Truth? Is Scripture - Scripture


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

In general it is thought that what has become scripture is unquestionably untainted revelation from G-d.  I am wondering how many believe that to be the case.  Or is it possible that from time to time flaws and mistakes are introduced even into scripture for various reasons?  In general it is LDS doctrine that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book of scripture yet in the title page it says

 

 

 

if there are faults they are the mistakes of men

 

How do you know what to believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know the Bible has been tainted by humans, parts taken out, changed, mistranslated, etc

Who's mistakes are those?

 

I don't believe anything humans have is untained, in that regard.

I mean the BoM has been changed, when it was written it had no numbers, changed words, corrections, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general it is thought that what has become scripture is unquestionably untainted revelation from G-d.  I am wondering how many believe that to be the case.  Or is it possible that from time to time flaws and mistakes are introduced even into scripture for various reasons?  In general it is LDS doctrine that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book of scripture yet in the title page it says

 

 

How do you know what to believe?

 

 

We all got our own brains and our own personal relationship with the Holy Ghost... we believe not because we are lemmings following a herd but because we have a testimony of the truth for ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up with five (ish, smattering of a lot more) different languages.

The moment I learned the bible had been translated into English?

Oh. That explains it, then. I think I was 8.

When I learned that only certain authors, and certain parts were included? Well, that sheds even more light.

When I learned even the included, translated sections had more than 1 author, in addition to countless editors?

I'm amazed there's anything left that's understandable, at all. True miracle.

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general it is thought that what has become scripture is unquestionably untainted revelation from G-d.  I am wondering how many believe that to be the case.  Or is it possible that from time to time flaws and mistakes are introduced even into scripture for various reasons?  In general it is LDS doctrine that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book of scripture yet in the title page it says

 

 

How do you know what to believe?

As Joseph Smith explained in the title page of the Book of Mormon; "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

 

Of course there are flaws, our language is flawed, how we perceive things as humans is flawed.  But the scriptures can be a source of spirit to spirit communication.  The Holy Ghost can witness of the truths found in the scriptures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again Traveler :)   As a Catholic, I obviously don't consider Scriptures to be tainted.  Neither do I subscibe to the thought that this is "unquestionably" so.  There have been thousands of exegises books written on the Scriptures, and from the few I've read, are very profound and deep in their logic and reasoning.  As St. Augustine says, "The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New".  I find the Bible to be a love letter, written from God to all of us, it is truly beautiful and moving, a living Word, and not a dead letter. 

 

To keep this short, the Scriptures are considered divinely inspired by God b/c they were written by many human authors and spanning many different generations, yet Jesus Christ fulfills over 300 OT prophecies.  The Dead Sea Scrolls further substantiates that these prophecies were written long before the birth of Jesus, and were not altered to "fit" His life.  

 

"To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in the task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more"  Dei Verbum 11. 

 

Can flaws and mistakes be found in the Bible?  Typo's, I'm sure, and other simple mistakes of the like, most likely.  But the message Itself?  No.  This does not mean however that interpretations of the Bible can be w/o error, especially in the light of so many different churches nowadays claiming that their interpretations are correct while others are false. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faith4 is spot on, in my book.  Our ultimate faith is in God.  However, He chose to reveal himself through the scriptures.  Those scriptures are reliable.  We get caught up in debates about them being "perfect" or "inerrant."  They are right.  They are what God wanted for us.  They are for our edification.

 

Interestingly, our priest asked me last week about the canonization of the Bible.  The gist was why we Protestants accept the compilation of the scriptures, when that compilation was done by Catholic hierarchy.  In other words, why do we recognize the books, but not the authority that approved them?  Of course, the question was asked openly, not as an accusation or challenge.  I thought about it for a day, trying to recall my seminary conversations/lessons about canonization.  Ultimately, what I remembered is that we focused on criteria.  What standards did they use to select scripture.  Also, we do believe that God's anointing was on the process.

 

Why does this conversation remind me of that Baptist minister who used to come here--the one who preaches from the Book of Mormon, but who remains Baptist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing else really to say in this topic that hasn't already been said. The Holy Ghost manifests the truth of all things and, thus, the scriptures. There might be very minor problems, but as Joseph said, they are the mistakes of man. God is not to be blamed. They are still perfectly suitable for the purposes they are intended for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our faith, we understand, or at least it is discussed in more detail, the fact that we are to live mortality, the second estate test, in the flesh.  In other words, the test we face was intended to be done in a fallen, corrupted state, not in a condition where everything is perfectly laid out with perfect words and language and transmitted without alteration in which we would have to rely on confirmation from another source (the Holy Ghost).

 

The perfectly laid out in no uncertain language test already took place, that was the first estate test.  We all passed that test.  Now, we are taking the test that requires dependency on the Lord and forces us to express where our heart's passion resides. The choice becomes a choice when one has to rely on spiritual influences to take in the message and understand it as opposed to just reading the text in a secular fashion. The scriptures present the material in such a way as to accomplish the purpose that Jesus described when asked about why He spoke in parables.  The flaw is in man's interpretaton.  The scriptures are written in such a way as to allow for man's flawed interpretation on purpose.  Again, this is not the first estate test done over again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not mentioned already, Moroni's specification that he is not strong in writing and mentions if there are mistakes they are the mistakes of men and fools mock.

 

Some revelations are pure, unadultered writings, while others are probably similar to my own revelations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot for the life of me find the article I read, but I recall reading an article by a gentlemen who claimed to be very heavily involved in the textual criticism of the Bible. I don't recall if he claimed to be Catholic or Protestant or if he even claimed a side on that aisle, nor do I remember much of what he said. The key concept I do recall him saying was "how human" he found the process of getting scripture to us. Paul's personality and biases show up in his writings, and those are different from Peter's which are different from John's which are different from Isaiah's which are different from Daniel's (to extend it through LDS cannon, which are different from Alma's which are different from Joseph Smith's which are different from Mormon's). He also mentioned the effect of the different copiests and translators over the centuries that yield the Bible/scripture as we have them today. His conclusion was that, scripture might be "true", but the process of getting it to us is "human."

 

I do not claim to fully understand how God works to get scripture to us. I believe we can say about the canonized ancient scripture that God guided it with His hand to preserve the essential parts of the Gospel and teach them to us. I think I am even less knowledgeable about the process of discerning human influences from the parts of scripture that are "God-Breathed" (to borrow the term from the Evangelicals).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot for the life of me find the article I read, but I recall reading an article by a gentlemen who claimed to be very heavily involved in the textual criticism of the Bible. I don't recall if he claimed to be Catholic or Protestant or if he even claimed a side on that aisle, nor do I remember much of what he said. The key concept I do recall him saying was "how human" he found the process of getting scripture to us. Paul's personality and biases show up in his writings, and those are different from Peter's which are different from John's which are different from Isaiah's which are different from Daniel's (to extend it through LDS cannon, which are different from Alma's which are different from Joseph Smith's which are different from Mormon's). He also mentioned the effect of the different copiests and translators over the centuries that yield the Bible/scripture as we have them today. His conclusion was that, scripture might be "true", but the process of getting it to us is "human."

 

I do not claim to fully understand how God works to get scripture to us. I believe we can say about the canonized ancient scripture that God guided it with His hand to preserve the essential parts of the Gospel and teach them to us. I think I am even less knowledgeable about the process of discerning human influences from the parts of scripture that are "God-Breathed" (to borrow the term from the Evangelicals).

This discussion ended up more about scripture than truth or how we come to understand truth.  As a scientist I have often wondered how we can come to understand anything as true.  It seems that we are always missing something or learning new things that slightly alter our previous view of things.

 

For some - it may be as simple as - is it scripture?  Or others say that there is some revelation from G-d through the Holy Ghost.  But for me - the quest for truth seems to have an exception for every rule.  And like I said - I wondered if we can ever know for sure if anything is true.  I have wondered many things and have asked for understanding - sometimes getting glimpses of great things and sometimes just remained wondering.  Some bits and pieces of understanding almost seem to happen by accident.  The problem is that Satan uses every possible tool to deceive. 

 

So what is your key to truth?  One thing I know for sure is my love for my wife and my family.  But even that love is not completely without some small doubts and concerns at some moments.  We religious types like to say we know G-d and love him but I am not sure I love the G-d that many profess to believe.  I cannot believe something that I cannot at least make clear rational sense of.  I am not so sure that I am so different than everybody else because they at least attempt to explain their understanding with some resemblance of rational logic.  But when rational is questioned and they realize the logical flaw - either they believe that I am an enemy for pointing such things out - or they abandon logic as though it has no place in religion.

 

Is it possible that a necessary element of faith, to obtain truth, is to believe the illogical without reason?  For me to say I believe something - it must fit into the logic of all the other things I believe.   I believe the Holy Ghost can help me understand true logic and resolve confusing contradictions.   I do not believe in a G-d of conflicting confusing ideas.  I believe the Holy Ghost can and will guide anyone seeking truth through life's labyrinth of conflicting confusion - be it scripture, science, other well meaning people or religious material to gain a rational understanding of the truth.  But like the LDS D&C scripture after all my efforts, studying, and seeking - if it ain't rational - I do not feel good about it and there is no "burning" in my bosom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion ended up more about scripture than truth or how we come to understand truth.  As a scientist I have often wondered how we can come to understand anything as true.  It seems that we are always missing something or learning new things that slightly alter our previous view of things.

 

For some - it may be as simple as - is it scripture?  Or others say that there is some revelation from G-d through the Holy Ghost.  But for me - the quest for truth seems to have an exception for every rule.  And like I said - I wondered if we can ever know for sure if anything is true.  I have wondered many things and have asked for understanding - sometimes getting glimpses of great things and sometimes just remained wondering.  Some bits and pieces of understanding almost seem to happen by accident.  The problem is that Satan uses every possible tool to deceive. 

 

So what is your key to truth?  One thing I know for sure is my love for my wife and my family.  But even that love is not completely without some small doubts and concerns at some moments.  We religious types like to say we know G-d and love him but I am not sure I love the G-d that many profess to believe.  I cannot believe something that I cannot at least make clear rational sense of.  I am not so sure that I am so different than everybody else because they at least attempt to explain their understanding with some resemblance of rational logic.  But when rational is questioned and they realize the logical flaw - either they believe that I am an enemy for pointing such things out - or they abandon logic as though it has no place in religion.

 

Is it possible that a necessary element of faith, to obtain truth, is to believe the illogical without reason?  For me to say I believe something - it must fit into the logic of all the other things I believe.   I believe the Holy Ghost can help me understand true logic and resolve confusing contradictions.   I do not believe in a G-d of conflicting confusing ideas.  I believe the Holy Ghost can and will guide anyone seeking truth through life's labyrinth of conflicting confusion - be it scripture, science, other well meaning people or religious material to gain a rational understanding of the truth.  But like the LDS D&C scripture after all my efforts, studying, and seeking - if it ain't rational - I do not feel good about it and there is no "burning" in my bosom.

When talking about faith (from a religious standpoint), we are usually talking about faith in someone not something.  If we have faith in someone then the arguments are not in terms of the logic of all the other things believed but whether the person is trustworthy or not. As soon as it becomes a discussion about the topic then it no longer is about having faith in the person who provided the truth. At that point it is just a discussion of the truth on its own merit.

 

True faith is a more efficient way to learn because one does not have to prove every aspect of the thing learned for their self, they can simply take as truth and move on. If I read a textbook from a trusted source I can take the information as true more or less and not have to run the experiments for myself or demonstrate it for myself.  We do this early on in life.  A child learns from their parents when they have trust in them, as soon as they start to say, 'let me prove it for myself' the rate of learning from the parents slows down (i.e. - rebelious).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some - it may be as simple as - is it scripture?  Or others say that there is some revelation from G-d through the Holy Ghost.  But for me - the quest for truth seems to have an exception for every rule.  And like I said - I wondered if we can ever know for sure if anything is true. 

 

For some reason, I am reminded of what Tweedle Dee (or Dum) explained to Alice -- perhaps she was just a part of the Red King's dream, and as soon as he woke up, she would cease to exist.

 

I'm no expert on philosophy, but I recall that this was part of DesCartes "I think, therefore I am." axiom. He was trying to find a bedrock principle that could serve as an anchor for his view of existence. Perceptions through the senses could not be fully trusted, because our senses can "lie" to us. Even when dealing with spiritual promptings, sometimes it is possible to misinterpret or to deceive ourselves. I do not know if we can ever know for sure that something is true.

 

Is it possible that a necessary element of faith, to obtain truth, is to believe the illogical without reason?  For me to say I believe something - it must fit into the logic of all the other things I believe.   I believe the Holy Ghost can help me understand true logic and resolve confusing contradictions.   I do not believe in a G-d of conflicting confusing ideas.  I believe the Holy Ghost can and will guide anyone seeking truth through life's labyrinth of conflicting confusion - be it scripture, science, other well meaning people or religious material to gain a rational understanding of the truth.  But like the LDS D&C scripture after all my efforts, studying, and seeking - if it ain't rational - I do not feel good about it and there is no "burning" in my bosom.

 

Perhaps. I agree that God and truth should not be confusing or contradictory. On the other hand, I don't want to be guilty of limiting God/truth to my finite, mortal, imperfect reasoning. As God explained through Isaiah, His ways/thoughts are higher than our ways/thoughts. When something doesn't make sense, is it because it is false, or is it a failure of my logic engine.

 

Right now I'm working on the results of an experiment where the results in many ways don't make sense -- don't follow expected patterns. There are a lot of variables involved, so I am really struggling to decide if it is because the experiment is wrong, or if I have not yet come upon the correct mathematical relationship to describe the relationship between the variables.

 

In many ways, I think some truth, especially religious/theological truth, is in interesting interplay between reason and faith. There are several religious truths that I would be tempted to discard if I refused to believe something that didn't make sense to me. At the same time, there are some religious claims that I reject because I find them irrational. I'm not sure I can explain how those judgements get made, nor do I always feel like they are a "there that is decided" kind of thing. Part of being penitent might be never being quite satisfied that a specific question is definitively answered -- to always be willing to think through concepts again to see if they are still something you want to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When talking about faith (from a religious standpoint), we are usually talking about faith in someone not something.  If we have faith in someone then the arguments are not in terms of the logic of all the other things believed but whether the person is trustworthy or not. As soon as it becomes a discussion about the topic then it no longer is about having faith in the person who provided the truth. At that point it is just a discussion of the truth on its own merit.

 

True faith is a more efficient way to learn because one does not have to prove every aspect of the thing learned for their self, they can simply take as truth and move on. If I read a textbook from a trusted source I can take the information as true more or less and not have to run the experiments for myself or demonstrate it for myself.  We do this early on in life.  A child learns from their parents when they have trust in them, as soon as they start to say, 'let me prove it for myself' the rate of learning from the parents slows down (i.e. - rebelious).

 

You sparked a thought about faith in people rather than "something".  As I thought on this I became convinced that we must first have faith in ourselves before we can have faith in others.  This is because if we do not have faith that we can identify others in which we can have faith - then we will never be able to have faith in them.  Therefore, we must have faith enough in our own ability to identify someone worthy of our having faith in them.

 

The more I thought on this the more I am convinced that all faith we exercise is in reality an extension of the faith we have in ourselves. 

 

Thank you Seminary, this a whole new landscape of understanding for me.  I deal with many atheists in my profession and I realized that at least in part the inability to have true faith in G-d is hampered a great deal in an individual's tentative faith in themselves.  This also means that we cannot have faith in attributes of G-d that we do not understand as worthy for ourselves.

 

Your insight bring much more to the table but at this point I think I will back off some and see what others are harvesting or discarding concerning the idea that we cannot appreciate in others (including G-d) what we cannot rationally see through faith we exercise in ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason, I am reminded of what Tweedle Dee (or Dum) explained to Alice -- perhaps she was just a part of the Red King's dream, and as soon as he woke up, she would cease to exist.

 

I'm no expert on philosophy, but I recall that this was part of DesCartes "I think, therefore I am." axiom. He was trying to find a bedrock principle that could serve as an anchor for his view of existence. Perceptions through the senses could not be fully trusted, because our senses can "lie" to us. Even when dealing with spiritual promptings, sometimes it is possible to misinterpret or to deceive ourselves. I do not know if we can ever know for sure that something is true.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps. I agree that God and truth should not be confusing or contradictory. On the other hand, I don't want to be guilty of limiting God/truth to my finite, mortal, imperfect reasoning. As God explained through Isaiah, His ways/thoughts are higher than our ways/thoughts. When something doesn't make sense, is it because it is false, or is it a failure of my logic engine.

 

Right now I'm working on the results of an experiment where the results in many ways don't make sense -- don't follow expected patterns. There are a lot of variables involved, so I am really struggling to decide if it is because the experiment is wrong, or if I have not yet come upon the correct mathematical relationship to describe the relationship between the variables.

 

In many ways, I think some truth, especially religious/theological truth, is in interesting interplay between reason and faith. There are several religious truths that I would be tempted to discard if I refused to believe something that didn't make sense to me. At the same time, there are some religious claims that I reject because I find them irrational. I'm not sure I can explain how those judgements get made, nor do I always feel like they are a "there that is decided" kind of thing. Part of being penitent might be never being quite satisfied that a specific question is definitively answered -- to always be willing to think through concepts again to see if they are still something you want to believe.

 

MrShorty - good stuff.  Please let we work this a bit before I respond. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For myself, it's not so much having "faith in myself" but being able to love myself, the person God made me to be.  And by finally accepting my whole self as a unique and beautiful creation, whom God loves beyond my understanding, can I finally allow His love to radiate from myself.  I ask Him daily to pour His Grace and Love into my soul, to "fill my cup", so that I may "pour it out" to others.  Everything I am and everything I give to others (patience, love, time etc), comes from Him and is a gift which I now recognize can overflow to others.   

Now, this is not the same as having "blind faith".  God did give us an intellect, the ability to make choices, think for ourselves and draw conclusions from the information around us.  All the clues which point to Him are there, they always have been, we just have to be willing to look for them, in honesty and humility.  As I mentioned in my above post, the Scriptures are truly inspired by God, not b/c "blind faith" says so, but b/c Jesus logically fulfills the OT, in such a way as to be miraculous. I never even realized how wonderfullly the OT and NT complete each other, they go hand in hand!  Everything Jesus says and does finds merit in the OT, fulfilling what was written and completing it.  There are thousands of exegitical books on Scriptures, scrutinizing every line of the Gospels, and all the different meanings which can be gleaned from them.  I just finished the book Jesus of Nazareth, by Pope Benedict XVI, and it was amazing, I'm completely blown away by the beauty of the Scriptures, and how deep and alive the messages are.  It's like a treasure which can never be exhausted, b/c this simply did not come by man alone. 

I highly recommend you read Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed.  It's not an exegesis on Scriptures (though he of course sites from the Bible, among other sources), but it addresses precisley your concern about using logic and reason in finding Truth, for God is not a God of contradiction.  From his book:

 

"My concern in this book is not with the Will but with the Intellect, not with sanctity but with sanity.  The difference is too often overlooked in the practice of religion.  The soul has two faculties, and they should be clearly distinguished.  There is the Will: its work is to love-and so to choose, to decide, to act.  There is the intellect: its work is to know, to understand, to see: to see what? to see what's there. 

 

To many, the idea of brigning the intellect fully into action in religion seems almost repellent.  The intellect seems so cold and measured and measuring, and the will so warm and glowing...Many again who do not find the use of the intellect in religion actually repellent, regard it as at least unneccessary-at any rate for the layman-and possibly dangerous.  One can, they say, love God without any very great study of doctrine.  Indeed, they say, warming to their theme, some of the holiest people they know are quite ignorant.  All this is so crammed with fallacy as to be hardly worth refuting.  A man may be learned in dogma, and at the same time proud or greedy or cruel: knowledge does not supply for love if love is absent.  Similarly, a virtuous man may be ignorant, but ignorance is not a virtue.  It would be a strange God who could be loved better by being known less.  Love of God is not the same thing as knowledge of God; love of God is immeasurably more important than knowledge of God; but if a man loves God knowing a little about Him, he should love God more from knowing more about Him: for every new thing known about God is a new reason for loving Him...After all, the man who uses his intellect in religion is using it to see what is there.  But the alternative to seeing what is there is either not seeing what is there, and this is darkness; or seeing what is not there, and this is error, derangement, a kind of double darkness.  And it is unthinkable that darkness, whether single or double, should be preferred to light." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sparked a thought about faith in people rather than "something".  As I thought on this I became convinced that we must first have faith in ourselves before we can have faith in others.  This is because if we do not have faith that we can identify others in which we can have faith - then we will never be able to have faith in them.  Therefore, we must have faith enough in our own ability to identify someone worthy of our having faith in them.

 

The more I thought on this the more I am convinced that all faith we exercise is in reality an extension of the faith we have in ourselves. 

 

Thank you Seminary, this a whole new landscape of understanding for me.  I deal with many atheists in my profession and I realized that at least in part the inability to have true faith in G-d is hampered a great deal in an individual's tentative faith in themselves.  This also means that we cannot have faith in attributes of G-d that we do not understand as worthy for ourselves.

 

Your insight bring much more to the table but at this point I think I will back off some and see what others are harvesting or discarding concerning the idea that we cannot appreciate in others (including G-d) what we cannot rationally see through faith we exercise in ourselves.

Great points!

 

I guess I don't think about having faith in myself much because growing up with the LDS gospel we are taught at a young age that we are literally children of God. Remembering that fact is the trick.  It is hard not to see ourselves as anything more than our current self as opposed to the eternal being underneath.  It certainly changes perspective once there is a little understanding that we really do have a Father in Heaven.

 

I have 3 close girlfriends that joined the church over the years and when I look at their conversion process it was never about the details or the customs of the church but their basic belief in God and the relationship we have with God. That was the toughest hurdle to get over, then the rest of the discussions and learning came easy.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For myself, it's not so much having "faith in myself" but being able to love myself, the person God made me to be.  And by finally accepting my whole self as a unique and beautiful creation, whom God loves beyond my understanding, can I finally allow His love to radiate from myself.  I ask Him daily to pour His Grace and Love into my soul, to "fill my cup", so that I may "pour it out" to others.  Everything I am and everything I give to others (patience, love, time etc), comes from Him and is a gift which I now recognize can overflow to others.   

Now, this is not the same as having "blind faith".  God did give us an intellect, the ability to make choices, think for ourselves and draw conclusions from the information around us.  All the clues which point to Him are there, they always have been, we just have to be willing to look for them, in honesty and humility.  As I mentioned in my above post, the Scriptures are truly inspired by God, not b/c "blind faith" says so, but b/c Jesus logically fulfills the OT, in such a way as to be miraculous. I never even realized how wonderfullly the OT and NT complete each other, they go hand in hand!  Everything Jesus says and does finds merit in the OT, fulfilling what was written and completing it.  There are thousands of exegitical books on Scriptures, scrutinizing every line of the Gospels, and all the different meanings which can be gleaned from them.  I just finished the book Jesus of Nazareth, by Pope Benedict XVI, and it was amazing, I'm completely blown away by the beauty of the Scriptures, and how deep and alive the messages are.  It's like a treasure which can never be exhausted, b/c this simply did not come by man alone. 

I highly recommend you read Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed.  It's not an exegesis on Scriptures (though he of course sites from the Bible, among other sources), but it addresses precisley your concern about using logic and reason in finding Truth, for God is not a God of contradiction.  From his book:

 

"My concern in this book is not with the Will but with the Intellect, not with sanctity but with sanity.  The difference is too often overlooked in the practice of religion.  The soul has two faculties, and they should be clearly distinguished.  There is the Will: its work is to love-and so to choose, to decide, to act.  There is the intellect: its work is to know, to understand, to see: to see what? to see what's there. 

 

To many, the idea of brigning the intellect fully into action in religion seems almost repellent.  The intellect seems so cold and measured and measuring, and the will so warm and glowing...Many again who do not find the use of the intellect in religion actually repellent, regard it as at least unneccessary-at any rate for the layman-and possibly dangerous.  One can, they say, love God without any very great study of doctrine.  Indeed, they say, warming to their theme, some of the holiest people they know are quite ignorant.  All this is so crammed with fallacy as to be hardly worth refuting.  A man may be learned in dogma, and at the same time proud or greedy or cruel: knowledge does not supply for love if love is absent.  Similarly, a virtuous man may be ignorant, but ignorance is not a virtue.  It would be a strange God who could be loved better by being known less.  Love of God is not the same thing as knowledge of God; love of God is immeasurably more important than knowledge of God; but if a man loves God knowing a little about Him, he should love God more from knowing more about Him: for every new thing known about God is a new reason for loving Him...After all, the man who uses his intellect in religion is using it to see what is there.  But the alternative to seeing what is there is either not seeing what is there, and this is darkness; or seeing what is not there, and this is error, derangement, a kind of double darkness.  And it is unthinkable that darkness, whether single or double, should be preferred to light." 

 

Faith4,  Thank you for your post.  I wanted to respond specifically to your post for many reasons.  My particular journey seems to have been quite different than yours.  It appears to me that your love, knowledge and respect of G-d is based on and in Biblical scripture.  Mine is quite different – my love, knowledge, understanding and respect of G-d is despite Biblical scripture.  For me love and respect for G-d is a matter and result from my own experience, study and analysis.

 

I have found scripture unreliable in that, rather than foster consensus of logic and reason, I find scripture to be overly ambiguous; so much so that the more scripture is studied the more disagreement there seems to be in what exactly scripture is communicating and the greater there seems to be anger between those that disagree.  And this is not a recent or new phenomenon but a longtime historical result that has existed with the beginning of early Christian effort to canonize scripture and make heretics of those that disagree with the popular notions of scripture at a particular time and place.

 

Jesus did not say that his disciples could be identified by any particular interpretation of scripture but rather by the love such disciples have for others – a love and compassion particularly shown to extend to their enemies.  As a general rule (meaning that there are some few exceptions) I have personally found through a wide opportunity of experience that those dedicated to scripture and particular interpretations of scripture to be prominently among the least loving and compassionate towards others.

 

What I have found is that those that love and respect others (kind of along the lines to which Jesus spoke) – and I do not know or recall even a single exception – honor and respect themselves and their abilities to function honestly and rationally with others much more than with scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faith4,  Thank you for your post.  I wanted to respond specifically to your post for many reasons.  My particular journey seems to have been quite different than yours.  It appears to me that your love, knowledge and respect of G-d is based on and in Biblical scripture.  Mine is quite different – my love, knowledge, understanding and respect of G-d is despite Biblical scripture.  For me love and respect for G-d is a matter and result from my own experience, study and analysis.

 

I have found scripture unreliable in that, rather than foster consensus of logic and reason, I find scripture to be overly ambiguous; so much so that the more scripture is studied the more disagreement there seems to be in what exactly scripture is communicating and the greater there seems to be anger between those that disagree.  And this is not a recent or new phenomenon but a longtime historical result that has existed with the beginning of early Christian effort to canonize scripture and make heretics of those that disagree with the popular notions of scripture at a particular time and place.

 

Jesus did not say that his disciples could be identified by any particular interpretation of scripture but rather by the love such disciples have for others – a love and compassion particularly shown to extend to their enemies.  As a general rule (meaning that there are some few exceptions) I have personally found through a wide opportunity of experience that those dedicated to scripture and particular interpretations of scripture to be prominently among the least loving and compassionate towards others.

 

What I have found is that those that love and respect others (kind of along the lines to which Jesus spoke) – and I do not know or recall even a single exception – honor and respect themselves and their abilities to function honestly and rationally with others much more than with scripture.

Yes, the personal witness one gets from the Holy Ghost should be the strongest influence we have in accepting and understanding truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faith4,  Thank you for your post.  I wanted to respond specifically to your post for many reasons.  My particular journey seems to have been quite different than yours.  It appears to me that your love, knowledge and respect of G-d is based on and in Biblical scripture.  Mine is quite different – my love, knowledge, understanding and respect of G-d is despite Biblical scripture.  For me love and respect for G-d is a matter and result from my own experience, study and analysis.

 

I have found scripture unreliable in that, rather than foster consensus of logic and reason, I find scripture to be overly ambiguous; so much so that the more scripture is studied the more disagreement there seems to be in what exactly scripture is communicating and the greater there seems to be anger between those that disagree.  And this is not a recent or new phenomenon but a longtime historical result that has existed with the beginning of early Christian effort to canonize scripture and make heretics of those that disagree with the popular notions of scripture at a particular time and place.

 

Jesus did not say that his disciples could be identified by any particular interpretation of scripture but rather by the love such disciples have for others – a love and compassion particularly shown to extend to their enemies.  As a general rule (meaning that there are some few exceptions) I have personally found through a wide opportunity of experience that those dedicated to scripture and particular interpretations of scripture to be prominently among the least loving and compassionate towards others.

 

What I have found is that those that love and respect others (kind of along the lines to which Jesus spoke) – and I do not know or recall even a single exception – honor and respect themselves and their abilities to function honestly and rationally with others much more than with scripture.

 

My love, respect and knowledge of God began when I was very, very young actually, long before I discovered the treasures found in the Scriptures.  :)  Easy misunderstanding since I apparently quote too much Scripture for your taste.  The past year and a half has brought me on an incredible journey of fully, discovering this treasure, among others, and answering Gods call.  He is so so beautiful!! I am often times brought to tears of joy for what He has done for me, and I know now there is absolutely nothing in this world I wouldn't do for Him.  And everyone's journey is different and unique, ours are completely different, as they should be, separated by time, location, memories, knowledge, family life, etc.  No two people are the same, which is why we are told to not judge one another, that alone is Gods job.  And true love, respect, and knowledge of God is also brought by personal experiences and study, you are not the only one my friend  :) 

 

Concerning disagreement of Scriptures, I agree that too many groups of people lay claim to the true interpretation, yet allow their disagreements to lead to anger and division.  Which is why Christ did leave a visible Church, with His authority to teach, until the Parousia.  In Luke's Gospel, (this will be the only biblical quote, I promise) Jesus says to His disciples, "Whoever listens to you listens to me.  Whoever rejects you rejects me.  And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (Luke 10:16).  Notice the direct line of authority, the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the Apostles w/His authority, such that listening to them, and the men they in turn authorize, is equivalent to listening to Jesus and thus also to the Father.  Jesus desired his believers to be one, and not divided, why would he therefore leave his followers w/ambigious teachings? 

 

But it is curious to me that you think (at least this is what I understand from your post), that Jesus did not identify any particular interpretation, except by the love shown by his disciples (which btw, there was only one interpretation at the time, the Apostles and their disciples, you know, the teachings received directly from Jesus, so who else would He point to?).  Do not Baptists love one another?  Do not Catholics love one another?  What about Presbyterians, Pentecostals, non-denomationals and Lutherans?  What about the LDS and their love for others?  And of course, Buddhists, Muslims and everyone else?  You can not just simply place entire groups under some large all-encompassing umbrella labeled "not enough love to be up to Jesus' par".  There will always be great saints and great sinners, with everyone in between, in each group.   

 

Your church was founded in 1830, "restored", correct?  Why is it now visible and hierarchal and definitive in its interpretations?  The members of your church, must believe and practice what the prophet teaches in order to be worthy of the Temple, and reach the celestial kingdom, right?  Why is now so different than when Jesus was here?  Is Jesus now pointing only to the LDS interpretation, along w/love for one another?  Do your church leaders appreciate members coming forward w/different interpretations and leading others in error to believe them over the leaders?  What exactly would happen in such situations, would the leaders not warn the member and eventually excommunicate that person for leading others away from truth into heresy?  What about all the schisms and splinter groups which broke off your church when Smith died, all claiming to be the true branch of LDS with the true authority?  You're right, these things are not a recent and new phenomenon, nor will they ever stop happening due to the sinful nature of man. 

 

What I have found over the years, through personal experience and studying Church history and the writings of the some of the greatest saints in history, is that those who are dedicated to Scripture, lovingly, joyfully, and beautifully submit themselves to the Word of God in His Church, and are some of the most compassionate and loving people who have ever walked this earth.  There are many, many, many exceptions to your general rule, and I am so sorry that you have come to such an unsatisfactory conclusion of those who love Scripture.  God bless Traveler :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share