David Miller wrote: >> The Book of Mormon is apparently difficult >> to understand, especially in this place, and has >> led us to different interpretations regarding its >> meaning.
DAVEH: > As I've said before, if you don't understand LDS theology, > just ask and I'll explain how I understand it. The problem > is that even after I have explained my beliefs, some folks > insist on telling me that I believe differently or that I'm lying. I don't think you are lying, but what you say does not line up with what the Book of Mormon says. I think sometimes your beliefs differ from Joseph Smith's beliefs, but certain phrases and spinning practices allow you to think that you believe the same way. David Miller wrote: >> My paraphrase is that this passage is meant to say that >> the Bible, in its present state, missing many plain and >> precious parts, is something which has enabled Satan >> to have great power over an exceedingly great many >> people. Your paraphase is that the parts that are missing >> has caused Satan to have power over them. Your >> paraphrase does not make logical sense, because if there >> were missing parts, these would not be the source of >> deception. DAVEH: > As I see it, if something is missing (viz., the doctrinal explanation > whether or not baptism of infants is necessary) and different sects > create their own man made doctrine to make up for that 'inadequacy', > then it is the missing stuff that allows Satan to gain a foothold. > If the Bible contained the same doctrinal information about infant > baptism that is included in the BofM, then it would be much harder > for men to introduce errant doctrines and practices. I understand what you say here. The problem is that you are not saying here what Joseph Smith said. You are saying that men are not safeguarded from error as sufficiently as if the Bible had the "missing parts." I can accept that IF it were clear that the Bible had missing parts, and IF it was clear that men today could not gain that knowledge through other means. On the other hand, Joseph Smith wrote that men stumble and are brought under the power of Satan. Do you see the difference between your idea that men are not as safe from error versus Smith's statement that an exceedingly great many people are brought under Satan's power? Joseph Smith talks about the abominable church maliciously removing parts from the Bible to blind people and harden hearts. He wrote, "And all this have they done, 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). Then he talks about the abominable church going after this corrupted Bible. Then he talks about how an exceedingly great many people stumble and are brought under Satan's power, because the Bible they go after was altered and had parts removed. Your paragraph above is much more mild compared to Joseph Smith's writing. Joseph Smith wrote that people stumble and are brought under Satan's power because the "book" had parts removed from it by the great and abominable church. You seem to disagree with him by saying, "no, the Bible is not the problem, but rather because the Bible has some missing parts, it is easier for men to be led astray and follow errant doctrines and practices." You are not on the same page as Joseph Smith. Another possible problem here is that it seems to me that you keep flip-flopping on your definition of "Bible." I think this is causing difficulty in our communication about this passage in the Book of Mormon. In the context of the Bible being the Word of God, you say that you believe it is as far as it is translated correctly. The Bible in these discussions is that book which we are able to translate. It is that book which is "missing many plain and precious parts." However, when we talk about the Bible being something that brings people under the power of Satan, it seems then you use "Bible" as that book that included the plain and precious parts which have since been removed. DaveH wrote: > Now DavidM, if the Bible had recorded such, do you think there > would be any denominations practicing infant baptism now? Certainly not as many, but considering that some denominations practice homosexuality, I can't say that there would be none. People can take a lot of liberty in how they reconcile the meaning of passages. DaveH wrote: > Instead, it seems to me that those churches that do > practice such have been influenced by Satan to introduce > false doctrine into their worship. IF it was as you have laid it out here, I still would not blame the book and its missing parts for them coming under the influence of Satan. The whole mindset is one which assumes men believe and follow only that which is written. The idea of a living Holy Spirit within every believer, a Spirit which teaches them and guides them into all truth, is completely lost. The problem in this specific situation is that I think the ones influenced by Satan are those who insist that infant baptism is wrong. I think they have added something to Scripture which was never there to begin with. Although I do not baptize infants myself, because of my understanding of baptism, I would not forbid anyone in church from baptizing their infants. I wouldn't forbid anyone from bringing their male infants to a mohel for circumcision either. I don't see how either act would affect their eternal salvation, but that does not mean that I feel compelled to forbid it. David Miller wrote: >> People are not deceived by what they don't know, DAVEH: > I think my above example would refute that assertion. No it doesn't Dave. Suppose your quote from Moroni were actually in the Bible at one time. The fact that it is not there now would not deceive anyone. It it were there, it might help prevent someone from being deceived from other writings or other knowledge, but its lack of being there would not deceive anyone. DAVEH: > Again, it is what is not in the Bible (or any Scripture, for that > matter) that allows me to dream up their own doctrines. Your assumption here is that the Bible is the only source of knowledge about God. You ignore the role of the Holy Spirit. I've known many people to dream up doctrines, but I have never blamed the idea that the Bible was missing certain plain and clear passages as being the reason that these men dreamed up these false doctrines. I've seen Joseph Smith dream things up too, but still, I've never thought, "if only the Bible was not missing passages on this, Joseph Smith would not be deceived." Men are deceived when they follow their own evil heart and evil ambitions. Even if the Bible were reduced today to the gospel of John, and all other books were removed, and I had knowledge of all the other books, I would never blame its lack of having these other books as the reason that men dream up false doctrines, or for why they are brought under Satan's power. Such thinking is false doctrine, in my opinion. DAVEH: > But it is what I believe. When you take away from the > Word of God, it allows Satan to gain a foothold. That > is why the Lord in a couple books of the Bible warned > against taking away from his Word. I believe the Lord gave the warning to increase respect for the written Word. I do not think he gave the warning because he was afraid that if it was altered, then men could no longer come to salvation. The Scriptures themselves point to the importance of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Satan cannot gain a foothold on those who believe in Jesus Christ and have the Holy Spirit, even if all they had were the Hebrew Scriptures. I reject such teaching as utterly false and contrary to the doctrine of Christ. It places undue emphasis and importance on the written word as the sole means by which God communicates with men. 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.
