Pascal's Wager Applied To Mormonism/evangelicalism

[Traveler]

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?

THOUGHTS?

If these were the only two possibilities and all the information we had - I would agree with you. In posing this question, as an Evangelical, do you agree completly with statement #1?

Do Evangelicals believe the same of all faith's that disagree with their doctrine or is this concept directed just at the differences with the Chruch of Jesus Christ of LDS?

What doctrines do Evangelicals claim important enough to put loyal and faithful believers in Jesus Christ at such risk?

The Traveler

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.

In the days of John there was no New Testament. Are you saying that the New Testament is the complete teaching of all the Apostles? Realizing that the NT contains teaching from non Apostles and do not contain the teaching of the majority of the Apostles (just a select few).

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

If these were the only two possibilities and all the information we had - I would agree with you. In posing this question, as an Evangelical, do you agree completly with statement #1?

To recap, Statement One intimated that LDS would be in a dire situation if evangelicals are correct. Do I agree? Yes. How dire is an open question. However, to fall in with a movement that separates itself from the rest of the Christian world, and follows what turn out to be false revelations, would be a dangerous spiritual course.

Do Evangelicals believe the same of all faith's that disagree with their doctrine or is this concept directed just at the differences with the Chruch of Jesus Christ of LDS?

The more a movement strays from God's truths, and the more it separates itself from the rest of God's people, accusing them of apostasy, etc., the more danger its members would be in (again, if evangelicals are right).

As an opposite example, I don't think the Four Square Church would be in much danger at all, as it's main difference with my movement is that it will, in some circumstances, ordain men who have divorced and remarried.

Also, please please note, that I did not insist that the "dire situation" would, of necessity, be hellfire. I leave that to God. I just know that we all want to get our faith walk right, and make sure we not only live righteously, but leader others towards righteousness as well.

What doctrines do Evangelicals claim important enough to put loyal and faithful believers in Jesus Christ at such risk?

Probably the key doctrines that raise immediate concern would relate to who God is and what his nature is, and what the ultimate way of salvation is.

In the days of John there was no New Testament. Are you saying that the New Testament is the complete teaching of all the Apostles? Realizing that the NT contains teaching from non Apostles and do not contain the teaching of the majority of the Apostles (just a select few).

I would agree with Prof. Blomberg that while the Bible does not definitively declare itself a closed canon, church history lends us to such a belief. It's not impossible that more Scripture may be found, but after 2000 years, it doesn't seem likely.

[boyando]

In the days of John there was no New Testament. Are you saying that the New Testament is the complete teaching of all the Apostles? Realizing that the NT contains teaching from non Apostles and do not contain the teaching of the majority of the Apostles (just a select few).

I would agree with Prof. Blomberg that while the Bible does not definitively declare itself a closed canon, church history lends us to such a belief. It's not impossible that more Scripture may be found, but after 2000 years, it doesn't seem likely.

Would you sugest the that the Christian movement (as you see it) has remained constant throw it's aproxamate six hundred years? My history of religion is limited and so I ask for your indulgance. I'm sure that the way you worship today is not the way that the reformers worshiped. If, by people like Prof. Blomberg the Penticostal movement or the Christians (not that I will concead the point that Mormons are not Christian) has figured out how God wishes his children to worship, approximately, when in history did this occure? And will we expect futher changes as men study the Bible and decide the wording in certain passages are littoral and others are not?

It might be helpful to show were you feel that there is a differance between LDS scripture and New testiment scripture. I will warn you though, I have not seen any conflicked in our scriptures. I have seen were we disagree on what a scripture says.

My hopes are that we will remain freinds through the hard questions and I know that some day we all will be bowing a knee and confessing that Jesus is the Christ.

Your unworthy friend - Allmosthumble

[Traveler]

To recap, Statement One intimated that LDS would be in a dire situation if evangelicals are correct. Do I agree? Yes. How dire is an open question. However, to fall in with a movement that separates itself from the rest of the Christian world, and follows what turn out to be false revelations, would be a dangerous spiritual course.

Also, please please note, that I did not insist that the "dire situation" would, of necessity, be hellfire. I leave that to God. I just know that we all want to get our faith walk right, and make sure we not only live righteously, but leader others towards righteousness as well.

What doctrines do Evangelicals claim important enough to put loyal and faithful believers in Jesus Christ at such risk?

I would agree with Prof. Blomberg that while the Bible does not definitively declare itself a closed canon, church history lends us to such a belief. It's not impossible that more Scripture may be found, but after 2000 years, it doesn't seem likely.

I intend to be very clear on this point so there is no doubt to anyone where I stand. The Pharisees and scribes were the traditional, mainstream Jews at the time of Christ. If not for the Pharisees and scribes there would be no Old Testament in anyone’s Bible. What was a movement that separated itself from the rest of the Jewish world, (we can say Jewish world then like we say Christian world now) and follows what turns out to be false revelations. Why the Samaritans of course. Is there any better contrast among the ancients prior the teachings of restoration from John the Baptist and Jesus the Christ?

For the Pharisees and their modern counterparts - true worship is all about doctrine. For Jesus and his modern restoration counterparts, worship is all about good works. (See John 10:32-33). This very much surprises me - I though you (PC) understood worship by works over professed doctrines and beliefs.

Would G-d, in the last days say again what he has already said - to make sure man gets it right, gets it clear and makes sure that man can know exactly what comes from G-d? - Read the point made in the scripture study forum under (Book of Mormon Stumbling block - New OT Perspective) my post (final in the thread) concerning what Joseph demonstrated before Pharaoh.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Would you sugest the that the Christian movement (as you see it) has remained constant throw it's aproxamate six hundred years? My history of religion is limited and so I ask for your indulgance. I'm sure that the way you worship today is not the way that the reformers worshiped. If, by people like Prof. Blomberg the Penticostal movement or the Christians (not that I will concead the point that Mormons are not Christian) has figured out how God wishes his children to worship, approximately, when in history did this occure? And will we expect futher changes as men study the Bible and decide the wording in certain passages are littoral and others are not?

I believe what you are getting at is that church worship and teachings have changed over time, and how can this be so, if the Church is true? The key to understanding common Christian belief is that outside of the LDS Church, most Protestants believe that the Church went through some dark, difficult, corrupt times--but never became so 'apostate' that the light blew out. We believe there has always been a remnant who loved God. Additionally, we're not ready to simply discard all the teachings of church history, because we stumbled upon a neglected truth (i.e. the gifts of the Holy Spirit).

It might be helpful to show were you feel that there is a differance between LDS scripture and New testiment scripture. I will warn you though, I have not seen any conflicked in our scriptures. I have seen were we disagree on what a scripture says.

I'm still working my way through 2 Nephi, so don't have sufficient knowledge of your Scriptures to say that there is a conflict in the texts, or what those conflicts might be. I have found a few passages in 1 Nephi that helped me to better understand some of your distinctive teachings.

My hopes are that we will remain freinds through the hard questions and I know that some day we all will be bowing a knee and confessing that Jesus is the Christ.

Why not?

For the Pharisees and their modern counterparts - true worship is all about doctrine. For Jesus and his modern restoration counterparts, worship is all about good works. (See John 10:32-33). This very much surprises me - I though you (PC) understood worship by works over professed doctrines and beliefs.

If I'm reading you right, we evangelicals be the Pharisees, and you LDS be the radical new sect called The Way? I'll admit that Joseph Smith's teachings did to traditional Christianity what Jesus did to Judaism.

Nevertheless, I think those parallels are far too shallow. LDS and Evangelicals would both want to live sound life and believe/teach sound doctrines. Neither would be satisfied with chosing one over the other. Furthermore, Paul and most of the apostles were martyred for what they taught, not for their good works. Likewise Jesus, for that matter.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

For the Pharisees and their modern counterparts - true worship is all about doctrine. For Jesus and his modern restoration counterparts, worship is all about good works. (See John 10:32-33). This very much surprises me - I though you (PC) understood worship by works over professed doctrines and beliefs.

If I'm reading you right, we evangelicals be the Pharisees, and you LDS be the radical new sect called The Way? I'll admit that Joseph Smith's teachings did to traditional Christianity what Jesus did to Judaism.

Nevertheless, I think those parallels are far too shallow. LDS and Evangelicals would both want to live sound life and believe/teach sound doctrines. Neither would be satisfied with chosing one over the other. Furthermore, Paul and most of the apostles were martyred for what they taught, not for their good works. Likewise Jesus, for that matter.

The Pharisees and Scribes are an ancient prototype in the days of Christ. The prototype can have many levels or onion skin layers in our day. Therefore, I believe modern day Pharisees and Scribes can be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS as well as any other religion or human thought. They are recognized by their "fruits" not by clothing (sheep skin). Their main fruit is to critize good people (people with hope in Christ) of good works for not having the correct or tradition doctrine or for belonging to any defined group.

I believe this also applies to those that think belonging to a group that recognizes select doctrines as being saved as though the lack of good works through good faith is not pleasing to G-d and the necessary acceptance of him and his "word" and his commandments for establishing the way of salvation.

The highest form of worship is emulation - that is to do even as that which is worshiped would do.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

...I believe this also applies to those that think belonging to a group that recognizes select doctrines as being saved as though the lack of good works through good faith is not pleasing to G-d and the necessary acceptance of him and his "word" and his commandments for establishing the way of salvation.

The highest form of worship is emulation - that is to do even as that which is worshiped would do.

The Traveler

Matt 7:21-22: 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?KJV

It's not enough to use the name of Jesus, or to prophecy, or even to cast out devils. Good works will not suffice, either. What is necessary is that we do the will of the Father. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. And Traveler's right--there is smoke and there are mirrors in every Christian fellowship.

[Ray]

It's not enough to use the name of Jesus…

Correct. Unauthorized use of the name of Jesus will only get us in trouble.

…or to prophecy, or even to cast out devils. Good works will not suffice, either. What is necessary is that we do the will of the Father.

But how can we do the will of the Father without really knowing what it is?

And how is doing the will of the Father not what is doing “good works”?

Everything else is smoke and mirrors. And Traveler's right--there is smoke and there are mirrors in every Christian fellowship.

Correct again. There is only one way to know what is true, and that way is through “the way, the truth, and the life”, and the more we come to know and truly know Jesus the more we will know our Father… and what He wants us to know and do… hence, correct knowledge of and from and all about Jesus is “essential” to following Him.

... 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.

Would you be kind enough explain how or why you believe revelation written and spoken in the past by people who were inspired through the power of the Holy Ghost to know and understand God and God’s will for mankind is better or more reliable than revelation written and spoken in our present day by people who are inspired through the power of the Holy Ghost to know and understand God and God’s will for mankind???

Or in other words, why do you believe ancient prophets and the revelations they received are better than those of today?

Frankly, that makes no sense to me at all, especially in light of the fact that if older revelation is actually better than the new, then we should be using the oldest available, which means we should be using the revelations received and recorded by prophets in the Old Testament more than what we now have in the New Testament… simply because the oldest is better.

And btw, if you'll alter your statement to say that we should make sure that what someone says is modern revelation from God is actually modern revelation from God, by testing those words against the words we know are actually scriptures, or words inspired by God, then of course I will agree with that statement, but that's different than saying words given in the past simply trump modern words, if they all were inspired by God.

[prisonchaplain]

Correct. Unauthorized use of the name of Jesus will only get us in trouble.

Fortunately, all believers are authorized to use the name of Jesus--or are you really telling me that I must not close my prayers "in Jesus name, amen," since I've not learned your truths???

But how can we do the will of the Father without really knowing what it is?

Ray, if you find yourself in this dilemma I highly recommend that you find out what it is. And, if you don't know how to do that, I'll be glad to give you some strategies.

And how is doing the will of the Father not what is doing “good works”?

You've never heard of settling for acceptable, rather than doing God's best?

Correct again. ...

Thanks.

Would you be kind enough explain how or why you believe revelation written and spoken in the past by people who were inspired through the power of the Holy Ghost to know and understand God and God’s will for mankind is better or more reliable than revelation written and spoken in our present day by people who are inspired through the power of the Holy Ghost to know and understand God and God’s will for mankind???

Any new truth claims should first be evaluated according to what we already know is true.

Or in other words, why do you believe ancient prophets and the revelations they received are better than those of today?

Because they are clearly God's word. Today's prophecies: 1. Must be tested. 2. Are usually specific to time and location.

Frankly, that makes no sense to me at all, especially in light of the fact that if older revelation is actually better than the new, then we should be using the oldest available, which means we should be using the revelations received and recorded by prophets in the Old Testament more than what we now have in the New Testament… simply because the oldest is better.

I see your struggling with this Ray, and I'm glad your asking questions so I can help you. The reason the New Testament is = to the Old Testament is that it too is clearly the word of God. We're settled and agreed on that. However, modern revelations are not universally accepted by my Christian brothers and sisters, and must be subjected to those revelations that are already established.

BTW, tell me if I'm wrong here--but aren't the original tablets for the BoM dated to before the New Testament? If so, even by your reasoning, should they not be interpreted in light of the New Testament?

And btw, if you'll alter your statement to say that we should make sure that what someone says is modern revelation from God is actually modern revelation from God, by testing those words against the words we know are actually scriptures, or words inspired by God, then of course I will agree with that statement, but that's different than saying words given in the past simply trump modern words, if they all were inspired by God.

Except that most modern revelation is not Scripture. They might be true and from God, but they are not meant to be written, bound, and added to current canon. Now, if the Triad becomes universally accepted by Christians as modern Scripture, by Ray's reasoning, the BoM would be interpreted in light of the later revelations in the NT, but I suppose the D&C and parts of the PoGP might enlighten the rest.

[Traveler]

Except that most modern revelation is not Scripture. They might be true and from God, but they are not meant to be written, bound, and added to current canon. Now, if the Triad becomes universally accepted by Christians as modern Scripture, by Ray's reasoning, the BoM would be interpreted in light of the later revelations in the NT, but I suppose the D&C and parts of the PoGP might enlighten the rest.

Sometimes my friend PC you say really good and inspired things - sometimes (like this) you say something to which I cannot in any way agree or find in the least a shred of useful value.

The only value I see in scripture is that it comes from G-d. If anything does not come from G-d, even if it is canon scripture, I do not believe it would be of any eternal value or use.

Man is to live by and accept every word (revelation) that comes from G-d. To do otherwise is to reject G-d and his son Jesus Christ. To be blunt - anyone that does not desire to write, bind and add to their canon any revelation from G-d is denying G-d and in danger of salvation. It is impossible to know G-d and deny revelation from him. The only reason to not add any revelation to canon is because it is not from G-d.

And the last point - G-d does not require acceptance of his revelation by any man or group to make it his divine "Word". In general, even the covenant children testified in scripture have struggled with acceptance of revelation given in their day and tend to want to live more by their interpretation of revelations given in the past. To reject (or not accept) G-d's revelation as needed scripture delivered by someone sent in G-d's name to deliver it is a flat out denial and turning away from G-d. As is accepting a Word (however inspired) as his word if it is not from G-d. This is the very reason I have warned of the Bible only canon - I do not believe it to be G-d's revelation nor do I believe it has ever been presented anywhere as as G-d's revelation worthy of being written as canon.

The Traveler

[Maureen]

Man is to live by and accept every word (revelation) that comes from G-d. To do otherwise is to reject G-d and his son Jesus Christ. To be blunt - anyone that does not desire to write, bind and add to their canon any revelation from G-d is denying G-d and in danger of salvation. It is impossible to know G-d and deny revelation from him. The only reason to not add any revelation to canon is because it is not from G-d.

If LDS scripture consists of Bible, BofM, D&C and PofGP then, to give an example of what you're saying Traveler, please inform us what new revelation has become scripture (added to canon) in the last 25 years.

M.

[Ray]

Ray: Correct. Unauthorized use of the name of Jesus will only get us in trouble.

Tommy: Fortunately, all believers are authorized to use the name of Jesus--or are you really telling me that I must not close my prayers "in Jesus name, amen," since I've not learned your truths???

Yes, everyone on Earth has been authorized to offer prayers to God, our Father in heaven, in the name of Jesus Christ, to help them know the truth, so nobody is unauthorized in doing that. But everyone on Earth has not been authorized to do ALL things in the name of our Lord, such as perform baptisms, or give the gift of the Holy Ghost, or give God’s priesthood to others, or proclaim what is actually the true gospel of Jesus Christ, so people who do those things without being authorized by God, are not authorized, or are unauthorized, to do those things. And I think you should have already known I would say that.

Ray: But how can we do the will of the Father without really knowing what it is?

Tommy: Ray, if you find yourself in this dilemma I highly recommend that you find out what it is. And, if you don't know how to do that, I'll be glad to give you some strategies.

Heh, I was asking that question to try to get you to think about it, not because I didn’t know the answer.

And even if you know what is really the true answer, which is to seek God’s assurance through prayer, you do not have authority from our Lord to share that idea or to share His true gospel, no matter what you may be thinking…

… but that is not to say that you would be “evil” in sharing what you know to be true without actually having God’s authority, any more than someone who knows the laws of his land would be “evil” in sharing his knowledge of what the true laws really are.

Ray: And how is doing the will of the Father not what is doing “good works”?

Tommy: You've never heard of settling for acceptable, rather than doing God's best?

Heh, yes, I have heard of that. Are you trying to be funny or something?

Ray: Would you be kind enough explain how or why you believe revelation written and spoken in the past by people who were inspired through the power of the Holy Ghost to know and understand God and God’s will for mankind is better or more reliable than revelation written and spoken in our present day by people who are inspired through the power of the Holy Ghost to know and understand God and God’s will for mankind???

Tommy: Any new truth claims should first be evaluated according to what we already know is true.

I agree. And I also shared that thought with you.

Ray: Or in other words, why do you believe ancient prophets and the revelations they received are better than those of today?

Tommy: Because they are clearly God's word. Today's prophecies: 1. Must be tested. 2. Are usually specific to time and location.

But modern revelation from God is also God’s word, just as much as that received anciently.

Did you really not know what I was asking?

If modern prophets of God receive revelation from God today, why would that be inferior to revelations from God to other prophets of God in the past?

Tommy: The reason the New Testament is = to the Old Testament is that it too is clearly the word of God. We're settled and agreed on that. However, modern revelations are not universally accepted by my Christian brothers and sisters, and must be subjected to those revelations that are already established.

But I also agree with all that.

Tommy: BTW, tell me if I'm wrong here--but aren't the original tablets for the BoM dated to before the New Testament? If so, even by your reasoning, should they not be interpreted in light of the New Testament?

ALL revelations from God should be in harmony with all other revelations from God, but harmony doesn’t necessarily = the same information. For instance, the priesthood was once reserved for only the descendents of Aaron, except for certain people who held the same order of priesthood as Melchizedek and Moses and Joshua and Elijah and the other prophets who led the "church" in their days, but both orders of priesthood can now be given to anybody (under the right conditions), so to expect all revelation to state that the Aaronic priesthood can only be given to the descendents of Aaron in our day, or that only Melchizedek and our Lord had that order of priesthood, would not be in harmony with God’s word to other people later.

Ray: … if you'll alter your statement to say that we should make sure that what someone says is modern revelation from God is actually modern revelation from God, by testing those words against the words we know are actually scriptures, or words inspired by God, then of course I will agree with that statement, but that's different than saying words given in the past simply trump modern words, if they all were inspired by God.

Tommy: Except that most modern revelation is not Scripture. They might be true and from God, but they are not meant to be written, bound, and added to current canon.

But being in the canon doesn’t determine what is scripture, because “scripture” is simply information received through inspiration from God, while “canon” is the “standard” to know scripture.

Now, if the Triad becomes universally accepted by Christians as modern Scripture, by Ray's reasoning, the BoM would be interpreted in light of the later revelations in the NT, but I suppose the D&C and parts of the PoGP might enlighten the rest.

All “scriptures” (or all words written by men as they are moved by the power of the Holy Ghost) don’t need to be universally accepted by <all other> “Christians” before some “Christians” know those words were inspired by God, and those words that are “canon” have simply been accepted by a certain group or some “Christians” because those people accept all of those words... and expect other "Christians" to accept them, as a "standard" for determining what is scripture.

Or in other words, nobody in this whole world, either before or after becoming a "Christian", needs to wait for everybody else on this Earth to learn which words were truly inspired by our God, because each person can receive his very own assurance to know whether they were inspired by God.

Or in other words, if you’re trying to suggest the idea that all LDS should wait for every other “Christian” to determine which words were inspired by God, I’m sorry, but I’m not waiting upon anybody, other than God, to know what God wants me to know.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Man is to live by and accept every word (revelation) that comes from G-d. To do otherwise is to reject G-d and his son Jesus Christ. To be blunt - anyone that does not desire to write, bind and add to their canon any revelation from G-d is denying G-d and in danger of salvation. It is impossible to know G-d and deny revelation from him. The only reason to not add any revelation to canon is because it is not from G-d.

If LDS scripture consists of Bible, BofM, D&C and PofGP then, to give an example of what you're saying Traveler, please inform us what new revelation has become scripture (added to canon) in the last 25 years.

M.

Thank your for thinking and your question. The concept of scripture, canon and standard works is different in the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS form what I understand of other religions. I cannot speak for any other religion but I believe anything spoken through the spirit is the mind, and will of G-d and is to be considered scripture.

Within the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS are standard works. It appears you are quite aware. In addition there has been published the "Proclamation to the World" within the last 10 years. Also the revelations of general conference are written and published in the Ensign.

As a note - I personally maintain revelation of a personal nature in a personal journal that contains the personal revelation for myself and family. I do not understand how anyone can think that G-d would reveal something and then not think it is worth writing down. I also find that writing down things help to clarify what is revelation and what is not.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Man is to live by and accept every word (revelation) that comes from G-d. To do otherwise is to reject G-d and his son Jesus Christ. To be blunt - anyone that does not desire to write, bind and add to their canon any revelation from G-d is denying G-d and in danger of salvation. It is impossible to know G-d and deny revelation from him. The only reason to not add any revelation to canon is because it is not from G-d.

With all due respect--and much is due to you as one who is truly traveled and always learning--your reaction seems to be based on an ignorance of how revelation from God takes place in Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches, or perhaps a total rejection of it. "Tongues and Interpretation" or "Prophecies" take place in 1000s of these churches every week. The revelations given are deemed to be from God. For the most part, they are specific words to the specific congregation for that specific moment in time. There might be a call to repentence, to deeper worship, to sacrifice, to ask and receive, to prepare for hardship, etc. Each given word, though from God, usually is NOT meant as a general word to all Christians in all places for all millenia.

You might disagree, but hopefully you now understand why I would say that not all of God's revelations are meant to become Scripture.

[prisonchaplain]

you do not have authority from our Lord to share that idea or to share His true gospel, no matter what you may be thinking…

So that all readers are clear on who has the right to use the name of Jesus:

Ray says that for most spiritual acts, the LDS Church gives authority for members to use the name of Jesus.

Tommy says: We get authority from Jesus, by calling on his name--for salvation, for healing, for victory. Those interested in this teaching can do a google search on "Priesthood of all believers." You don't have to agree, but you'll better understand where many of your Christian neighbors are coming from.

Heh, yes, I have heard of that. Are you trying to be funny or something?

Do you tend to laugh at the wrong time when watching movies, too? I answered your question, Ray. Then you tell me you already knew the question, and want the punchline??? The punchline is that you asked the question RAY--so give us the punchline, please?

But modern revelation from God is also God’s word, just as much as that received anciently.

Did you really not know what I was asking? If modern prophets of God receive revelation from God today, why would that be inferior to revelations from God to other prophets of God in the past?

Not all modern revelation is from God. Also, some that is from God, may be meant as a specific word to a specific people, and not a general word to the church at large.

ALL revelations from God should be in harmony with all other revelations from God,

Yeah, Ray, you figured it out!!! BINGO! (oops, we don't gamble). So, if a new word comes, claiming to be a revelation from God, we pray and discern if it is indeed in harmony with all other revelations from God! You got it! A+ 100% Bravo and kudos to Ray.

but ...

Oh well. SIGH. It was good while it lasted. We now have, what Laura Ingram refers to as a classic "but monkey."

harmony doesn’t necessarily = the same information. For instance, the priesthood was once reserved for only the descendents of Aaron, except for certain people who held the same order of priesthood as Melchizedek and Moses and Joshua and Elijah and the other prophets who led the "church" in their days, but both orders of priesthood can now be given to anybody (under the right conditions), so to expect all revelation to state that the Aaronic priesthood can only be given to the descendents of Aaron in our day, or that only Melchizedek and our Lord had that order of priesthood, would not be in harmony with God’s word to other people later.

So, since it's not "in harmony," it's either wrong, or faces a heavy burden of proof. This is why non-LDS aren't so quick to just agree with your many assertions about Joseph Smith. We need convincing. If he is true, the Holy Spirit will do the bulk of the work.

But being in the canon doesn’t determine what is scripture, because “scripture” is simply information received through inspiration from God, while “canon” is the “standard” to know scripture.

Keep it simple, Ray. Canon means the writings are "in." Not canon means they're not in. Maybe they'll get in, but not yet. So, I start with what is already approved.

All “scriptures” (or all words written by men as they are moved by the power of the Holy Ghost) don’t need to be universally accepted by <all other> “Christians” before some “Christians” know those words were inspired by God, and those words that are “canon” have simply been accepted by a certain group or some “Christians” because those people accept all of those words... and expect other "Christians" to accept them, as a "standard" for determining what is scripture.

Memo to Ray: Calling believers in Christ "Christians" (i.e. so-called Christians) is mightily close to saying "pretend Christians." Do you mean to imply that non-LDS are pretend Christians, Ray?

Beyond that Ray, you've explained why you embrace Smith's teachings, but not why non-LDS should.

Or in other words, nobody in this whole world, either before or after becoming a "Christian", needs to wait for everybody else on this Earth to learn which words were truly inspired by our God, because each person can receive his very own assurance to know whether they were inspired by God.

You think it's bad that I advocate there being more than one acceptable Christian denomination, yet you want to endorse every Christian deciding for him/herself what Scripture is???

Or in other words, if you’re trying to suggest the idea that all LDS should wait for every other “Christian” to determine which words were inspired by God, I’m sorry, but I’m not waiting upon anybody, other than God, to know what God wants me to know.

Every once and awhile the majority is actually right.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Do you tend to laugh at the wrong time when watching movies, too? I answered your question, Ray. Then you tell me you already knew the question, and want the punchline??? The punchline is that you asked the question RAY--so give us the punchline, please?

PC, Ray...you guys obviously aren't in agreement. Why not turn your attention to new threads/topics? It kills me to read these line-by-line "you're wrong, I'm right," diatribes. Although in fairness, it's usually Ray saying, "you're wrong, I'm right," and PC saying, "you may be wrong, and I may be right, and here's why..."

Ray, a few quotes to keep in mind:

"Diplomacy: The art of letting someone else have your way."

"Bring us to our senses, not our knees."

"You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

Peace, love, and digital harmony for all!!!

[prisonchaplain]

PC, Ray...you guys obviously aren't in agreement. Why not turn your attention to new threads/topics? It kills me to read these line-by-line "you're wrong, I'm right," diatribes. Although in fairness, it's usually Ray saying, "you're wrong, I'm right," and PC saying, "you may be wrong, and I may be right, and here's why..."

It's like a drug, AK. I can't help it! Every single point and subpoint must be spelled out, nailed down, clarified, and that stupid horse must be beaten to a pulp!!!

B) Ok, I'm cool now. Feel better. Address the moutaintops, don't lose the forest for the trees. Thanks for snapping me out of it, AK. You're a life saver.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Thanks for snapping me out of it, AK. You're a life saver.

That's what we call "intervention." Why? Because I care...

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Man is to live by and accept every word (revelation) that comes from G-d. To do otherwise is to reject G-d and his son Jesus Christ. To be blunt - anyone that does not desire to write, bind and add to their canon any revelation from G-d is denying G-d and in danger of salvation. It is impossible to know G-d and deny revelation from him. The only reason to not add any revelation to canon is because it is not from G-d.

With all due respect--and much is due to you as one who is truly traveled and always learning--your reaction seems to be based on an ignorance of how revelation from God takes place in Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches, or perhaps a total rejection of it. "Tongues and Interpretation" or "Prophecies" take place in 1000s of these churches every week. The revelations given are deemed to be from God. For the most part, they are specific words to the specific congregation for that specific moment in time. There might be a call to repentence, to deeper worship, to sacrifice, to ask and receive, to prepare for hardship, etc. Each given word, though from God, usually is NOT meant as a general word to all Christians in all places for all millenia.

You might disagree, but hopefully you now understand why I would say that not all of God's revelations are meant to become Scripture.

Thank you for your response. In a sense I agree with your thoughts - perhaps it is a matter of definitions and semantics. Your extended definition of "revelation" is in essence my understanding of inspiration. If you will please allow me to make a clear distinction between what I believe is "Revelation" and "inspiration".

Revelation: This is pure and divine knowledge and understanding of things. It is either spoken by the very mouth of G-d or by an appointed and authorized servant - specifically sent to to reveal only that which G-d has commanded. Servants of G-d include angles, seers, revelators and prophets. I have spoken to you in the past of order by which revelation comes. I believe the "Kingdom" of G-d is based on an offical order.

Inspiration (by the spirit): It is by inspiration that all revelation is understood. It is by inspiration that angles, seers, revelators and prophets are made know as well as the order in the Kingdom of G-d. Inspiration is the quiet wisperings where by our spirits are helped according to covenants. G-d first established his covenants with man in what is called the "Beginning" of creation. G-d has promised to assist all men when they seek for good and rightiounsness.

One does not even have to be Christian to receive inspiration from G-d or to assist others to be inspired. However, to be one through which revelation is given one must be a servant of G-d and a covenant member of his Kingdom. The kingdom of G-d cannot exist without revelation but man can still be inspired and prepared.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, based upon your definitions of revelation vs. inspiration, your posts and reactions to my posts make perfect sense. I've learned what you would call an "expanded" definition of prophecy and revelation. Many Baptists even consider the preaching or proclammation of the Word (i.e. sermons) to be acts of prophecy.

[Bob_oz]

Well folks I don't know how long it has taken me but i have just completed reading all 45 posts on this topic.

Let me say right off, that in the short time I have been reading and to some small degree contributing to these threads that I have come to respect both the quality of character and the quality of knowledge that contributors have here, I guess that is why I still take my time to log in.

After reading this thread I have to say I have been a little disappointed with some comments from both sides, lets face it the topic was never to be agreed.

I find myself "off side" (read that as mildly offended) to implied thoughts of the "Christians" seeming to mean all Christians other than LDS agreeing on a specific point of doctrine and therefore LDS are not Christian. I find that of the 100's if not 1000's of Christian organisations the only point they do agree upon is the LDS view is herecy. And why do we have so many Christian organisation, is it so that the individual can choose how they want to be a Christian and is God well pleased with this?

The many churches don't agree, that is why they are there, be it the way to baptise or not, be it the intepretation of scripture they exsist for mans pleasure not Gods.

The comment has been made, and correctly, that we need to base the "new" on the established scripture but sometimes we have to be dependant on personal revalation, My Father talking to me of things I am entitled to have His Spirit relate and testify to my Spirit and for me that is only of my family and I, plus other responcibilities I may have.

If we are dependant on the things we accept as scripture as the single benchmark for spiritual confirmation we can have problems, the Jews use the old testament as the benchmark and find a challenge with the prophetic teachings of Christ we accept as the New Testament. (just an example)

I was pleased to see that PC is reading the BofM, I wonder PC what is your reason to read it? At times I also wonder what is your reason to spend so much of your time here in a site dedicated to forwarding the LDS belief, teachings and knowledge between Church members and friends?

If you are reading the BofM with a view to understanding where we are coming from or to confirm for yourself that its the work of the dark side, maybe you might want to reconsider this as a good use of your time, please understand I don't want you to stop reading but I do want you to have the very best chance of learning from the time you give to it.

I am sure that many have referred you to Moroni 10: 3-5 (most say 4-5 I add 3) as being the key to the value of reading the book. This is one of the most powerful promises the Lord has ever given us but it needs to be understood, may I just highlight some elements and by no means all:

Ponder in your heart, I am sure you understand this principle and how critical it is to be open and receptive to really ponder with an open, searching and receptive heart.

The element "with real intent" is critical, if your intent is to know the truth, without preconceived objectives or other goals AND you are willing to following the witness of the Spirit even to the changing of your life then with that "real intent" you will receive a knowledge of all things.

If like the Russians who after they launched the first man into space said: we have been to the heavens and there is no God, then you will most likely have the same experience with the BofM for if you will not ponder sincerely in your heart nor if you will have real intent, it is not always enough to ask, you have to be willing when you get the answer.

May the Lord bless you in your reading and deliberation is my prayer and I am sure the prayers of all your friends here.

I hope this post does not offend anyone reading, it is not my desire to offend in any way

your brother

Bob ....... I just worked out that Plebeian is one of the "common people of ancient Rome", "lower class", or a "coarse or vulgar person" so you have to cut me some slack ok:)

[prisonchaplain]

BobOz asked three questions that related to me in his post. 1. Why so many Christian churches (meaning denominations, me thinks)--is God pleased by this? 2. Why are LDS singled out as heretics, in light of all this disagreement? 3. Why do non-LDS spend so much time at an LDS website?

1. There are many different denominations for many different reasons--not all of them doctrinal. For example, the Salvation Army started because the "uptown" churches didn't want to deal with the "rough around the edges" converts that Booth was bringing in. Pentecostals were initially rejected by their churches--though now many churches have "Charismatic Renewal" within them--including the Catholics. For the most part the different Christian denominations accept one another as spiritual brothers/sisters, so I think God is fine with them. IMHO, we get far more caught up in organizational structures than the Heavenly Father does.

2. The LDS Church does get a lot of attention--as do Jehovah's Witnesses, and a few other groups. Why? The teachings are quite different in some major areas of belief. Additionally, both Jehovah's Witnesses and the LDS Church have teachings that more or less indicate that they got it right, and the rest of the Christian world is signficantly wrong.

3. Why do I spend time here? Initially it was to learn and share what I could. Having spent time here, I found that I was able to do both, so I stayed.

4. Oh, P.S. I'm reading the BoM in particular, to learn. I am neither looking to destroy, nor to embrace. I'm praying that God will show me what he wants me to see from it. I've made slow progress of late, but even from the writings of Nephi, I've been able to improve my understanding of the conversations we have here.

[Bob_oz]

PC

I think your comment supports my point that the different denominations are so that "man" can choose, Booth forms the Salvo's because the "Christians" didn't accept the rough and ready Christians, so we have a new option for worship. Yes there is a lot of "coming together" in the faith but a lot of RC's (for example) are totally convinced that they are the one true Church ordained of God, founded by Jesus Christ through Peter and there in is their authority, many will say that everyone else left the RC Church. I have one RC friend who will under no circumstances enter any other denomination building/church as that would be herecy. Whatever the reason the multitude of denomiations exsist to give man options for worship determined by man.

I think its wonderfull that you are seeking and I hope that with an open mind and open heart you will find what you are looking for.

Your brother

Bob

[Maureen]

I think your comment supports my point that the different denominations are so that "man" can choose....

Isn't that what LDS call agency?

...Yes there is a lot of "coming together" in the faith but a lot of RC's (for example) are totally convinced that they are the one true Church ordained of God, founded by Jesus Christ through Peter and there in is their authority, many will say that everyone else left the RC Church.

It seems to be a common human trait, wouldn't you say?

I have one RC friend who will under no circumstances enter any other denomination building/church as that would be herecy. Whatever the reason the multitude of denomiations exsist to give man options for worship determined by man.

And there are Protestants and LDS that feel the same way regarding religions other than theirs - again man's agency at work.

M.

[Bob_oz]

Hi Maureen,

Totally agree its all a matter of agency, freedom to choose and we sure have plenty of choice out there

Are you satisfied they are all right as long as they preach Christ and have faith.

Bob. ......... PS are enjoying any good sci fi these days, Dr Who out of the UK is awesome B