Steve Noel

Yes, I agree.

Muhammad of Mecca said that the angel Gabriel appeared to him and gave him revelations from God over a 23 year period. These revelations were collected and published as the Qur'an. According to these revelations Jesus was not God, nor the Son of God, but only a prophet of God. According to these revelations Jesus was not the Savior of the world. According to these revelations Jesus did not atone for the sins of the world. On what basis do Latter-day Saints reject this alleged revelation from God through his alleged prophet Muhammad?

I can agree with you that interpretation can be incorrect and undependable. The interpretations of men must also be measured by the Scriptures. The remedy to bad interpretation is good interpretation, not no interpretation. Doesn't the apostle Paul say that the God-breathed Scriptures are adequate for teaching doctrine and correcting deviations (2 Tim. 3:16-17)? This is a perfect example of what we are discussing here. The apostle Paul teaches that the God-breathed Scriptures adequately equip the man of God to teach doctrine and correct deviations. Elder Christofferson says that they are not. He states that only one endowed with divine authority who has received divine revelation can adequately establish doctrine and correct deviations. Is the mind of a believer independent of God? Cannot God work through the believer's mind? Let me use myself as an illustration. I regularly pray before I read or study Scripture. I continually ask Jesus to do for me what he did for the believers he appeared to after his resurrection. Luke 24:45 tells us that "He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." I have prayed this many many times in the 20 years I have been studying Scripture. Is the understanding I get come from the mind of man or from the Spirit?

I agree that revelation is the only way God communicates to man. Yet I would argue that the Scriptures are a revelation from God to man. To say that the only way to not misunderstand the Scriptures is to have revelation of their meaning is unwarranted. This amounts to saying that we need a revelation from God to understand a revelation from God. Are you saying that there will be no misinterpretation or misapplication if we all get a revelation from God about the meaning of Scripture? What about false prophets with false revelations. You and I should both agree that Muhammad of Mecca was a false prophet with a false revelation. According to the revelations he received from the angel Gabriel Jesus is not the Son of God, nor God, the Son, nor the Savior of the world, did not atone for the sins of the world, etc. Yet Muhammad teaches that Islamic beliefs are in the Bible. Why is Muhammad wrong? I would not argue that Latter-day Saints do not value and study the Scriptures. What I wrote is that Latter-day Saints are cynical about the clarity of the Scriptures. You have said as much in the first quote above. I think that this cynicism about the clarity of the Scriptures is in the DNA of Mormonism. It flows from Joseph Smith's cynicism about the clarity of Scripture. Here is what he writes when telling about the lead up to the First Vision:

Thank you for responding. I want to better understand what you are saying here. If, based on inspired living prophets, your understanding of the Scriptures can go well beyond what the words say and mean, then are you really understanding the Scriptures? When I read what you write here I hear you saying that what the Scriptures say and mean is ultimately irrelevant. All that matters is the meaning given from the Holy Spirit through the inspired living prophets. Please correct if I misunderstand. If this is the case, what is the point of the Scriptures? Yes, I appreciate that about you. Even if I do not agree with your conclusions. You usually do not disparage scholarly study. This has not been my experience thus far with other Latter-day Saints. I fully agree. One of the primary ways that the Spirit speaks to us is through the Scriptures. In 2 Tim. 3:16 the apostle Paul tell us that the God-breathed Scriptures are profitable or useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. Surely Paul would not agree that they are not profitable or useful for definitively resolving conflicts. In fact, in v.17 he says that these Scriptures were inspired by God so that the man of God may be adequately equipped for every good work. The God-breathed Scriptures are adequate for dealing with conflicts. Perhaps, though my previous comments speak to this issue.

I will check out what Nibley wrote.

I have seen this idea several times now from Latter-day Saints. If someone shows why a text should be understood in a certain way using grammatical-historical principles of interpretation, then they are "trusting in the arm of flesh." The assumption seems to be that God can speak to us by the Spirit, but not by the Scriptures. The Scriptures are just too unclear. Since people misinterpret the Scriptures we cannot trust them. If anyone seeks to demonstrate the meaning of a text through exegesis in context, then they are "relying on man." I would encourage Latter-day Saints to consider what your view of Scripture implies about God's ability to communicate through His Word. I would also encourage you to examine how Jesus and his early followers viewed Scripture. Were they as cynical about their clarity as Latter-day Saints are?

What you guys share here is one of the biggest issues that divides Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. Some Evangelicals are convinced that God does not communicate supernaturally with us any longer. They teach that once the apostles died or the Scripture was complete, we had God's Word to mankind. They say things like, "If you want to hear from God, then read your Bible." This is the doctrine of cessationism. There are also many Evangelicals (myself included) who do believe God speaks and works miracles today. In fact, we get this belief from the Bible. This is the doctrine of continuationism. Yet even those who hold to this latter view believe that spiritual experiences are not at the same level of authority as Scripture. Here is a representative Evangelical statement from a Pentecostal scholar that highlights this understanding:

I do not object to saying that angels can appear to be human. There are many examples of this in Scripture.

duplicate

I appreciate this. In the book How Wide the Divide? Stephen Robinson writes: I think this is an interesting perspective. I am not persuaded at this time that some of these pre/post mortal LDS beliefs are biblically neutral, but it is something I am considering.

duplicate

Actually, I summarized the Bible dictionary in order to give the folks here an example of how Evangelicals understand Scripture's teaching on this subject. Did you read through Heb. 1:4-14 before responding? Stating that this section in Hebrews emphasizes the superiority of the Son of God to the angels is not controversial. If you want to persuade me that I have misunderstood the text, then you will have to demonstrate my error from the text. I can only fairly evaluate the biblical consistency of LDS beliefs if I understand those beliefs. I have expressed my need to better understand the LDS view of angels in this thread. I have also acknowledged when there have been fair points made. I have learned a good bit already from the responses. Unfortunately, what you are doing here is precisely what you accuse me of doing. You are reading your preconceived notions into Acts 12:15. I have not actually argued for a position on this text. I said that we do not know what the people meant when they said it was Peter's angel. We can speculate, but we can not say with certainty. Most Bible commentators point out that it was a popular Jewish belief that guardian angels took on the appearance of those they were sent to protect. They say that this is likely the background to this text. If you believe that when they said it must be Peter's angel they meant it was Peter as a post-mortal angel, then I will not argue with you. I would encourage you to realize that what you doing here is reading LDS theology into the text. I do not interpret Scripture based on experiences (mine or others'). Instead, I try to interpret experiences by Scripture. Think about this: Muhammad claimed that he had encounters with the angel Gabriel over a 23 year period. He claims that Gabriel gave him messages directly from God. These revelations are recorded in the Qur'an. The Qur'an teaches that Jesus was not the Son of God. Muhammad would testify that my (and your) notions about Jesus being the Son of God are incorrect, because he got direct revelation from God.

We don't actually know what these people meant when they said this. We can only speculate. Some understand this to mean that it was Peter's personal angel, not that it was Peter as an angel. Others have speculated that every person has a personal guardian angel. It was a popular Jewish belief that these guardian angels matched the look of those they protected. It is likely that this is the background for this statement. Ultimately though, we don't know. Regardless, it would not be correct to say that this text represents "the Biblical view of angels."

It is clear that I do not have an adequate grasp of the LDS perspective yet. Is every person an angel before they come to earth? Similarly, does everyone who dies become an angel immediately upon death? I have a couple LDS books that may address this as well. I will also reference them.

Exactly. We have different worldviews. It is difficult to read from another's worldview in order to understand their reasoning.

Thanks for this. It does seem that when considering this question the related question of the nature of humanity becomes essential. There are some major worldview differences between us. Evangelicals do not believe that humans existed as spirits prior to their mortal life on earth. When we die we do exist without a body, but this is temporary and unnatural. The resurrection will make us whole again. Even in this temporary state between death and resurrection, we do not believe that we are like the angels. In other words, there are different kinds of spirits. I will have to continue to wrestle with this. It is fascinating how considering one point branches out into several related issues.

You are right in that we believe that God, angels, and humans are all distinct types of beings (I'm with you in not being sure how to articulate this). So far I have basically summarized the entry on angels in the Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary. The references were included in that entry. I have never really studied angels in Scripture so I will state my thoughts tentatively. In Heb. 1:4-14 the author is emphasizing that the Son of God, Jesus, is superior to the angels. In v. 14 he states that the angels are "spirits." I take this to mean that, unlike humans, they are not a body / soul-spirit unity. In Col. 1:16 Paul says that all things were created by or through Jesus. Paul mentions that some of the things created by Jesus are on earth and visible, but others are in heaven and invisible. He then lists "thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities." Based on Eph. 6, we believe the angels (both good and fallen) to be included in these terms. In Eph. 6:12 Paul says that believers do not struggle against "flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." Here Paul distinguishes between humans (flesh and blood) and heavenly beings which do not have flesh and blood. This is just a preliminary treatment. I have more to write, but my lunch break is over . I look forward to the interaction.

Thanks again everyone. It looks like they found it pretty early. The cancer has not spread.

Thank you everyone. I appreciate the kinds words.

Hey all, lots of good posts to respond to here. It may take me a while though. Just found out today that my mother has lung cancer.

Agreed. I do not think Rev. 5 teaches all of these things. I only meant to say that the first point is an implication of the text.

Fair enough. As I said, I don't know that the writer of the entry in the Bible dictionary was intending to demonstrate an ontological distinction from this text. I may be incorrect.

I'm sorry Lehi, but you are involved in an one man argument. You are mixing different issue in this thread together. I will try one more time to clarify. I follow your arguments about the texts from the dictionary regarding angels and men. That is one of the issues being discussed in this thread, but it is not the only issue. In my OP I also gave some responses to Carborendum's question about the differences between God and angels. In my response to this question I referenced Rev. 5 to say that the angels are part of the created order, but God is not. Based on this text I wrote that the implication was that God was uncreated. Vort disagreed. She thinks that is my inference, but not an implication of the text. Again, the discussion about Rev. 5 has nothing to do with the difference between angels and men or worshiping angels. This was a separate discussion about the difference between angels and God. In response to this separate discussion you wrote, Clearly, you thought that I was referencing Rev. 5 to argue that angels and humans are distinct. You are mixing the two different discussions in this thread. The discussion about Rev. 5 is about the difference between angels and God, not angels and humans. The rest of the posts are about angels and humans. When I tried to point out your misunderstanding you continued to argue against a position nobody here has expressed. You wrote, Do you see that you are mixing conversations here?

I'm not sure I follow the first part of the question. The text in Heb.1:13-14 states that the angels are sent to serve or minister to believers. There are two distinct groups in this text: the angels who minister, and the believers who are ministered to. I think that is all the article was trying to convey. I could be wrong. I don't know that the article was trying to make a point from these references about substances.