Angels

[Guest]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

My background is Roman Catholic from a very devout Roman Catholic family ...

... What I found, after several years of pondering the differences, is that the differences in understanding is rooted on teachings that are missing from the Catholic Church such as, pre-mortal existance, eternal marriage, and the Godhead.

The difference in Angels - pre-mortal existence, a missing teaching in the Catholic Church.  So, if I accept the teaching of pre-mortal existence as true... the rest of the things that I know about angels remain true... only their substance changes... which, if I really think about it, does not matter in my testimony of the existence of angels guiding me in my life.

Again, you've put into words something I was trying to put together.  When Steve said it was about worldviews, I thought that was almost right.  But it was more specific that just a different worldview.  And what you've said is just what I was thinking.

[Rhoades]

 

17 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

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

One thing that particular scripture supports is that angels look like people. (Or at least they can be made to look like people.)   I believe they do look like people (and that they are people, although not mortal people).  LDS doctrine teaches that spirits, humans on earth as mortals, and resurrected immortals all resemble each other (i.e. have a face, two eyes, legs, arms, etc.)

Agreeable to this is Mark 16:5 which describes when Mary & Mary see an angel: "they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment".  The angel looked like a young man.

Acts 6:15 says when Stephen was tried, the council "saw his face as it had been the face of an angel".  I take that to mean some light or glory was about him yet he still looked like a man.

Other descriptions (such as angels with wings) are just literary symbolism.

[Steve Noel]

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

It appears to me that the “Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary” is your tangent to preconceived notions.

Actually, I summarized the Bible dictionary in order to give the folks here an example of how Evangelicals understand Scripture's teaching on this subject.

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

It appears to me as a red flag when you interpret Heb. 1:4-14 that “the Son of God, Jesus, is superior to the angels” in ways that the scriptures did not intend.  I would point out that Jesus clearly taught that the “Father” is “superior” to him.  Yet you seem to believe that Jesus is G-d?  And of the same essence as the “Father”?  This type of smorgasbord approach of picking and choosing preconceived notions from scriptures is in my mind the means used to divide those that would be followers of Christ that would otherwise be of one mind and heart if they would seed such answers from G-d rather than efforts of man like the “Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary”. 

Did you read through Heb. 1:4-14 before responding? Stating that this section in Hebrews emphasizes the superiority of the Son of God to the angels is not controversial. If you want to persuade me that I have misunderstood the text, then you will have to demonstrate my error from the text. 

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

My first recommendation to you is to consider if there is any possibility that the sacred scriptures can be interpreted according to LDS teaching.  Keep in mind that our foundation is not just a study (which is definitely an element) but that these principles have been taught directly by angles and revelations given directly to prophets as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses and others as recorded in ancient scripture.

I can only fairly evaluate the biblical consistency of LDS beliefs if I understand those beliefs. I have expressed my need to better understand the LDS view of angels in this thread. I have also acknowledged when there have been fair points made. I have learned a good bit already from the responses.

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

Again this appears to me to be a preconceived smorgasbord approach to scripture.  We do not have to speculate – the time referenced in scripture was a time of great spiritual manifestations (including angles concerning the resurrection) to vast numbers of believers that I submit was greater than those that conceived the “Zondevan Pictoral Bible Dictionary”.  We do not have to speculate that Luke, the divinely inspired author of one of the Biblical gospel testaments of Christ, felt it necessary to include this notion in his Acts narrative of the Apostles of Christ.

Unfortunately, what you are doing here is precisely what you accuse me of doing. You are reading your preconceived notions into Acts 12:15. I have not actually argued for a position on this text. I said that we do not know what the people meant when they said it was Peter's angel. We can speculate, but we can not say with certainty. Most Bible commentators point out that it was a popular Jewish belief that guardian angels took on the appearance of those they were sent to protect. They say that this is likely the background to this text. If you believe that when they said it must be Peter's angel they meant it was Peter as a post-mortal angel, then I will not argue with you. I would encourage you to realize that what you doing here is reading LDS theology into the text. 

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have had a personal experience with an angel of G-d.  Admittedly my experience was not concerning this or any other doctrine; rather a call or awaking to repentance.  But I can testify and witness that your preconceived notions of angels is not accurate.

I do not interpret Scripture based on experiences (mine or others'). Instead, I try to interpret experiences by Scripture. Think about this:  Muhammad claimed that he had encounters with the angel Gabriel over a 23 year period. He claims that Gabriel gave him messages directly from God. These revelations are recorded in the Qur'an. The Qur'an teaches that Jesus was not the Son of God. Muhammad would testify that my (and your) notions about Jesus being the Son of God are incorrect, because he got direct revelation from God. 

Edited April 29, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Steve Noel]

duplicate

 

Edited April 29, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Steve Noel]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

 

My background is Roman Catholic from a very devout Roman Catholic family.  I have had a strong testimony of the gospel from my Catholic days complete with spiritual experiences.  I started investigating LDS beliefs when I asked my husband - who was an inactive LDS that lived the Catholic life with me - if he was ready to take the path towards Catholic baptism.  My husband, in one of his rare moments of calm seriousness in our lives (which signifies he is completely and absolutely immovable and that it is very deeply important to him) held my shoulders and looked me in the eye and said, "I'm not going to be Catholic.".  Needless to say I was very, very bummed (I had hopes he'd become Catholic since he was attending Masses, choir practice, serving in activities, super duper supportive etc.) and in my moment of weakness sarcastically asked him - "Oh, so you think I'm going to hell?".  And he calmly replied, "You're going to heaven, I have a great chance of going to hell."  That got me curious and so I started asking questions about the LDS faith.

Because I already had a strong testimony of the gospel, if there's anything that the LDS teaches that contradicts that testimony, I could immediately dismiss it as not true.  What I found, after several years of pondering the differences, is that the differences in understanding is rooted on teachings that are missing from the Catholic Church such as, pre-mortal existance, eternal marriage, and the Godhead.

The difference in Angels - pre-mortal existence, a missing teaching in the Catholic Church.  So, if I accept the teaching of pre-mortal existence as true... the rest of the things that I know about angels remain true... only their substance changes... which, if I really think about it, does not matter in my testimony of the existence of angels guiding me in my life.

I appreciate this. In the book How Wide the Divide? Stephen Robinson writes:

Quote

In truth, what God did at the beginning and what humans do after the end are unfortunately not the subjects of biblcial information. As Prof. Blomberg points out (p. 108), Joseph Smith is here not contradicting the Bible but rather filling in its theological gaps. Joseph may be right or wrong in doing this, but he cannot be accused of contradicting the Bible where the Bible is silent. There are gaps. I would be quite happy to have Evangelicals say to me, 'You Latter-day Saints have beliefs and doctrines on subjects about which the Bible is silent or ambiguous.' That is a fair statement.

I think this is an interesting perspective. I am not persuaded at this time that some of these pre/post mortal LDS beliefs are biblically neutral, but it is something I am considering.

[Steve Noel]

duplicate

Edited April 30, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Steve Noel]

6 hours ago, Rhoades said:

 

One thing that particular scripture supports is that angels look like people. (Or at least they can be made to look like people.)   I believe they do look like people (and that they are people, although not mortal people).  LDS doctrine teaches that spirits, humans on earth as mortals, and resurrected immortals all resemble each other (i.e. have a face, two eyes, legs, arms, etc.)

Agreeable to this is Mark 16:5 which describes when Mary & Mary see an angel: "they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment".  The angel looked like a young man.

Acts 6:15 says when Stephen was tried, the council "saw his face as it had been the face of an angel".  I take that to mean some light or glory was about him yet he still looked like a man.

Other descriptions (such as angels with wings) are just literary symbolism.

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

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

In the book How Wide the Divide? Stephen Robinson writes:

Quote

In truth, what God did at the beginning and what humans do after the end are unfortunately not the subjects of biblcial information. As Prof. Blomberg points out (p. 108), Joseph Smith is here not contradicting the Bible but rather filling in its theological gaps. Joseph may be right or wrong in doing this, but he cannot be accused of contradicting the Bible where the Bible is silent. There are gaps. I would be quite happy to have Evangelicals say to me, 'You Latter-day Saints have beliefs and doctrines on subjects about which the Bible is silent or ambiguous.' That is a fair statement.

I think this is an interesting perspective. I am not persuaded at this time that some of these pre/post mortal LDS beliefs are biblically neutral, but it is something I am considering.

That is a refreshing (and all-too-rare) approach.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Dup

Lehi

Edited April 30, 2016 by LeSellers

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

I think this is an interesting perspective. I am not persuaded at this time that some of these pre/post mortal LDS beliefs are biblically neutral, but it is something I am considering.

In my previous post on a different thread that you started, I mentioned that persuasion and logical/intellectual analysis can only go so far.  I can intellectually debate for or against Catholic versus LDS interpretations.  For or against.  Either way. Biblically based and founded arguments.

I am LDS because of spiritual experiences that impressed the truth of those missing teachings to me.  So much so that I caused such hurt to my family, especially my mother.  She still sends my name to the Carmelites to pray for my salvation.  And I absolutely love her for it.  But when the Holy Spirit speaks to me, all I can really respond is Here I Am Lord.

 

[bytebear]

One thing I find fascinating when studying church history, is how Joseph Smith rarely declared truth, or interpreted scripture.  Rather he read scripture (usually the Book of Mormon as he translated it) and had questions which he took to the Lord for answers.  Most of our unique doctrines come from these events, from priesthood ordination, to baptism for the dead.  There is even a section of the Doctrine and Covenants that is literally a Q and A about the meaning of some of the symbolism in the book of Revelation.  I find this approach and historic context completely unique to Latter-day Saints.  There was no interpretation by Smith, but rather an answer from God (sometimes through heavenly messengers, i;e angels), so when Mormons talk about the nature of angels, it's not from Biblical interpretation but from a belief in direct interaction with them.

Edited April 30, 2016 by bytebear

[bytebear]

Dup

Edited April 30, 2016 by bytebear

[Steve Noel]

10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

In my previous post on a different thread that you started, I mentioned that persuasion and logical/intellectual analysis can only go so far.  I can intellectually debate for or against Catholic versus LDS interpretations.  For or against.  Either way. Biblically based and founded arguments.

I am LDS because of spiritual experiences that impressed the truth of those missing teachings to me.  So much so that I caused such hurt to my family, especially my mother.  She still sends my name to the Carmelites to pray for my salvation.  And I absolutely love her for it.  But when the Holy Spirit speaks to me, all I can really respond is Here I Am Lord.

 

6 hours ago, bytebear said:

One thing I find fascinating when studying church history, is how Joseph Smith rarely declared truth, or interpreted scripture.  Rather he read scripture (usually the Book of Mormon as he translated it) and had questions which he took to the Lord for answers.  Most of our unique doctrines come from these events, from priesthood ordination, to baptism for the dead.  There is even a section of the Doctrine and Covenants that is literally a Q and A about the meaning of some of the symbolism in the book of Revelation.  I find this approach and historic context completely unique to Latter-day Saints.  There was no interpretation by Smith, but rather an answer from God (sometimes through heavenly messengers, i;e angels), so when Mormons talk about the nature of angels, it's not from Biblical interpretation but from a belief in direct interaction with them.

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

Quote

Only Scripture is the inerrant and infallible source of doctrine and practice. Only Scripture has the God-breathed authority to teach absolute truth... Experience and human reason must never be made the starting point for formulating theological truth. Human reason suffers from the noetic effects of sin. Autonomous human reason, and its perception of things, is entirely subjective and prone to error. Thus, let us lean not upon our own reason and experiences, but rather let us lean upon that infinite and sovereign God who revealed His own truth to us." - Douglass Oss, Professor of  Biblical Theology and New Testament Interpretation at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary.

 

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

 

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

 

But there is more than autonomous human reasoning at play, otherwise we are lost from the get-go. Only the condescension from God into our minds, by the operation of His light and Holy Spirit, leads us to salvation. That s not accomplished by the eye falling upon text. It often begins before any scriptural text is even heard of or read. That is why and how reading the word of God will never be enough. It is also why and how God’s messengers produce scripture (the text did not magically appear on paper from nowhere). That is why and how God freely gives us more than just scripture, as profitable as it is, to guide us.

A few examples:

Job 32:8, But it is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty gives them understanding.

2 Timothy 2:7, Consider what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.

Proverbs 28:5, Evil men do not understand justice, But those who seek the LORD understand all things.

Psalm 111:10, The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments; His praise endures forever.

Daniel 1:20, As for every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king consulted them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and conjurers who were in all his realm.

Daniel 5:11, There is a man in your kingdom in whom is a spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of your father, illumination, insight and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods were found in him.

Daniel 2:30, But as for me, this mystery has not been revealed to me for any wisdom residing in me more than in any other living man, but for the purpose of making the interpretation known to the king, and that you may understand the thoughts of your mind.

Daniel 9:22, He gave me instruction and talked with me and said, O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you insight with understanding.

1 Corinthians 2:12, Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,

Colossians 1:9, For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding.

Edited April 30, 2016 by CV75

[LeSellers]

8 hours ago, bytebear said:

Joseph Smith rarely declared truth, or interpreted scripture.

I think this could be much better phrased. It should have a dependent clause saying that he usually did it as you note later in the same post. He didn't set out to declare truth or interpret scripture: he searched for truth (and then declared it), wanted to understand scripture (and then interpreted it) as God answered his questions.

Lehi

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

What you guys share here is one of the biggest issues that divides Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints ... the doctrine of cessationism. ... the doctrine of continuationism. Yet even those who hold to this latter view believe that spiritual experiences are not at the same level of authority as Scripture. Here is a representative Evangelical statement from a Pentecostal scholar that highlights this understanding:

Quote

Only Scripture is the inerrant and infallible source of doctrine and practice. Only Scripture has the God-breathed authority to teach absolute truth... Experience and human reason must never be made the starting point for formulating theological truth. Human reason suffers from the noetic effects of sin. Autonomous human reason, and its perception of things, is entirely subjective and prone to error. Thus, let us lean not upon our own reason and experiences, but rather let us lean upon that infinite and sovereign God who revealed His own truth to us." - Douglass Oss, Professor of  Biblical Theology and New Testament Interpretation at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary.

 

The bolded part is a contradiction.  To us, the bolded part is exactly what all others are guilty of (i.e. trusting in the arm of flesh).  We have revelation today from God.  You have to depend on interpretation of written words that may or may not have the same meaning depending on which translation or which language you're looking at and then decide by majority vote who is correct. 

And when we have differences of opinion on the interpretation of some verses, who's to say who is correct?  We believe in both the guidance of a living prophet as well as the individual whisperings of the Holy Ghost to confirm that guidance.  You have man-made seminaries and man-reasoned conclusions.  Who's relying on God?  Who's relying on man?

We've already demonstrated that to interpret scripture is dependent upon our worldviews and preconceived notions.  An evangelical friend at work declared "But there are some scriptures that are so clear that you can't reasonably misinterpret them."

My response "I know a vegan Christian who points to 'thou shalt not kill' as incontrovertible proof that we are all to be vegans.' 

Sure, to us carnivores, it is absurd to make such an interpretation. But it is yet another example of how much of what evangelicals believe is based on majority vote by way of their own understanding rather than trusting in God.

To us it seems like you worship paper and ink bound in leather just as much as the ancients worshiped gold or stone idols or as you may believe we worship Joseph Smith or that Catholics worship Mary.  None of these are true.  But there's the comparison.

 We believe that scripture is made to help us focus and give background.  But the actual understanding and interpretation must come through His oracles and confirmation by the Holy Ghost. just as in ancient times.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Guest

[bytebear]

3 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I think this could be much better phrased. It should have a dependent clause saying that he usually did it as you note later in the same post. He didn't set out to declare truth or interpret scripture: he searched for truth (and then declared it), wanted to understand scripture (and then interpreted it) as God answered his questions.

Lehi

Yes, it was phrased wrong. I think most people would do the following.  A. Read and ponder, B study the context, history, original language, etc.. and C. Conclude the meaning based on B.

Smith on the other hand replaced B with prayer and revealed truth from God.  Then, what's interesting is he had an answer from God, and went back to B and studied the scripture to see how his revelation matched up.  Baptism for the dead is a good example of this.  His inquiry not only opened up the notion of the the ordinance, but also of the concept of spirit prison, paradise, and the whole spirit world between death and judgement.   This was a notion foreign to Christianity, and yet, when I read the Bible knowing what Smith revealed, it all makes sense.

This brings up another thing that troubles me about Evangelical interpretation, and it's not really a criticism but an observation. Prior to Mormonism, concepts like baptism for the dead were considered something of a mystery to scholars.  They knew some early Christian groups practiced baptism for the dead, but didn't know how or the purpose, or whether it was even something condoned or done by the apostles.   Well, enter Mormonism, and the argument went from "Well, we don't know" to "Well, we don;'t know, but it certainly isn't what those Mormons say".  I suppose I should be flattered that Mormonism is influencing the beliefs of other denominations, but really, I think a lot is lost in the study of the Bible.  And there are other examples too, and not just with Mormonism, from polygamy to the notion that Jesus may have been married, to whether the Sabbath is on Saturday or Sunday, or even the Jehovah Witness belief that Jesus was crucified on a stake and not a cross.  Not that we need to accept all these beliefs, but I don't think our study of the Bible should be dismissive of the text if it doesn't fit our immediate preconceived notions.   And Mormons do it too.  We certainly have a lot of unknowns in our own beliefs that we tend to fill in with the most obvious conclusion, and find it hard to see a passage in a different way (a big Kolob discussion on another thread comes to mind).

[zil]

The discussion of interpretation of scripture, vs prophets, vs personal revelation via the Holy Ghost, reminds me of some things I read by Hugh Nibley, wherein he explains how these things do not supersede or conflict with each other.  Should someone in this discussion wish to read them, they can be found here:

Chapter 23 "The Prophets and Scripture", The World and the Prophets

The first 9 paragraphs of Chapter 4 "Gifts" (up to footnote 1), Approaching Zion

FWIW

[spamlds]

Gosh I really hate these kinds of discussions.  Find a church in the last 2000 years that had real angels minister and appear to people as they did in the New Testament.  Catholics believe in angels and apparitions, but they only accept them after the people who were the recipients have long been dead.  After all, they don't want any living oracles who might expose their dogma to be false.

Protestants went so far as to reject revelation, angelic ministrations, etc. as unnecessary since they have the Bible.  They went so far as to assign to a book almost God-like power.  Then they use the Bible to quarrel about the Bible among themselves.  The exclusive acceptance of the Bible and the rejection of revelation of any kind is the very source of Christian disunity and confusion.

How ironic it is that churches and religionists, who would never believe a recipient of a true angelic ministration, use the Bible to reject the testimonies of those who testified of angelic ministrations.  Latter-day saints have had (and continue to have, I might add) living witnesses who have seen, spoken with, and communed with angels.  We have more experience with angels in the last two centuries than all of Christendom has had since the loss of the keys and the Great Apostasy took hold of the ancient Church.

It is pointless to bicker over biblical interpretations, Greek translations, etc.  From Moroni's appearance to Joseph Smith to the present day, angels are not unknown to us.  Even some of us have, as Paul said, "entertained angels unawares" (Hebrews 13:2).  We haven't followed "cunningly devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16).  The book of Acts tells us that angels were actively involved with the 1st century Church.  They are just as active in today's restored Church.  The true Church is still connected to the "home office" in heaven.

[Steve Noel]

23 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The bolded part is a contradiction.  To us, the bolded part is exactly what all others are guilty of (i.e. trusting in the arm of flesh).  We have revelation today from God.  You have to depend on interpretation of written words that may or may not have the same meaning depending on which translation or which language you're looking at and then decide by majority vote who is correct. 

And when we have differences of opinion on the interpretation of some verses, who's to say who is correct?  We believe in both the guidance of a living prophet as well as the individual whisperings of the Holy Ghost to confirm that guidance.  You have man-made seminaries and man-reasoned conclusions.  Who's relying on God?  Who's relying on man?

We've already demonstrated that to interpret scripture is dependent upon our worldviews and preconceived notions.  An evangelical friend at work declared "But there are some scriptures that are so clear that you can't reasonably misinterpret them."

My response "I know a vegan Christian who points to 'thou shalt not kill' as incontrovertible proof that we are all to be vegans.' 

Sure, to us carnivores, it is absurd to make such an interpretation. But it is yet another example of how much of what evangelicals believe is based on majority vote by way of their own understanding rather than trusting in God.

To us it seems like you worship paper and ink bound in leather just as much as the ancients worshiped gold or stone idols or as you may believe we worship Joseph Smith or that Catholics worship Mary.  None of these are true.  But there's the comparison.

 We believe that scripture is made to help us focus and give background.  But the actual understanding and interpretation must come through His oracles and confirmation by the Holy Ghost. just as in ancient times.

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

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Were they as cynical about their clarity as Latter-day Saints are?

Please try the Nibley chapters I posted - he points out clearly, how despite having and being familiar with the scriptures, the people of Christ's day did not understand them until He taught them their true meaning.  We need the scriptures + prophets + revelation through the Holy Ghost (or Heavenly messengers, AKA angels).  When we have all three in agreement, we have a solid foundation.

[LeSellers]

6 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I have seen this idea several times now from Latter-day Saints. If someone shows why a text should be understood in a certain way using grammatical-historical principles of interpretation, then they are "trusting in the arm of flesh." … If anyone seeks to demonstrate the meaning of a text through exegesis in context, then they are "relying on man."

Yes, … and no.

Since we have living prophets who speak for God under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, our understanding of the scriptures may go well beyond what the words say and mean.

We use both the scriptures and the words of these prophets to discern what the Gospel is all about, and how to live as Christ has commanded us.

I (among others) have done a lot of exegesis, struggling with the Greek (primarily, although with the Hebrew, too). For instance, Matt 16:13~19. It does not mean what most Christians imagine, but is, in fact, a prophecy about the return of the Church and of Temple work for the dead.

That my study underscores and re-enforces LDS doctrine is a bonus, but I'd still have the doctrine without the study.

6 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

The assumption seems to be that God can speak to us by the Spirit, but not by the Scriptures.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

6 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

The Scriptures are just too unclear. Since people misinterpret the Scriptures we cannot trust them.

Not that we cannot trust them, but that we cannot use them to definitively resolve conflicts.

6 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I would encourage Latter-day Saints to consider what your view of Scripture implies about God's ability to communicate through His Word. I would also encourage you to examine how Jesus and his early followers viewed Scripture. Were they as cynical about their clarity as Latter-day Saints are?

Probably, but only because it seems you're overstating our "cynicism".

Lehi

Edited May 1, 2016 by LeSellers

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

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

Ultimately, revelation is the only way God communicates to man. The scriptures are words on paper. They are not magical talismans. If I don't understand the meaning of some word or expression, it does not magically become clear to me just because I read it in scripture. So in this sense, yes, understanding the ancient sources can be very helpful.

But those who understand the language of the scriptures perfectly can and often do still misinterpret and misapply them. Witness the scribes and the Pharisees of Jesus' time. The only way to avoid this is to have the scriptures revealed to you through the Spirit. That means that you must receive revelation.

You are mistaken about LDS being cynical about scripture. It is quite the opposite. When Jesus appeared to the Nephite remnant in the New World after his resurrection, his first words were about the fulfillment of scripture. One of his very first acts among the people was to examine their scriptures and chide them for having left out important events that showed the fulfillment of other scripture. When he taught the people, he quoted scripture -- the very Being who gave those scriptures originally, and who could well have simply stated them anew.

The Book of Mormon itself exists to bear testimony of the truthfulness of the Bible. The restored gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints takes the scriptures more seriously and more to heart than any other sect or people in the world. We are taught to treasure and search the scriptures. But we do not worship the scriptures. We worship God, and from him we receive the word. The scriptures play an important role in that process, and are themselves a type of revelation. But it is revelation from heaven that takes center stage.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

The assumption seems to be that God can speak to us by the Spirit, but not by the Scriptures. The Scriptures are just too unclear. Since people misinterpret the Scriptures we cannot trust them. If anyone seeks to demonstrate the meaning of a text through exegesis in context, then they are "relying on man."

Not quite.  We study and recite scriptures just as much as any faith.  We believe and know that they have value.  Our leaders have said that scriptures are what all our doctrine is measured against.  But we're also aware that interpretation is just as undependable as many evangelicals seem to think our "feelings" are.  

Quote

In some faith traditions, theologians claim equal teaching authority with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and doctrinal matters may become a contest of opinions between them. Some rely on the ecumenical councils of the Middle Ages and their creeds. Others place primary emphasis on the reasoning of post-apostolic theologians or on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. We value scholarship that enhances understanding, but in the Church today, just as anciently, establishing the doctrine of Christ or correcting doctrinal deviations is a matter of divine revelation to those the Lord endows with apostolic authority.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson (General Conference May 2012)

So, we are counseled to study the scriptures and continually take up into our minds and hearts the words of life.  Then we are counseled to pray about them.  

In the end, our understanding of scripture has to come from God in some way shape or form.  We believe it is through the Holy Ghost confirming the interpretations of our leaders whom God has chosen -- not just blindly following their words alone.  This is so that we are also not bound by the utterances of a single man.

Quote

Apostles and prophets such as Joseph Smith declare God’s word, but in addition, we believe men and women generally and even children can learn from and be guided by divine inspiration in response to prayer and study of the scriptures. Just as in the days of the ancient Apostles, members of the Church of Jesus Christ are given the gift of the Holy Ghost, which facilitates an ongoing communication with their Heavenly Father, or, in other words, personal revelation (see Acts 2:37–38). In this way, the Church becomes a body of committed, spiritually mature individuals whose faith is not blind but seeing—informed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit. This is not to say that every member speaks for the Church or can define its doctrines but that each can receive divine guidance in dealing with the challenges and opportunities of his or her life.

IBID

What is it that evangelicals use to interpret scriptures that is not from the mind of man?

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I would encourage Latter-day Saints to consider what your view of Scripture implies about God's ability to communicate through His Word. I would also encourage you to examine how Jesus and his early followers viewed Scripture. Were they as cynical about their clarity as Latter-day Saints are?

This is yet another topic that I'd find fascinating to explore.

Lately, I've come to find out more about just how powerful the Book of Mormon is.  I know that there is power in the Bible as well, for in the end, they do teach the same things.  But lately, I'm truly gaining a spiritual testimony of the Book of Mormon as more than just a history book or a book of good examples of living righteously, or even a book of doctrines and beliefs.

I'm seeing the Book of Mormon as a truly powerful tool that the Lord uses to bring the Spirit into the hearts and minds of those who read it.  I know that scriptures are a lens through which the Spirit can be brought into people's lives.  I know that as we ponder the principles taught in them, we can be ready to receive the guidance and teaching that only the Holy Ghost can bring.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Guest