David Miller wrote:
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 notDAVEH: I don't view it as JS's writing, but rather Nephi's.
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 easierDAVEH: If you think JS thought the Bible was bringing folks under Satan's power, then it why do you think it likely that he would espouse it? The fact that he considered the Bible to be the Word of God and included it as Scripture for the LDS Church would imply that you are mistaking JS's regard for the Bible.
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 keepDAVEH: And as I remember, you seemed to agree with that.
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 discussionsDAVEH: Again......Let's get this straight, DavidM. It was YOU and Glenn who have inferred that it is the Bible that brings people under the power of Satan. The BofM and I have repeatedly said it is what is missing from the Bible that brings people under the influence of Satan.
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,
".....because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God------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
it seemsDAVEH: The "Bible" is a compilation of books that are accepted as canonical Scripture. As we have discussed before, that 'grouping' of books has changed over time to be whatever the earthly denominations think they should be. IMHO, there were books of accepted Scripture accepted anciently that are not in the "Bible" as we know it today. Do you agree with that, DavidM?
then you use "Bible" as that book that included the plain and precious parts
which have since been removed.
DaveH wrote:DAVEH: I'm glad we agree on that. Then you apparently are aware of the doctrines of men that have pervaded Christianity today? It is my belief that this is because of two things.....a lack of Scriptural information, and the lack of revelation from post Biblical prophets and apostles who could have given corrective advice upon the advent of such practices. What may have been removed from the Bible or simply not recorded in the first place, could easily have been revealed by the Lord's living servants.
> 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:DAVEH: Is it the HS that, influenced the practice of infant baptism? Whose influence brought homosexuality into some of the Protestant denominations? The Christians who practice both conjured their doctrines AFTER reading the Bible.
> 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.
Consider the Lord's comment.......
"Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and THEIR FEAR TOWARD ME IS TAUGHT BY THE PRECEPT OF MEN:" Isa 29:13
..........Don't you suppose the FEAR people have inherited from dogma about going to that torturous lake of fire has caused many people to baptize infants? The RCC folks seem to be big believers in infant baptism, and as I also remember they used to be pretty big on giving last rites to those about to die to save them from eternal flames. If that isn't a doctrine of men precipitated by fear, I don't know what is.
The problem in this specific situation is that I think the ones influencedDAVEH: Really. I find that interesting.
by Satan are those who insist that infant baptism is wrong.
I think theyDAVEH: Think about that from a logical standpoint. IF you are right, Scripture seems not to contain enough information to suggest that practicing infant baptism is OK, so some of us (according to your theory) have concluded that practicing infant baptism is influenced by Satan. On the other hand.......some suggest just the opposite....a lack of Scripture saying otherwise is evidence that such practices are influenced by Satan. Either way....it appears that failure of the Bible to clarify the need for or not need for the practice is precipitated by evil, eh!
have added something to Scripture which was never there to begin with.
Although I do not baptize infants myself, because of my understanding ofDAVEH: LOL......Come on, DavidM......You know better than that. I am one of the few who has suggested the Lord has revealed much more than is contained in the Bible.
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.>DAVEH:
> Again, it is what is not in the Bible (or any Scripture, for that
> matter) that allows men 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.DAVEH: Not at all. But, are there not a lot of folks who claim the HS convinces them of the conflicting doctrines?
I've known many people toDAVEH: And, do any of them believe they dreamt them up because of the influence of the HS? Would you think some are a result of the influence of Satan instead?
dream up doctrines,
but I have never blamed the idea that the Bible wasDAVEH: For the sake of discussion, let's assume for a moment that JS did not receive revelation from the Lord about baptism for the dead. Would you not agree that he would then have derived that doctrine from the Bible? Would you suggest that JS were influenced by Satan, or the HS in practicing baptism for the dead? Assuming your answer would be Satan.....then let me quote your above comment with a slight change...........
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.
"The problem in this specific situation is that I think the ones influenced
by Satan are those who insist that infant baptism FOR
THE DEAD is wrong. "
.......Do you understand the point I'm trying to make, DavidM?
Even if the Bible were reduced today to the gospel of John, and all otherDAVEH: IF the Lord had revealed to his Biblical prophets and apostles that baptism IS NECESSARY for salvation, and then IF those passages that convey such relevance of baptism are watered down to the point where folks conclude that a water baptism is not necessary for salvation......do you not think that could be harmful? I would suggest that the popular interpretation of Mk 16:16 and Jn 3:5 represent believes based more on tradition than what the Lord desires.
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 ScripturesDAVEH: It seems to me that to say such would deny free moral agency....even for those who believe and have the HS. Have you ever known people who believe and have been influenced by the HS, yet choose to go astray?
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
