source that could be trusted. They don't know. But Abraham answered rightly when he said, "they have Moses and the prophets. If they don't believe them, then neither will they believe though one rose from the dead." David Miller wrote: >> 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."? Sure, of course. David Miller wrote: >> 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. Some of it is, but some of it is based upon "revelation," just like the division caused by Joseph Smith. DaveH wrote: >> 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. I have considered the LDS Scripture very seriously. Your Scriptures hardly compare at all with the work of the Holy Spirit in my life to resolve doctrinal differences. I meet people all the time, from different backgrounds, different countries, etc., who believe just like I do on so many things, because we both follow the Holy Spirit. David Miller wrote: >> 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. No, I am not assuming that. I simply observe huge divisions and factions in Mormonism despite the Book of Mormon and despite additional revelation. DaveH wrote: > From the LDS perspective, the BofM is the only > thing (excepting JS) that is relatively consistent > amongst the factions of the LDS realm. And from the viewpoint of other Christians, the Bible is relatively consistent amongst the factions of the Christian realm. What kind of statement is that? As I quoted in past posts, some of the earliest splits in Mormonism was because Joseph Smith changed some of the wording of his revelations. Joseph Smith's wife did not stay with your organization because she believed that your organization misinterpreted and misunderstood some of her husband's revelations. It is amazing to me that you continue with this fascade that the revelations of Joseph Smith brought unity. The obvious factual history of the matter is that divisions and splits increased by many orders of magnitude. It is a romantic notion that God would care enough to send a prophet who would settle all confusion and unite everyone, but Joseph Smith never did this. At least Jesus was plain about the fact that he would not bring peace, but a sword and division. We all look to him as the king of peace, but Jesus, being the Wisdom of all things, knew very plainly that his doctrines would divide even family members. DAVEH: > He [Jesus] did clarify the truth on this matter [baptism] > in the BofM. However, the Bible lacks that clarity, > hence the disparity of practice. The Book of Mormon only took one side of the issue. It did not clarify the matter. David Miller wrote: >> At what age do you allow >> baptism for your children? DAVEH: At age 8. And what if they came to you at age 5, would you baptize them then? That was the age at which I desired baptism. Does Mormonism have an age when they consider someone old enough for baptism? Is any of this disputed because the Book of Mormon is unclear about the proper age to qualify for baptism? DAVEH wrote: >>> I accept Jesus' words........ "He that believeth >>> AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved." Mk 16:16 David Miller wrote: >> 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. Not true. I have been baptizing new converts and had others ask for baptism at that same time, but I rejected them because their heart was not right before God. If a person does not believe, he cannot participate in baptism. Baptism is a holy ordinance that places people into the body of Christ. I treat it very respectfully. David Miller wrote: >> 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. It is not as simple as that if you baptize in proxy for the dead. I guess the Book of Mormon should have been more clear about this baptism for the dead stuff and then the Mormons would not be divided over the doctrine. Maybe some plain and precious parts were removed from the Book of Mormon, and that is why the followers of Joseph Smith are divided over the subject of baptizing for the dead. Please forgive my sarcasm, but it captures the essence of the double standard that you guys hold. David Miller wrote: >> 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! I blame the Book of Mormon because it very plainly condemns those who have not been baptized. If I believed the book of Mormon, I would probably be led to practice the superstion of baptizing for the dead too. The primary assumption of baptizing for the dead is this Book of Mormon assumption that those without baptism will be damned. 3 Nephi 11:34 says, "whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned." Now you apparently think that I should blame the Bible for the practice of baptizing for the dead, but of all the millions who believe the Bible to be the inerrant and infalliable Word of God, very few practice baptism for the dead. Only the majority of those who believe the Book of Mormon and other teachings of Joseph Smith practice baptism for the dead. How you can turn this around like this can be characterized only as spin. DaveH wrote: > From a logical standpoint, non-LDS folks believe that > LDS folks baptize for the dead because we have > misunderstood Paul's comment about it. No, I think you baptize for the dead because of what Joseph Smith wrote, not because of the Bible. I see you taking one Scripture from the Bible and trying to use it to support the practice which you got from Joseph Smith. DaveH wrote: > 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. The idea is so false and so superstitious that I'm sure Paul had no idea people would try to use his statement to support baptizing for the dead. Sometimes things are so obvious that they don't need more clarification, and the fact that most people who believe this passage in the Bible was inspired by God do not practice baptism for the dead is evidence that the Bible is clear enough that those with the Holy Spirit as their guide and teacher would not begin to follow a few erroneous Corinthians anymore than they would follow them in fornication and incestuous relationships. DaveH wrote: > 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. I can understand how if you already view baptism as a necessary ordinance that you might twist the passage this way, but even the majority of Christians who believe baptism is necessary for salvation don't baptize their dead. There is another hermenuetical principal that you must have two or more witnesses in Scripture for any undisputed doctrine, and so one short quip like this verse does not really establish baptism for the dead as a valid sacrament. Even the book of Mormon, in its repudiation of infant baptism, says that baptism is for repentance and so children and those without the law are redeemed without it. Laura asked you before how it is that dead people can repent. You seem to indicate that they repent after death, but then that alone is not enough, but someone must be baptized vicariously for them. I do have trouble understanding all of this. The Book of Mormon and other writings of Joseph Smith have severely complicated and confused the matter of water baptism. 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. It would only lend credence to your belief if the subject were baptism for the dead. I talk about other damnable subjects all the time without condemning them because such comments would only distract from the subject at hand. For example, sometimes I have commented on how abortion doctors are shot dead by others because of the conviction that some have about the unborn being living children with rights. I may not enter into a discussion at the time about how shooting abortion doctors is wrong because the point is that some Christians do it out of their strong sense of conviction, and condemning it does not help the point being made at the time. So just as I might mention those who kill abortion doctors as evidence that the unborn should be protected, the apostle Paul might mention those who baptize for the dead. Just mentioning them in no way justifies it, and the fact that in today's culture only Mormons are mixed up about this passage lends credence to my belief that no condemnation of the practice was necessary by Paul. And for the record, no, I don't believe that such a condemnation was one of those precious parts removed from the Bible. :-) David Miller wrote: >> 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. What kind of Jesus is this, that if you take a bath in his name, then he forgives your sins, but if you die for him because of your faith in him, but you were never baptized, then he withholds forgiving your sins until you or someone in your place has taken that bath? Don't you see the absurdity of your belief? David Miller wrote: >> 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'? No, but they make a distinction between blind obedience and loyal trust and faith. God does not desire blind obedience. He desires true trust and faith in him, for what he is and who he is. 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. I guess that is how you follow a sinner like Joseph Smith. You have no concept of the idea that men who are born again live as God desires them to live. Paul said to follow him as an example. His disputing Scripture with others was not sin. It was the way in which the Lord made his will known through him. Therefore, men of God today will exhort and convince gainsayers. The Bible does not settle the matter, and neither does the book of Mormon. Men filled with the Holy Ghost are used by God to illuminate truth, and they will use the Scriptures, the Bible, to help them do that. DAVEH: > You are losing me on that, DavidM. Are the mysteries > meant to be understood by the "simple men"? No, the true wisdom of God, the deep mysteries, are only known by those who are mature and perfect in the Lord. David Miller wrote: >> 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. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. (Mat 13:10-11) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. (1Co 2:9-10) Note that in the passage above, it is by the SPIRIT, not by the Bible, not by the Book of Mormon, not by Joseph Smith, but by the Spirit that God reveals such things to us. God has determined to keep matters hidden from those unworthy to know such things. That's why the Bible was not written as a handbook, but as a source of truth that must be searched, studied, and interpreted, so that those with the Spirit can know with certainty the intent of the Spirit of God. Yes, it seems good to God that men would squabble and present various opinions about his sayings, not that he specifically likes such things, but because it is a way in which the wheat and the chaff are distinguished from one another. It also builds faith and character in those faithful servants who believe God over what others might say to lead them astray. David Miller wrote: >> 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. He doesn't like that specifically, you are right, but he does like it when a faithful servant rises above all that. As he enjoyed pointing out Job to Satan as an example of a blameless man, so he enjoys pointing out his faithful servants in modern times as well. David Miller wrote: >> 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. Then why is all of Christianity, especially the followers of Joseph Smith, so divided? My point was that it was easily within God's power to lay down his Word with such precise clarity that nobody would dispute anything. He could have easily given us a chapter about baptism, another chapter on being born again, another chapter about the end of the age, another chapter about the precise nature of hell, etc. In other words, his Word could have been written in man's outline form of a, b, c, etc. instead of the Holy Ghost's way of comparing spiritual things with spiritual. David Miller wrote: >> 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. Right, prophets are not necessary to reveal the will of the Lord. Prophets are an example of how the Word of the Lord is revealed. God desires to reveal himself directly to every single person who believes upon him, and he will reveal things and teach them things by his Holy Spirit which he has given to all those who believe in Jesus. Jesus is that final Prophet, with a capital P, through whom God has finished his Word, and by whom and through whom he continues to speak his Word. Those of us who believe upon Jesus, whether we are apostles, prophets, or whatever, are simply members of Christ's body, so it is not we who speak and act, but Christ through us. Jesus Christ is still that final Prophet. 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.
