Steve Noel

Here is a dialogue/debate between a well known critic of the Bible, Bart Ehrman, and Evangelical apologists Mike Licona on the historical reliability of the New Testament. Thought some might find this interesting. http://www.thebestschools.org/special/ehrman-licona-dialogue-reliability-new-testament/

I am also reading LDS literature. I recently purchased Wrestling with the Angel and LDS Beliefs.

Lol, I know where the closest LDS church is at. I don't know how many Latter-day Saints there are around here, but I've lived here for about 35 years and I've never met one that I know of (except the missionaries I had come to my home).

It is already finished. I got an A! It was an argumentative research paper. I'm not sure that it will be all that interesting to you, but I can send it to you if you want. PM me with you email address. In the paper I argue for this thesis: The days of creation in Genesis 1 should be interpreted literally, because applying grammatical-historical principles of interpretation to the text leads to this conclusion.

I live in Michigan. I know of very few people who have had any interaction at all with Latter-day Saints. I have never heard a sermon or attended a class about Latter-day Saints in my church. This is not something most around here are exposed to, so there is little interest in Mormonism. It is not likely that I will spend much time in future ministry talking about Mormonism. That being said, if an opportunity arises I'm sure that I will speak about what I've learned. That may be to correct misconceptions or to explain where I believe Latter-day Saints are wrong.

In the other forum that I joined before this one there was one guy who thought I might be in a class about Mormonism. They speculated that I knew more about Mormonism then I was revealing. He thought I was "undercover" for a class assignment. Here are the relevant portions from my response to him. I think it will answer your questions as well: "I assure you all that I have no ulterior motives here. I have a passion for studying Scripture, theology, Church history, etc. I do not personally know anybody else who cares at all what Mormons believe. I do not personally know any Mormons... I attend a small Pentecostal church in Michigan. I am getting my BA in Religion degree online through Luther Rice University... My interest in Mormonism has nothing to do with my schooling. I am currently taking only 1 course (my last one!), and it is English Composition II. I do have to write a research paper for this course, but I am not writing on Mormonism. I am doing my paper on why Genesis 1 should be translated literally and not figuratively.Sal thinks I may know more about Mormonism than I am articulating. I don't know if that is true. I do know a good bit about Mormonism, but much of that knowledge comes from Evangelical apologetic works on Mormonism. I have read Walter Martin's chapter on Mormonism in Kingdom of the Cults, James White's Letters to a Mormon Elder, Janis Hutchinson's The Mormon Missionaries, Ed Decker's The God Makers, parts of Gerald & Sandra Tanner's The Changing World of Mormonism, Marvin Cowan's Mormon Claims Answered, Ron Rhodes' chapter on Mormonism in The Challenge of the Cults, and Richard Abanes' One Nation Under Gods. In addition I have read sections of many other books from Christian apologists or former Mormons who have written against Mormonism. I have also listened to many hours of teachings, podcasts, and debates on Mormonism from folks like James White, Walter Martin, Bill McKeever, and Robert Morey. Several years ago I read through the book of Mormon in about 3 weeks. This was when Mitt Romney was running for President and I was listening a lot to Glenn Beck. After reading through the Book of Mormon I went to Mormon.org and had the missionaries come over. I was not interested in joining the LDS Church. I just wanted to discuss Mormonism with actual Mormons. We had some good discussions, but they were very basic. The missionaries were not really prepared too get too far off the path of their lessons. Many times when I would challenge a belief or interpretation they would just begin to state, "I know Joseph Smith is a prophet..." I could not get them to really dig into the Bible with me. I now know that this is not what they are trained to do.So do I know a lot about Mormonism? I thought that I did. In the last several years I happened upon the public conversations that Greg Johnson and Robert Millet were having. I was very impressed with Dr. Millet. I bought several of his books and started reading them all. I then learned about How Wide the Divide? by Craig Blomberg and Stephen Robinson. I bought that and started reading it too. I then became aware of a book by several Evangelical scholars/apologists called The New Mormon Challenge, and I started reading that. Notice a theme? I have read the preface, forward, and 1st chapter of a lot of books . Even though I was lacking discipline, I did learn through from these books that my knowledge of Mormonism may actually be inaccurate. These newer books all strongly criticized most of the Evangelical writings on Mormonism that I had read. I have never shared or enjoyed the acerbic tone of some Evangelical writers against Mormonism. I have often thought that the tone and style of some Evangelical works against Mormonism were not representative of the fruit of the Spirit. I am a Pentecostal Arminian. I have experienced the arrogance, condescension, sarcasm, mockery, misrepresentation, etc. that sometimes comes from theologically/apologetically minded Evangelicals (especially online). So here I am. My desire is to get a true understanding of the LDS faith."

Thank you for a thoughtful response. I find much that I can agree with here.

Perhaps. The title I gave to this thread was the question, "Why was Muhammad Wrong?" I closed the OP with the question, "On what basis do Latter-day Saints reject this alleged revelation from God through his alleged prophet Muhammad?" In answering the "why" or "on what basis" I felt that you all would be expressing how you judge the truthfulness of a teaching/revelation that is claimed to be from God. Sometimes asking a specific question about a specific situation reveals things that a general question may not. Let me illustrate. There is an evangelism training course that a Presbyterian minister developed in 1962 called Evangelism Explosion. In that program Christians are taught to ask strategic diagnostic questions to help determine if someone understands the gospel. One of those questions is this: "If you were to die today and you found yourself standing before the throne of God, and He asked you, 'Why should I let you into my heaven?' What would you say?" How a person answers this question will reveal to you what they are trusting in for their eternal salvation. Usually the answer will be something to the effect of "I try to be a good person." Such an answer reveals that they are trusting in their goodness (or their good works) to gain eternal life. That is the way I was using the Muhammad illustration in the OP. I guess I could have just asked what standard do you use to judge truth.This is just the way I thought to ask the question.

Excellent. Thank you.

Thanks for this. The LDS view on this may not be all that different from the Evangelical view.

Obviously Muhammad is not here. It was a hypothetical. Not sure where you're getting your information about the formation of the biblical canon, but this caricature is not accurate. If you're interested in what Evangelicals believe about this, then here is an article on The Canon of Scripture by a respected Evangelical scholar. I am not sure why you chose to mock a straw-man here, but I am not interested in this kind of interaction.

Very good. Thank you.

Thanks for this. Is this distinction between "scripture" and "canon" taught as doctrine or just a popular belief?

As far as comparing Mormonism and Islam please read my response to Carb HERE. Otherwise, you have adequately answered my question.

No. I am not considering conversion. No, I have not tried to convert anyone here. Though I may at times seek to convince you all to change your minds about something. Yes. I am here to learn for myself what Latter-day Saints believe. I actually came to this board at the recommendation of people at the first forum I joined to discuss Mormonism (mormondialogue.org). I was told that I would get a better understanding of mainstream Mormonism here. That forum has a lot of disgruntled current/former LDS folks. Why am I wanting to learn about LDS beliefs? That is a good question. I don't know if I have a good answer for you. For some reason Mormonism interests me. I am someone who loves to study. I am fascinated by theology, church history, biblical studies, etc. I have just completed a Bachelor's degree in Religion with a minor in Apologetics. There are two contrasting apologetic approaches to Mormonism among Evangelicals. These two regularly criticize the approach of the other. I am seeking to better understand Mormonism in order to evaluate these approaches.

I apologize that I have not responded earlier to your question. I have been limited in my time to respond here. I don't like to give quick/thoughtless responses. This question is a great question. It has been on my mind for several days now. I don't know that I have an adequate answer at this time. The standard verse that Evangelicals use to demonstrate this approach is the example of the Jews in Berea in Acts 17. Here is the text: Evangelicals point out that God inspired Luke to commend this attitude of the Bereans ("These were more noble..."). The Bereans did not just accept what Paul said because he was an apostle. They eagerly received what he said and then examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true. In essence, they used the Scriptures as a ruler to measure the truthfulness of Paul's message. We would also point to the biblical evidence that the Bible is the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Matt. 22:31-32; 2 Pet. 1:20-21; etc.). So whenever a teaching/revelation is said to be from God it must be consistent with what God has already spoken in Scripture. We would also point to the way Jesus viewed and used the Scriptures. When tempted by the devil Jesus proclaimed, "It is written.." (Luke 4:1-13). Thus, Jesus quoted Scripture as the Word of God when tempted by Satan to disobey God. There are many more examples that could be given, but that is the gist of it. Now, what your question has really caused me to reflect on is the role of the internal witness of the Spirit to the truthfulness of the Scriptures. This is an area I need to explore much more than I have.

It seems I do still need to clarify myself. I have repeatedly tried to do so in this thread. If you check the OP you will see that the purpose of this thread was to inquire about how Latter-day Saints judge the truthfulness of teachings/revelations. I used Muhammad because he claimed to have direct revelations from God. In these revelations he teaches things about Jesus that Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints both say are false. I know on what basis Evangelicals reject Muhammad's revelations. We reject these revelations because they teach things about Jesus that are contrary to Scripture. The Bible is used as a ruler to measure whether a revelation/teaching is true or not. If the revelation/teaching contradicts what God has already revealed in the Bible, then it is not from God. Several have argued that it is our interpretation that is the standard by which Evangelicals measure, not Scripture. Regardless of how well Evangelicals apply this principle, that is the goal. Measure all teachings/revelations by what God has already revealed in Scripture. If it is contrary to Scripture, then it is not from God. So Evangelicals reject Muhammad's revelations/teachings about Jesus. They cannot be from God, because they contradict what God has already revealed about Jesus. The only purpose of this thread was to understand how Latter-day Saints determine if a revelation/teaching is from God. There is not an attempt here to compare/contrast Mormonism and Islam. This thread is not about how Mormons are as equally as wrong as Muslims. This thread is not about how Mormons and Muslims both misinterpret the Bible. The comparison/contrast I am after is between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints with regard to determining truth. I am not asking Latter-day Saints to defend their position. I am asking you to explain it. I am not trying to prove that my position is superior or more correct than yours. I am stating the standard Evangelical position as an example of what I mean, and then asking how Latter-day Saints approach this. I am okay with your questions that cause me to explore my position. I have thought a lot about @Zil's question to me. It is a fantastic question. It has caused me to think hard. I don't know that I have a satisfactory answer at this time. It is one I need to explore deeper. I have been limited on time lately so I have not been able to respond to all the questions/comments so far.

I don't really want to haggle hear about who interprets the Bible correctly. When it comes to the teachings/revelations of Muhammad we both interpret the Bible as contradicting what he said. What I'm trying to grasp is the relationship in LDS belief between experience and Scripture. Do you judge experience by Scripture or do you judge Scripture by experience or possibly some third option? Muhammad claimed he had experiences from God. Millions of people are convinced that this was true. They reject what both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints say about Jesus. I asked this at another LDS forum as well. There is variation, but it seems that Latter-day Saints reject Muhammad's teachings/revelations about Jesus because those revelations/teachings about Jesus are in opposition to what Latter-day Saints teach/believe about Jesus. This is what I'm getting at. What standard do you use to make that judgment. Is it your personal testimony? Is it the testimony of your prophets? Is it the Scriptures? Is it a combination of these things (possibly others)?

Thanks for all the replies. I have had a long day of taking kids to the dentist, to swim classes, to the after hours clinic, and then grocery shopping. Got to love these days off from work :). Anyway, I just wanted to let you all know that I will interact with the posts during the week. Thanks for being patient.

Got it. This is the point of my question. Evangelicals measure a teaching / revelation by the Scripture (you would say "by their interpretations"). Since Latter-day Saints do not "appeal to the Bible" to judge a teaching / revelation, what is your basis for rejecting Muhammad's teaching / revelation?

If Muhammad were here, then he would testify that God has shown him the truthfulness of the Qur'an. He would state that God has manifested the truth to him that Jesus is not the Son of God, not the Savior of the world. What makes your testimony right and his testimony wrong?

Muhammad claims that he experienced personal revelations. He states that God sent the angel Gabriel to give him these revelations. On what basis do you reject these revelations as being not from God?

This question arises from the discussion thread on angels that his diverged into a discussion on Scripture and revelation. My question is meant to probe how Latter-day Saints judge the truthfulness of teachings and/or revelations. Evangelicals insist that all teachings and experiences must be judged by Scripture. If someone claims that an angel gave them a revelation from God that does not agree with Scripture, then we reject that revelation. On this basis, Evangelicals reject the teachings/revelations of Muhammad. On this same basis, Evangelicals say that the teachings and revelations given to Joseph Smith were not from God. So we view Scripture as a ruler by which we measure the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation that is claimed to be from God. I am trying here to understand on what basis Latter-day Saints judge the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation that is claimed to be from God. You read too much into my question Lehi. I am not in a class (I finished my last class for my degree last week!), reading a book, or referencing internet sites on how to witness to Mormons. There are similarities between the stories of Muhammad and Joseph Smith, but that is not my point. I am seeking to understand the ruler by which Latter-day Saints measure the truthfulness of a teaching or revelation.

The word "adequate" does not come from v.16. It is in the NASB translation of v.17. It reads: The Greek word here is "artios" (transliterated, I don't know how to get Greek characters in here). According to the Greek and English Interlinear New Testament edited by William and Robert Mounce this word means "entirely suited; capable, proficient, complete in accomplishment, ready."

Not at all. I enjoy these discussions. I appreciate all the interaction here. I am alright with my views being challenged. Many times God has shown me where I was wrong or unbalanced through those I disagreed with. This discussion about Scripture and revelation causes me to clarify the issues at stake and work through them (that includes prayer). I feel that this is an area God wants me to explore deeply.