Pascal's Wager Applied To Mormonism/evangelicalism

[prisonchaplain]

In the book, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, Prof. Blomberg (the evangelical) poses a revision of Pascal's Wager to his Mormon counterpart. It goes something like this:

1. If evangelicalism is correct, and Joseph Smith was either deceptive or deluded, Mormons face potentially dire circumstances on the day of judgement.

2. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is correct, and evangelicals are part of an unrestored, perhaps even 'apostate' faith practice, then on the Day of Judgment, they are likely to enter the Terrestial Kingdom, and enjoy the presence of Jesus Christ. This heavenly realm will be very much like what most evangelicals describe heaven to be anyway.

Conclusion: If evangelicals are right, Mormons stand to lose so much, but if evangelicals are wrong, they'll pretty much get what they expect anyway. So, why not just take the safe spiritual route, and be evangelical?

Professor Robison (the Mormon) responds by saying: Those bound for the Terrestial Kingdom would think like that, and be satisfied with their end. On the other hand, those who hunger for the highest kingdom in God's realm would never be satisfied with anything less than the Celestial Kingdom.

THOUGHTS?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Conclusion: If evangelicals are right, Mormons stand to lose so much, but if evangelicals are wrong, they'll pretty much get what they expect anyway. So, why not just take the safe spiritual route, and be evangelical?

A key point in this argument needs clarification. What is it that "Mormons" do that is so evil as to deny them entrance into heaven if evangelicals are right? Is it a sin in evangelical theology to believe in living prophets and apostles, or that ordinances are required for salvation, or that formal priesthood authority is needed to guide the church?

I'm unaware of anything in the Bible that says, "If you believe in living prophets, or new scripture, or that ordinances and/or priesthood are required for salvation, ye shall sit on my Father's left hand." It seems that the worst crime evangelicals could charge Mormons with is "trying to do too much good."

So where does this idea come from that "if evangelicals are right, Mormons stand to lose so much?"

[prisonchaplain]

So where does this idea come from that "if evangelicals are right, Mormons stand to lose so much?"

Without arguing the merits of the differing belief systems, there are significant differences about the nature of God, his Son Jesus Christ, humanity, sin, salvation, Scripture, etc. When someone is initially converted to faith, and truly reconciled to God, the Holy Spirit resides with them. They will begin to grow in truth and sound doctrine. So, if evangelicals are right in their teachings, and the LDS have strayed into so many crucial areas of wrong teaching, the Holy Spirit warns them. If they do not heed the warnings, but continue to resist the promptings of the Holy Spirit. At some point would they not become apostates--heretics? Will those who has spent the majority of their 'Christian' lives out of fellowship with most of God's people (declaring them unrestored), those who misapprehended the nature of God, His creation, His salvation, His communication, His plan of salvation--those who so frequently missed the spiritual signals, be told on the Day of Judgment, "Well done, good and faithful servant--enter into my Kingdom," or "Depart from me...I never knew you?" It's an open question, but, Pascal would argue, a potentially risky wager.

Even assuming that such folk might yet enter the heavenly kingdom, what kind of reward awaits those who were so far from most of God's people and God's truths?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

So, if evangelicals are right in their teachings, and the LDS have strayed into so many crucial areas of wrong teaching, the Holy Spirit warns them.

So not only Mormons would be barred from evangelical heaven, but catholics/buddhists/hindus/muslims/atheists/agnostics and in short, everyone who doesn't share evangelical views? Where in the Bible does it say that?

The problem with your position is that it assumes some amount of authority; authority to interpret the Bible and clarify ambiguous passages. The question becomes, where'd you get that authority?

One key difference between LDS and non-LDS teachings, is that we believe everyone will have the chance to hear and accept/reject the gospel of Christ whether in this life or the next. If I understand the evangelical view correctly, only those who grow in evangelical teachings in tune with the Spirit will enter heaven...where does that leave billions of God's children eternally? God notices the fall of every sparrow...I have a hard time believing He'd bar from heaven those who happened to be born in Papua New Guinea or any area non-evangelicized. You see what I'm saying?

Even assuming that such folk might yet enter the heavenly kingdom, what kind of reward awaits those who were so far from most of God's people and God's truths?

Well, hypothetically, if such people were deceived I doubt God would say, "Why didn't you discern my spiritual warnings better? Sheesh, go to that dry-grass pasture yonder with the other black sheep...you're lucky I opened the fold to you at all." I'm being a bit overly-dramatic.

[prisonchaplain]

So, if evangelicals are right in their teachings, and the LDS have strayed into so many crucial areas of wrong teaching, the Holy Spirit warns them. So not only Mormons would be barred from evangelical heaven, but catholics/buddhists/hindus/muslims/atheists/agnostics and in short, everyone who doesn't share evangelical views? Where in the Bible does it say that?

I used the term "evangelical" because it's what I am, and it's the group represented in the book I cited. Yet, a careful reading of my posts would show two things:

1. I left the results of said "straying" open. I'm not mapping at the line between "fringe-but-acceptable Christianity" and "Apostasy-heresy." What I am suggesting is that I don't want to get anywhere near such a line.

2. Every faith has its orthodox, including evangelicals, Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims. Even atheists distinguish between those who are "soft" (there's no god we know of) vs. "hard" (there absolutely is no god). Surely your church has a process for dealing with those accused of teaching heresy?

3. Yes, any who have not embraced God's mercy, offered via the atoning shed-blood of Christ, is barred from heaven. Jesus made the claim in John 14:6 (I'm the Way...to the Father...No man comes but through me).

The problem with your position is that it assumes some amount of authority; authority to interpret the Bible and clarify ambiguous passages. The question becomes, where'd you get that authority?

Well, no, my position does not. My position is that God wants to be worshiped in spirit and in truth, that he does reveal himself, that his Spirit directs us, and that if we try to worship him according to our own opinions and desires, our sacrifice will be rejected.

I'll have to address the rest of the post later. Be blessed.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

3. Yes, any who have not embraced God's mercy, offered via the atoning shed-blood of Christ, is barred from heaven. Jesus made the claim in John 14:6 (I'm the Way...to the Father...No man comes but through me).

I believe God chooses where each of us is born (what family or lack thereof we are born into). I don't believe He spins the globe, slams His index finger down and says, "And ye shall be born in...Tunisia!" So it seems pretty heartless of Him to have billions of His creations (read: spirit children) born in areas and time periods where/when they'll never have a chance to accept Christ and be saved. Why would He do that? Surely there must be some provision for all to have an equal chance to accept/reject Christ?

My position is that...if we try to worship him according to our own opinions and desires, our sacrifice will be rejected.

But for someone to tell someone else, "Hey, that aspect of your worship is opinion, not Spirit-guided," assumes an amount of authority beyond the priesthood of believers. In the no-formal-authority-is-needed religious arena, who are you or I or anyone to tell our neighbor, "You're getting close to heresy because you're not getting the same Spiritual signals I am?"

At it's core, PC, every supposed "universal religion" requires authority to be believable. I mean authority beyond cardboard sheriff stars and homemade FBI badges (both of which are cool). Yes, yes, I know, that naughty "a" word that drives so many non-LDS crazy...but everyone's claims must bear some authority to be taken seriously by anyone else.

If an icecream truck pulls me over and gives me a speeding ticket, I sure as sheol ain't gonna pay up. :)

[miztrniceguy]

if an ice cream truck pulls me over, i'll expect a drumstick

[prisonchaplain]

One key difference between LDS and non-LDS teachings, is that we believe everyone will have the chance to hear and accept/reject the gospel of Christ whether in this life or the next. If I understand the evangelical view correctly, only those who grow in evangelical teachings in tune with the Spirit will enter heaven...where does that leave billions of God's children eternally? God notices the fall of every sparrow...I have a hard time believing He'd bar from heaven those who happened to be born in Papua New Guinea or any area non-evangelicized. You see what I'm saying?

Two answers: To Christians--yes, it sure does look like the only hope of salvation is respond to the Good News of Jesus and be converted. Thus, we read in Romans 10:14-17:

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.NIV

This is why we are so fervent in missions, so eager to "win souls."

To nonbelievers, or to those who have loved ones who passed on, there is another equally valid answer: God knows. He is just and good. On the day of judgment, when we see who is redeemed and who is condemned, there will be no objections raised, no second-guessing. All will declare that God is just and merciful.

Well, hypothetically, if such people were deceived I doubt God would say, "Why didn't you discern my spiritual warnings better? Sheesh, go to that dry-grass pasture yonder with the other black sheep...you're lucky I opened the fold to you at all." I'm being a bit overly-dramatic.

If I discover that my spiritual efforts were largely fruitless and misdirected, and that after all my savior had done for me, I squandered the talents He had for me...well it's not a scene I want to be a part of--nor do any of us, I'm sure!

[prisonchaplain]

I believe God chooses where each of us is born (what family or lack thereof we are born into). I don't believe He spins the globe, slams His index finger down and says, "And ye shall be born in...Tunisia!" So it seems pretty heartless of Him to have billions of His creations (read: spirit children) born in areas and time periods where/when they'll never have a chance to accept Christ and be saved. Why would He do that? Surely there must be some provision for all to have an equal chance to accept/reject Christ?

Romans 1 does seem to indicate that humanity is without excuse, that all have a revelation of God, through creation and the like sufficient for them to respond according to what they know. Yet, we dare not read too much into this notion. As believers, we're commissioned to deliver the message--to go to the uttermost parts of the world with the Good News of Christ. So, complacency in missions--whether to coworkers, or to the Tunisians, is not an option. We must "Finish the Work." (John 4:34)

But for someone to tell someone else, "Hey, that aspect of your worship is opinion, not Spirit-guided," assumes an amount of authority beyond the priesthood of believers. In the no-formal-authority-is-needed religious arena, who are you or I or anyone to tell our neighbor, "You're getting close to heresy because you're not getting the same Spiritual signals I am?"

You assume the Bible is much more complicated than it is. The salvation message is something that seven-year olds understand. The Beatitudes, the Great Commission, the Two Great Commandments, the Love Chapter, the incredible commandments of Christ found in Matthew 5-7, etc.--these are things most people can comprehend on a single reading. Is there more? Of course! Are there depths to biblical truths that confound theologians with a lifetime of study on their belts? Absolutely! And yet, the heart is quite clear--so that men are without excuse.

At it's core, PC, every supposed "universal religion" requires authority to be believable. I mean authority beyond cardboard sheriff stars and homemade FBI badges (both of which are cool). Yes, yes, I know, that naughty "a" word that drives so many non-LDS crazy...but everyone's claims must bear some authority to be taken seriously by anyone else.

It does drive us crazy, because we see where it goes. Back to the corruption of Rome, back to men trying to mediate between me and God, back to believers becoming complacent, and allowing the church leaders to driver their relationships with God. It's not about finding the right church, or the right leaders. It's about Jesus. Yes, that makes the community a bit messier. A single organization, with disciplined compliant 'soldiers' looks spiffier. In fact, it's why, despite the trends, I do prefer denominations over independent or nondenominational works. Nevertheless, the kingdom of God is full of Greeks, Hebrews, men, women, old, young, highly educated, and simple. Make it too neat, and I wonder if you miss some reality.

If an icecream truck pulls me over and gives me a speeding ticket, I sure as sheol ain't gonna pay up. :)

We're offering eternal life through Jesus Christ our LORD--in essence "Get Out of Jail Free" cards. We'll leave the punishment stuff to the Father.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

The Beatitudes, the Great Commission, the Two Great Commandments, the Love Chapter, the incredible commandments of Christ found in Matthew 5-7, etc.--these are things most people can comprehend on a single reading.

Yeah, I know, LDS value and understand these things too. What I'm saying is that if you start confirming or condemning things not addressed in the Bible (such as whether it's heretical to believe in living apostles) you get to a point where someone says, "What makes you right and me wrong? By what authority do you teach these precepts?" When there's nothing besides, "I feel the Spirit whisper to me..." then it's a matter of, "The Spirit said this to me," vs. "the Spirit said something different to me."

Back to the corruption of Rome, back to men trying to mediate between me and God, back to believers becoming complacent, and allowing the church leaders to driver their relationships with God.

You're comparing the LDS church leadership to the likes of Pope Urban II? Wow, I do take offense at that, as well as the assertion that the LDS church pumps out complacent robot-members soviet-conveyor belt style, all marching to the drum of a false prophet who spreads heresy along the way to the left hand of God.

Or did I misunderstand your appraisal?

It's not about finding the right church, or the right leaders. It's about Jesus.

Then why did Jesus organize a church in New Testament times, with specific offices like elder, bishop, deacon, seventy, apostle? Specifically, where did Jesus ever teach, "Now guys, this is just a temporary church structure I'm putting together. After my resurrection, and after my hand-picked apostles are martyred, just follow the Spirit's promptings."

I find no place in the New Testament, PC, where Jesus gives any indication that the church he organized was merely a temporary exercise and not a grand pattern for all mankind to follow thereafter.

Make [the kingdom of God] too neat, and I wonder if you miss some reality.

What sort of reality?

[Maureen]

Yeah, I know, LDS value and understand these things too. What I'm saying is that if you start confirming or condemning things not addressed in the Bible (such as whether it's heretical to believe in living apostles) you get to a point where someone says, "What makes you right and me wrong? By what authority do you teach these precepts?" When there's nothing besides, "I feel the Spirit whisper to me..." then it's a matter of, "The Spirit said this to me," vs. "the Spirit said something different to me."

IMO, it all comes down to faith. What do I believe and why do I believe it? AK, you believe you have priesthood keys given by God through JS - you believe that what JS taught about priesthood keys it true. I believe in the priesthood of all believers, a new priesthood brought about by the grace of God and given to everyone. I have faith that what I read and interrupt in scriptures is God's word, and that it applies to me, without anyone else saying that it doesn't. God accepts me because he can. If we can't have faith because we believe the Holy Spirit is testifying to us, then why bother with faith at all.

You're comparing the LDS church leadership to the likes of Pope Urban II? Wow, I do take offense at that, as well as the assertion that the LDS church pumps out complacent robot-members soviet-conveyor belt style, all marching to the drum of a false prophet who spreads heresy along the way to the left hand of God. Or did I misunderstand your appraisal?

I think you misunderstand what PC was saying. I see no comparing the RC with the LDS. I see a generalization of mankind's ability to corrupt. Whether mankind is good or bad, our salvation lies with Christ.

Then why did Jesus organize a church in New Testament times, with specific offices like elder, bishop, deacon, seventy, apostle? Specifically, where did Jesus ever teach, "Now guys, this is just a temporary church structure I'm putting together. After my resurrection, and after my hand-picked apostles are martyred, just follow the Spirit's promptings." I find no place in the New Testament, PC, where Jesus gives any indication that the church he organized was merely a temporary exercise and not a grand pattern for all mankind to follow thereafter.

I would say that religious organizations do exist. The LDS church holds no patent in organization abilities. And as you mentioned the NT clearly gives specific information regarding offices and gifts - which many churches follow today, not just the LDS.

M.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

IMO, it all comes down to faith.

Yes, it does. How we interpret scripture determines what we have faith in. Agreed.

I see a generalization of mankind's ability to corrupt.

Of course, even one of Christ's apostles became corrupt. Just because leaders can become corrupt, doesn't mean there should be no leaders at all (or that Christ didn't intend for there to be leaders).

...as you mentioned the NT clearly gives specific information regarding offices and gifts - which many churches follow today, not just the LDS.

My point wasn't that LDS have a copyright on church offices as found in the NT. My point was that such offices are necessary parts of a church structure whose architect was Christ himself. Whether those operating in such offices have authority to do so is another matter.

[Maureen]

Of course, even one of Christ's apostles became corrupt. Just because leaders can become corrupt, doesn't mean there should be no leaders at all (or that Christ didn't intend for there to be leaders).

And someone said that church organizations shouldn't have leaders? I don't remember that?

My point wasn't that LDS have a copyright on church offices as found in the NT. My point was that such offices are necessary parts of a church structure whose architect was Christ himself. Whether those operating in such offices have authority to do so is another matter.

AK, you think PC is arguing that church structure and organization is not necessary? If so, I disagree. I think PC is trying to point out that mankind's ability to stay moral and ethical wavers. IMO, the church is people, and sometimes people have problems, the world can be a messy place. Christ is the cornerstone of the church, people will stumble, but Christ is always there to pick them up. The church is not perfect, but the desire to worship and love God as a family is a good thing.

M.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

And someone said that church organizations shouldn't have leaders? I don't remember that?

What I've been taking away from PC's posts is that priesthood leaders/offices are not required parts of Christ's church. I disagree.

I think PC is trying to point out that mankind's ability to stay moral and ethical wavers.

No, both you and he have played the "priesthood of believers" card to show that formal priesthood leaders are no longer necessary or required parts of Christ's church. It's fine, I simply disagree.

IMO, the church is people...

Yeah, when I say "the church" many times I mean the body of LDS worldwide. In other contexts when I say "the church" I mean the organization, offices and procedures that "house" the body of LDS believers. It's something I don't expect agreement on, nor do I expect agreement that priesthood leaders are required parts of Christ's church. Just as long as we both understand each other's views before we argue against them. And I think we do.

[prisonchaplain]

Yeah, I know, LDS value and understand these things too. What I'm saying is that if you start confirming or condemning things not addressed in the Bible (such as whether it's heretical to believe in living apostles) you get to a point where someone says, "What makes you right and me wrong? By what authority do you teach these precepts?" When there's nothing besides, "I feel the Spirit whisper to me..." then it's a matter of, "The Spirit said this to me," vs. "the Spirit said something different to me."

I could be wrong, but I do not believe the "by who's authority?" question is a natural one. It is one that comes out of LDS teachings. Even Catholics, who's system is very hierarchical wouldn't think to ask the question. Instead, they'd likely go to their priest and say, prisonchaplain said "X"--is that right?

The Bible is the word of God. For most Protestants, that's authority enough. Now, in practice, the teachings of one's home church do serve as guidelines for most believers.

You're comparing the LDS church leadership to the likes of Pope Urban II? Wow, I do take offense at that, as well as the assertion that the LDS church pumps out complacent robot-members soviet-conveyor belt style, all marching to the drum of a false prophet who spreads heresy along the way to the left hand of God.

Or did I misunderstand your appraisal?

Yes you did, perhaps understandably. If I remember right, you said that evangelicals do not react well to the idea of church authority being so central, and I responded by saying it's because we're afraid such systems would bring us back to the corruption of Medieval Catholicism.

To clarify, I was not specifically saying that your Church is in that state of being. I have no idea, quite frankly, having never set foot in one. I was simply expressing the general fears us Christians raised up in churches that are not heavily centralized have about such systems.

Then why did Jesus organize a church in New Testament times, with specific offices like elder, bishop, deacon, seventy, apostle? Specifically, where did Jesus ever teach, "Now guys, this is just a temporary church structure I'm putting together. After my resurrection, and after my hand-picked apostles are martyred, just follow the Spirit's promptings."

I'm not sure Jesus organized much more than the 12 disciples and the 70 missionaries. The rest came later, as the church developed. I would argue that organization comes with growth, and that Jesus was simply encouraging an orderly system for preaching and ministering the gospel. Jesus was as much about the disciples not becoming proud leaders as he was about installing them with authority.

I find no place in the New Testament, PC, where Jesus gives any indication that the church he organized was merely a temporary exercise and not a grand pattern for all mankind to follow thereafter.

And I just don't see Jesus fixated on the organization aspect. Yes, he trained a group of disciples--chose three as his closest confidantes. Yes, at one point 70 were sent out to heal, preach, and free the demonized. But beyond that, leadership power doesn't seem high on his agenda, imho.

Make [the kingdom of God] too neat, and I wonder if you miss some reality.

What sort of reality?

When things simply have to be too perfect, then people will pretend. This isn't an LDS thing, it's a problem in most churches--probably most religions. People's lives are imperfect, but they put on the gospel or kingdom smile, and speak uplifting, faith-affirming words about the glory of living in the fullness of Christ. Inside, they may be fearful, in desperate need of prayer or encouragement, a listening ear, or perhaps a few $--but they dare not speak up, for fear of being seeing as "backsliding," "lacking faith," "walking in defeat," etc.

[boyando]

Hey lets get back to the basic qeustion- Are only those who are Evangelcal going to live with Christ or will it just be the <strike>real Christians</strike> I mean Mormons (just kidding)? I'm not an expert on Evangelical's, so everything that I say that is out of line from what people like PC believe is fair game to be impugned.

I went on a mission to Virgina were I talked to a lot of the"born again". The commen theme was all you had to do was believe in Christ, have it confirmed by the Holy Spirit, one time and your in. I'v noticed, by some great people who are not LDS, here on this site, that this is not the case. PC made some great pionts, that you must grow in the holy spirit. I believe that we Mormons feel the same way. In fact, with the exception of a few scriptures that we each inturpret deferently, we agree on a lot of pionts.

This is were I have to pull myself to gether and aviod rambeling.

I will except any critisms to my version of the history of Christianty after the reserection of Christ. Aproximatly 75 years after the reserection, what was left of the church Christ set up, members decided to build a set of scriptures. They gathered the letter's of Paul and other Apostles, history's from Mathew, Luke, mark and John and a revolation froms John. They added the Old Testiment. There were other books or scriptures that they looked at for bu couldn't find everything. Still every one who reads the Bible with humility can only say one thing, it is of God.

A little more than two hundred years later, Consitantine took over what was left of a small church and decided to translate the bible from Greek to Latin, a good thing. He also decided to set the rules of how Christians should live, by committee, a bad thing. From that time on, starting with the Cathlics, men and woman have tried to repair what that first cmmittee got wrong.

All the reformers could see that something was wrong. Many saw the value of being able to read the scriptures in there own langunge. Still, in the early 1800's, a young Joseph Smith could see that men would read the same verse of scriptures and be devided with what they said.

So the question then become's who is right. It is not just the evangelicals against the Mormons. It's more like everyone, against everyone. We know that contention is not of the Lord. See I told you I could Ramble. Back to the question at hand. Who if any are right? Do Mormons think that only Mormons will get to live with Father. No. Do they believe anyone who shows up to a LDS church every sunday will end up with a great reward. Oh, heck no. We do believe that we will be Judge by what we do on this earth. We also believe that no one could even come close saving them self's. We don't believe in shuting the Lord's mouth. We do believe that the spirit that we develope in this life, will fallow us in the next life. We believe in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenats and the Pearl of great Price.

If I may be so bold, I feel like we have what everyone else have, times ten. So if we all seek the Lord in humility, we will all get to life with the Father of our spirits, again. Sounds like we all have a shot at it. But only if we keep holding to the iron rod (sorry for the Mormonism). By the way, its not for the next life that we live this way, but every moment that we can serve the Lord, and find joy. Man is that he might have Joy and his Joy is endless. It has only one limit, our own pride.

Thankk you all for listening to my pradeling. Allmosthumble

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I could be wrong, but I do not believe the "by who's authority?" question is a natural one.

It was a pretty natural question to Joseph Smith. :)

For most Protestants, [the Bible is] authority enough.

This I know well.

I was simply expressing the general fears us Christians raised up in churches that are not heavily centralized have about such systems.

Fair enough.

I'm not sure Jesus organized much more than the 12 disciples and the 70 missionaries.

That's where the additional light and truth of the Restoration comes in so handy. It clarifies issues like this. :)

Jesus was as much about the disciples not becoming proud leaders as he was about installing them with authority.

Again, fighting pride in leaders does not negate the requirement for there to be leaders (priesthood leaders).

But beyond that, leadership power doesn't seem high on his agenda, imho.

Opinion noted.

[boyando]

So were are the differances in the Mormon Church and others? Prove me wrong, try if you will, but the big differance is revelaton. Personal and for the Church of God.

We can disscuss scriptures all you want. We can even agree on some pionts. I hope that we will allways be friends. But I will not turn away from this simple truth. Gods mouth has not been shut.

[Maureen]

So were are the differances in the Mormon Church and others? Prove me wrong, try if you will, but the big differance is revelaton. Personal and for the Church of God....But I will not turn away from this simple truth. Gods mouth has not been shut.

revelation

an uncovering, a bringing to light of that which had been previously wholly

hidden or only obscurely seen. God has been pleased in various ways and at

different times (Heb. 1:1) to make a supernatural revelation of himself and his

purposes and plans, which, under the guidance of his Spirit, has been committed

to writing. (See WORD OF GOD.) The Scriptures are not merely the "record" of

revelation; they are the revelation itself in a written form, in order to the

accurate presevation and propagation of the truth. Revelation and inspiration

differ. Revelation is the supernatural communication of truth to the mind;

inspiration (q.v.) secures to the teacher or writer infallibility in

communicating that truth to others. It renders its subject the spokesman or

prophet of God in such a sense that everything he asserts to be true, whether

fact or doctrine or moral principle, is true, infallibly true.

Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

Since revelation is such an important ability of the LDS church, can someone list one revelation from each of these presidents/prophets of the LDS church? We won't go back too far:

Spencer W. Kimball (I know what this one will be)

Ezra Taft Benson

Howard W. Hunter

Gordon B. Hinckley (I can guess)

M.

[shanstress70]

And lets not forget that we can have our very own personal revelation from God. I don't need anyone to be a middle man... I think I'm worthy of communication with God.

[Ray]

And lets not forget that we can have our very own personal revelation from God. I don't need anyone to be a middle man... I think I'm worthy of communication with God.

Yes, you are, shanstress, but other people are too, and God should agree with Himself.

And the revelations you can receive are related to your stewardship, just as others can receive revelations for their stewardships. So those who have stewardships over families and other organizations can receive revelations from God to help with those stewardships.

Hint: the key word is "stewardship".

And btw, I love you. :)

[Sugarbay]

So were are the differances in the Mormon Church and others? Prove me wrong, try if you will, but the big differance is revelaton. Personal and for the Church of God.

We can disscuss scriptures all you want. We can even agree on some pionts. I hope that we will allways be friends. But I will not turn away from this simple truth. Gods mouth has not been shut.

You seem so familiar...mannerisms...have you been a member on another site?

Anyway, that is the difference. God doesn't change. He will always reveal truths to and through his prophets, and to his sons and daughters.

Article of Faith #9:"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

We need to have compassion on those who think that God has changed and doesn't do any more than personal revelation. That makes no sense if God is eternal and unchanging. Simply isn't logical and God must be logical to be the Master Mathmetician, Scientist,etc.

[prisonchaplain]

We can disscuss scriptures all you want. We can even agree on some pionts. I hope that we will allways be friends. But I will not turn away from this simple truth. Gods mouth has not been shut.

Yeah, I think we're all wonderful cyberfriends.

Just a note on the "God's mouth has not been shut," comment. I agree. Most Christians agree. Here's where we differ:

1. Non-Pentecosta/Charismatich Christians would likely argue that God's "mouth" remains open via the proclammation of his Word.

2. Pentecostals/Charismatics would go further, saying, sure, God still speaks fresh revelation today, via tongues and interpretation, prophetic utterances, dreams, visions, etc.

3. Where we'd differ is that both of these groups would argue that any word from the Lord given today be subjected to the written word of God--and interpreted in that light. In other words, Scripture trumps modern revelation.

[boyando]

<div class='quotemain'>

We can disscuss scriptures all you want. We can even agree on some pionts. I hope that we will allways be friends. But I will not turn away from this simple truth. Gods mouth has not been shut.

Yeah, I think we're all wonderful cyberfriends.

Just a note on the "God's mouth has not been shut," comment. I agree. Most Christians agree. Here's where we differ:

1. Non-Pentecosta/Charismatich Christians would likely argue that God's "mouth" remains open via the proclammation of his Word.

2. Pentecostals/Charismatics would go further, saying, sure, God still speaks fresh revelation today, via tongues and interpretation, prophetic utterances, dreams, visions, etc.

3. Where we'd differ is that both of these groups would argue that any word from the Lord given today be subjected to the written word of God--and interpreted in that light. In other words, Scripture trumps modern revelation.

P C You always inpress me. Not only with your thoughtful questions and answers but also with the volume of knoledge. Knowing what little I do know about you, I am sure that we would be good freinds if we met on the street.

I hope that you will not take my questions the wrong way, because it is my desire, by asking these qeustions, to point to the ways we differ and not to argue.

Your point 1.- Do we need revelation to understand the word that God has spoken and written?

Your point 2.- We beleive the same thing. Do Penencostals/Charismatich use these revelations for the building of the Kingdom of God? If yes, how?

Your point 3.- We come very close to agreeing on this point. We all must compare what God has spoken today with what God has spoken in th past. How did these two groups come to the conclusion that scripture for a past generation is more inportant than what God is speaking today? And if we were living in the time of Christ, would the words of Peter be trumped by the word of Moses?

Some day I will learn how to do the quotes. I look forward to your answers- Almosthumble

[prisonchaplain]

Your point 1.- Do we need revelation to understand the word that God has spoken and written?

I'm just going to speak from the Pentecostal tradition on this one. We believe that since Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, we need the Holy Spirit to help us understand it. When you say "revelation" I take that to mean a new word, or a specific word that God gives to a people. We do not "need" that kind of revelation to understand what God has already spoken and had written. On the other hand, revelation does offer us God's specific word to our group today.

BTW, same goes for sermons/homilies/Scripture lessons--we need the Holy Spirit to discern what God is saying to us from the lesson.

Your point 2.- We beleive the same thing. Do Penencostals/Charismatich use these revelations for the building of the Kingdom of God? If yes, how?

Yes. Most often, the revelation is local and immediate. A particular congregation might hear, "Thus says the Lord, repent, for your sins are many, and your time is short." The leader might then make a specific call to the people to come forward and repent before God. One time, I saw 17 people (out of 200) go forward and convert after such a word--before the Bible lesson was even given.

Another congregation might hear, "God knows your suffering and burdens. Ask and you will receive. I have relief, strength and peace for those who will simply ask." After such a word, the call to prayer might be a faith-stirring time, where people might break through and see answers they've been seeking for some time.

Of course, conversions, healings, peace and strength-endowed believers--these things build the kingdom of God.

Your point 3.- We come very close to agreeing on this point. We all must compare what God has spoken today with what God has spoken in th past. How did these two groups come to the conclusion that scripture for a past generation is more inportant than what God is speaking today? And if we were living in the time of Christ, would the words of Peter be trumped by the word of Moses?

The gifts of the Spirit, as dilineated in the 12th and 14th chapters of Corinthians, came with checks and balances. In the letters of John, there is also a test given for prophecy. All was to be compared with the Apostles' teachings, and with Scripture.

Since we (non-LDS) have not experienced any revelations that have risen to the level of enduring written Scripture, we'd naturally want to weigh any claimed words from God against those words we are already certain of. I've been led to believe that LDS, who have experienced revelations that have become Scripture canon, find it much easier to see new revelations in the same vein, and then to suggest that God's latest word must, of necessity, clarify what's come before.

BTW, I'd argue that this particular aspect of our beliefs is not something "we're close to agreeing on." It's the factor that keeps Pentecostals/Charismatics in fellowship with the rest of the Christian world--and one that makes it more difficult for LDS to do so.