Angels

[Jane_Doe]

5 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." 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?

God has used a bush, filled of His burning presence, to convey His message to people- a marvelous event.  But I don't see anyone suggesting that the study bushes and botany  as THE primer direct path to getting to know God. Why?  Because it's obvious that it is/was God's burning that was significant, not the natural occurring bush.  And to focus on the natural bush instead of the burning... honestly looks like idol worship.  

Like the burning bush, the written words of the Bible burn within those that have ears to hear-- and it is that burning, that testimony of the Spirit, which is the most important.  But... honestly I do see some Evangelicals whom seemingly idolize studying the written words via linguistics, while ignoring the burning Word.  The written words on the paper are important, but one should not use them to shut out the Word.   

 

(Note: I'm not saying that botany or linguistic studies are evil- they can bring much good and much insight, but nothing is more important than Heavenly Witness of truth).  

[Steve Noel]

7 hours ago, zil said:

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.

I will check out what Nibley wrote.

[Steve Noel]

6 hours ago, LeSellers said:

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.

Thank you for responding. I want to better understand what you are saying here. If, based on inspired living prophets, your understanding of the Scriptures can go well beyond what the words say and mean, then are you really understanding the Scriptures? When I read what you write here I hear you saying that what the Scriptures say and mean is ultimately irrelevant. All that matters is the meaning given from the Holy Spirit through the inspired living prophets. Please correct if I misunderstand. If this is the case, what is the point of the Scriptures? 

6 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I (among others) have done a lot of exegesis, struggling with the Greek (primarily, although with the Hebrew, too).

 Yes, I appreciate that about you. Even if I do not agree with your conclusions. You usually do not disparage scholarly study. This has not been my experience thus far with other Latter-day Saints. 

6 hours ago, LeSellers said:

The two are not mutually exclusive

I fully agree. One of the primary ways that the Spirit speaks to us is through the Scriptures. 

6 hours ago, LeSellers said:

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

In 2 Tim. 3:16 the apostle Paul tell us that the God-breathed Scriptures are profitable or useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. Surely Paul would not agree that they are not profitable or useful for definitively resolving conflicts. In fact, in v.17 he says that these Scriptures were inspired by God so that the man of God may be adequately equipped for every good work. The God-breathed Scriptures are adequate for dealing with conflicts.

6 hours ago, LeSellers said:

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

Perhaps, though my previous comments speak to this issue. 

[Steve Noel]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

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.

I agree that revelation is the only way God communicates to man. Yet  I would argue that the Scriptures are a revelation from God to man. To say that the only way to not misunderstand the Scriptures is to have revelation of their meaning is unwarranted. This amounts to saying that we need a revelation from God to understand a revelation from God. Are you saying that there will be no misinterpretation or misapplication if we all get a revelation from God about the meaning of Scripture? What about false prophets with false revelations. You and I should both agree that Muhammad of Mecca was a false prophet with a false revelation. According to the revelations he received from the angel Gabriel Jesus is not the Son of God, nor God, the Son, nor the Savior of the world, did not atone for the sins of the world, etc. Yet Muhammad teaches that Islamic beliefs are in the Bible. Why is Muhammad wrong?

6 hours ago, Vort said:

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.

I would not argue that Latter-day Saints do not value and study the Scriptures. What I wrote is that Latter-day Saints are cynical about the clarity of the Scriptures. You have said as much in the first quote above. I think that this cynicism about the clarity of the Scriptures is in the DNA of Mormonism. It flows from Joseph Smith's cynicism about the clarity of Scripture. Here is what he writes when telling about the lead up to the First Vision:

Quote

For the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. - Joseph Smith History 1:12

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Steve Noel

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Thank you for responding. I want to better understand what you are saying here. If, based on inspired living prophets, your understanding of the Scriptures can go well beyond what the words say and mean, then are you really understanding the Scriptures? When I read what you write here I hear you saying that what the Scriptures say and mean is ultimately irrelevant. All that matters is the meaning given from the Holy Spirit through the inspired living prophets. Please correct if I misunderstand. If this is the case, what is the point of the Scriptures? 

The scriptures have more than one purpose. Not least, of course, is to define doctrine and practice. But there is at least this in addition: they (ought to) force us to ask questions about doctrine and practice. It is this second where men grow further apart from each other. But even for the first, there are significant deviations from one interpretation and another.

We live in a world where a book of scripture is cheap. I can buy a Bible for $2.50, less than two minutes pay for me. In the past, it could cost a wagon load of hay (the equivalent of a half day's pay for an average working man) to rent a Bible for four hours back when Tyndale first translated it into English. One would hope that more exposure to the Bible would make men better disciples. But the more I see what people have done with this great gift, the less I am impressed. They still turn to the "scholars" to interpret the words.

We have discussed baptism, for instance. Until about 500 years ago, the scriptural requirement for entry into the kingdom of God was baptism. Nowadays, the majority of non-Catholic Christians believe that baptism is nothing more than a public commitment to follow Christ. But that is not what the Bible says at all. One must actively work at disregarding the message of the scriptures about baptism and, particularly, its ritualistic meaning. It took a scholar to "discover" the "fact" that baptism is not what Christ declared it to be, that Apostles told us it is. I respect Luther and Tyndale and Wycliffe and all the others (possibly excepting Zwingli) of the Reformation, and they were inspired to undertake the work God commissioned them to do. But they were not prophets, and did not claim to be. Zwingli was 'way off base.

The reason we have scripture is not to give the modern day equivalent of rabbis something to study and then to pronounce the deep meaning behind them, i.e., how we must understand the message. The original Lehi was a wealthy man. He did not own his own copy of the scriptures. Before he could leave Jerusalem, God sent Lehi's four sons back to get a durable copy so they could remember the covenants of the people of God. Owning (and even reading) the scriptures was, until the XIX, a very rare event. But it was quite common for men to discuss them, quote from them, and use them all from memory, in public discourse. Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America) was surprised at how religion was wholly integrated into the culture of USmerica. And it was in that culture that Joseph Smith, reflecting on the scriptures (famously James 3:5, but he had read and reflected on a whole heap more).

We Saints have the scriptures as a touchstone for doctrine, as a point of departure for our own reflections and meditations. We have prophets to assure that our flights stay on the charts.

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

I would not argue that Latter-day Saints do not value and study the Scriptures. What I wrote is that Latter-day Saints are cynical about the clarity of the Scriptures. You have said as much in the first quote above. I think that this cynicism about the clarity of the Scriptures is in the DNA of Mormonism. It flows from Joseph Smith's cynicism about the clarity of Scripture. Here is what he writes when telling about the lead up to the First Vision:

Quote

For the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. - Joseph Smith History 1:12

It was not scriptural clarity he was concerned about, it was the fact that people did not, do not, understand scripture in the same way. You cannot logically maintain that there is anything like a uniformity of understanding among Christians on a plethora of topics. Paul mentioned this in Ephesians 4:11~16:

Quote

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:  13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:  14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;  15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Have reached a unity of the faith?
Are we no longer tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men?
Do men no longer lie in wait to deceive?
Is the whole body fitly joined together?
Have we reached the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ?
Do we have a knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man?

Please show us one point that the Apostle required we meet before the Lord could possibly remove Apostles and prophets from His Church.

If we haven't reached that point, why are there no more prophets, no more Apostles?

Lehi
 

Edited May 1, 2016 by LeSellers

[Steve Noel]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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.  

I can agree with you that interpretation can be incorrect and undependable. The interpretations of men must also be measured by the Scriptures. The remedy to bad interpretation is good interpretation, not no interpretation.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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.

Doesn't the apostle Paul say that the God-breathed Scriptures are adequate for teaching doctrine and correcting deviations (2 Tim. 3:16-17)? This is a perfect example of what we are discussing here. The apostle Paul teaches that the God-breathed Scriptures adequately equip the man of God to teach doctrine and correct deviations. Elder Christofferson says that they are not. He states that only one endowed with divine authority who has received divine revelation can adequately establish doctrine and correct deviations.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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

Is the mind of a believer independent of God? Cannot God work through the believer's mind? Let me use myself as an illustration. I regularly pray before I read or study Scripture. I continually ask Jesus to do for me what he did for the believers he appeared to after his resurrection. Luke 24:45 tells us that "He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." I have prayed this many many times in the 20 years I have been studying Scripture. Is the understanding I get come from the mind of man or from the Spirit?

[bytebear]

"The remedy to bad interpretation is good interpretation, not no interpretation."

I disagree.  The remedy to bad interpretation is prophetic intervention. 

[Jane_Doe]

50 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I regularly pray before I read or study Scripture. I continually ask Jesus to do for me what he did for the believers he appeared to after his resurrection. Luke 24:45 tells us that "He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." I have prayed this many many times in the 20 years I have been studying Scripture. Is the understanding I get come from the mind of man or from the Spirit?

Then you, through your prayer, are inviting in revelation to understand the scripture.  This is Good.

What is not good is a person who does not pray, but just opens the Bible as a book, shutting out the Spirit.  To this Spirit-less person, the Bible does no good.

[Jane_Doe]

@Steve Noel

I hope we don't come off as being rude here, even though we do challenge your views.  You are quite respectful and knowledgeable, and I enjoy the opportunity to have a serious respectful with you.

[Steve Noel]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Then you, through your prayer, are inviting in revelation to understand the scripture.  This is Good.

What is not good is a person who does not pray, but just opens the Bible as a book, shutting out the Spirit.  To this Spirit-less person, the Bible does no good.

Yes, I agree. 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

1) I can agree with you that interpretation can be incorrect and undependable. The interpretations of men must also be measured by the Scriptures. The remedy to bad interpretation is good interpretation, not no interpretation.

2) Doesn't the apostle Paul say that the God-breathed Scriptures are adequate for teaching doctrine and correcting deviations (2 Tim. 3:16-17)? This is a perfect example of what we are discussing here. The apostle Paul teaches that the God-breathed Scriptures adequately equip the man of God to teach doctrine and correct deviations. Elder Christofferson says that they are not. He states that only one endowed with divine authority who has received divine revelation can adequately establish doctrine and correct deviations.

3) Is the mind of a believer independent of God? Cannot God work through the believer's mind? Let me use myself as an illustration. I regularly pray before I read or study Scripture. I continually ask Jesus to do for me what he did for the believers he appeared to after his resurrection. Luke 24:45 tells us that "He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." I have prayed this many many times in the 20 years I have been studying Scripture. Is the understanding I get come from the mind of man or from the Spirit?

Thanks for considering my comments.  I like a lot of what you've been saying so far.  Here is my response to these three items.

1) I'd refer to @bytebear's comment above.  I agree with him.  And I'd say it is the correct response to your question about Muhammed.  But I think something is not quite translating when it gets to your world view.  I'll have to think about it for a while and get back to you.

2) I agree 100%.  But again it seems that we're saying the same thing and yet we're finding disagreement anyway.

3) Yes, the believer's mind is "often" independent of God.  The goal of course is to be one with God.  We truly are His servants and believers when our mind represents the mind of Christ, our wishes, the wishes of Christ, and His words abide in us.  And this is what it means to have independent revelation.  Is your understanding that of man or of God?  That's between you and the Lord.  But if you are saying it is inspiration, then you are saying exactly what we're saying.

The next obvious question is when we both claim inspiration from the Holy Ghost,  and our interpretations disagree, who's right and who's wrong?  My response is two fold.

A) First I'd say that it is a forced either or (most of the time).  I tend to think that we always only get part of the picture.  The blind men and the elephant again.  For the most part, I see much of what you believe fits very nicely into our overall doctrinal picture.  But I see it as very incomplete.  And while it may be the knee jerk reaction to say that you're wrong, I often think, "yes, but you're not seeing the whole picture."

B) The way the Lord has done it in the past was that he sent prophets to settle the matter.  How do you tell the difference between true prophets and false ones?  Jesus Himself told us: By their fruits ye shall know them.  As for Mormons, can you honestly say that you have found Mormons to be evil, dishonest, uneducated, unaccomplished, unpleasant, criminal, selfish, etc.?  Most people who really know Mormons, if they can get past the differences in beliefs, they usually have a high opinion of us -- or at the very least, we're no worse than the average person.  How many false prophets have created a system of beliefs as complex as ours and made such an impression on the world?  'cause I'll tell you that Muhammed has not done so.

 

 

[Steve Noel]

6 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

@Steve Noel

I hope we don't come off as being rude here, even though we do challenge your views.  You are quite respectful and knowledgeable, and I enjoy the opportunity to have a serious respectful with you.

Not at all. I enjoy these discussions. I appreciate all the interaction here. I am alright with my views being challenged. Many times God has shown me where I was wrong or unbalanced through those I disagreed with. This discussion about Scripture and revelation causes me to clarify the issues at stake and work through them (that includes prayer). I feel that this is an area God wants me to explore deeply.

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Doesn't the apostle Paul say that the God-breathed Scriptures are adequate for teaching doctrine and correcting deviations (2 Tim. 3:16-17)? This is a perfect example of what we are discussing here. The apostle Paul teaches that the God-breathed Scriptures adequately equip the man of God to teach doctrine and correct deviations.

Well, no, Paul does not say that.

Quote

16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

"Adequate" implies that it is all we need. "Profitable" (also translated "useful") means that it is helpful or beneficial. They are not the same concepts.

If you have a different translation that gives "adequate", it would be interesting to see how the translators arrived at this unique rendering.

The translation being erroneous, the conclusion is likewise inadequate.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Is the mind of a believer independent of God? Cannot God work through the believer's mind?

Yes, it is independent. That's what agency (or free will) is all about.

Yes, He can.

But that does not mean He has not called prophets and Apostles, as He promised He would, and it does not mean that this hypothetical believer is uninfluenced by his environment and training. That is, among others, a reason that Joseph Smith was called in his early youth: he was relatively unaffected by the mindset of the common religion around him and could be taught by ministers (angels, just a nod at the topic title here) in the school of the prophets.

Lehi

[Steve Noel]

5 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Well, no, Paul does not say that.

"Adequate" implies that it is all we need. "Profitable" (also translated "useful") means that it is helpful or beneficial. They are not the same concepts.

If you have a different translation that gives "adequate", it would be interesting to see how the translators arrived at this unique rendering.

The translation being erroneous, the conclusion is likewise inadequate.

Lehi

The word "adequate" does not come from v.16. It is in the NASB translation of v.17. It reads:

Quote

so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The Greek word here is "artios" (transliterated, I don't know how to get Greek characters in here). According to the Greek and English Interlinear New Testament edited by William and Robert Mounce this word means "entirely suited; capable, proficient, complete in accomplishment, ready."

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thank you for responding. I want to better understand what you are saying here. If, based on inspired living prophets, your understanding of the Scriptures can go well beyond what the words say and mean, then are you really understanding the Scriptures? When I read what you write here I hear you saying that what the Scriptures say and mean is ultimately irrelevant. All that matters is the meaning given from the Holy Spirit through the inspired living prophets.

I understand how you got that meaning.  But it is off just a bit.  Yet another example of misinterpretation of the written word.  I think it is better if I give you an example.

Joseph Smith was talking about the doctrine that there are more gods than one.  For example, The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost are all gods.  Therefore, there are three.  And you're aware of what we call "eternal progression".  He brought up 1 Cor 8:5.  Then said:

Quote

"Some say I do not interpret the Scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text".

Yes, the words mean something.  What we are saying is that it is important that we find the true meaning of the words.  This can only be accomplished by real revelation.

We need to take a lesson from Matt 15:14 and Luke 6:39.  All we learn from each other is what a blind man can teach another blind man about colors.  We have the scriptures, and we need to interpret them correctly.  If we get an interpretation through inspiration, then it must be confirmed by another source from God: 2 Cor 13:1 (two or three witnesses).  Another man who has his independent inspiration is insufficient.  That is the blind leading the blind.  But a prophet who is called of God as was Aaron (Heb 5:4) is a valid second witness.

Additionally, for doctrine to be binding in our faith, such interpretation must also be sustained by other apostles as well.

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

...This amounts to saying that we need a revelation from God to understand a revelation from God. Are you saying that there will be no misinterpretation or misapplication if we all get a revelation from God about the meaning of Scripture?

In a sense, yes.  So, if we need revelation anyway, why have scriptures?  Excellent question.  I'm glad you asked.  The scriptures offer a focal point.  It provides a mortal means of presenting a supernatural idea or principle to the mortal mind.  Then we must have a supernatural means of interpreting supernatural substance that mortal focal point.

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

I think that this cynicism about the clarity of the Scriptures is in the DNA of Mormonism. It flows from Joseph Smith's cynicism about the clarity of Scripture. Here is what he writes when telling about the lead up to the First Vision:

You may have a point about our cyincisim regarding the clarity of the written word.  You need only go to the Supreme Court to get ample evidence of that idea.  And that is only about mortal words and mortal concepts.  How much more difficult is it to accurately interpret supernatural concepts without the aid of heaven?

 

[LeSellers]

17 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

The word "adequate" does not come from v.16. It is in the NASB translation of v.17. It reads:

The Greek word here is "artios" (transliterated, I don't know how to get Greek characters in here [it's ἄρτιος]). According to the Greek and English Interlinear New Testament edited by William and Robert Mounce this word means "entirely suited; capable, proficient, complete in accomplishment, ready."

I can give you that translation. But your original claim was that Paul wrote that the scriptures were adequate, and that is not what he said.

19 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Doesn't the apostle Paul say that the God-breathed Scriptures are adequate for teaching doctrine and correcting deviations (2 Tim. 3:16-17)?

The man of God who is adequate uses the profitable scriptures, but that does not make the scriptures themselves adequate. It seems you've read more into Paul's words than he meant or said.

Further, Paul could not have meant the New Testament, since it had not been compiled and was largely not written when he wrote to Timothy: there was no New Testament for Timothy to read. Yes, he did say "all writing God-breathed profitable …", but he did not write "all writing is God-breathed and is profitable …". The verbs were supplied by the translators, not the Apostle. We can reasonably, but not authoritatively, assume he did mean what the scribes wrote.

In addition, we might ask, which scriptures was Paul referring to? We know that they were originally written in Hebrew, but, as far as I can tell, the New Testament cites the LXX, not the Hebrew. The LXX is woefully inadequate in many cases. One of the more egregious examples is Matthew's use of Isaiah when he used the LXX "virgin" (parthanos) rather than the Hebrew "young woman" (almah). Yes, Matthew was correct in citing the ancient prophet, but the original verse does not say what he claimed it did because he used a bad translation.

Which gets us to who God wants working with His scriptures. Your mileage may vary, but my vote goes to prophets, not translators.

Lehi

Edited May 2, 2016 by LeSellers

[anatess2]

On 4/30/2016 at 7:34 AM, 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:

 

Spiritual experiences will NEVER go against Scripture.  If they do, then there's some contradiction that has to be resolved.

When a contradiction occurs, what is most likely is either of these 3 scenarios:

1.)  The person interpreted incorrectly the meaning of the spiritual experience.  This is akin to the events in the Old Testament when the Spirit would give messages through dreams and the dream is interpreted incorrectly which leads to the wrong understanding of the spiritual message.

2.)  The person interpreted the meaning of the scriptures.  We have several examples of that here on this thread where we look at the same exact scripture verse regarding angels and we come away with 2 completely different interpretations.

3.)  The person interpreted both the spiritual experience and the scriptures incorrectly.

In any case, God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow and He speaks to us in many ways - the Word, the Prophets, the Holy Ghost.  All of these ways will not contradict as they come from only one source, one truth, one God.

[anatess2]

Duplicate.

Edited May 2, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

Okay, it's time for another "Missing Truths" that I am seeing as causing a gap between what Steve refers to as Scriptures and what the Mormons are referring to as Scriptures.

Catholics have a different set of scriptures than Evangelicals and both of them have a different set of Scriptures than the LDS.  But, at least, Catholics and Evangelicals only disagree with what books are Scripture and are pretty much mostly in agreement with what those that are present in both sets of Scriptures mean.  Those that are different between Catholics and Evangelicals are either different interpretations of Biblical verses as the Catholics use Sacred Tradition to provide depth of meaning to the Bible whereas Evangelicals do not look to any other sources external to what Evangelicals consider as the Holy Bible.

The Mormons, on the other hand, believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; and also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

Because of this, the Catholics and Evangelicals may believe scriptural teachings one way and the Mormons believe it differently in light of the Book of Mormon and the revelations of the restored gospel that clarifies the Holy Bible.

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

1) ...whereas Evangelicals do not look to any other sources external to what Evangelicals consider as the Holy Bible.

2) The Mormons, on the other hand, believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly

1) While I'm sure that is what Evangelicals believe, I'd disagree with the reality.  They go to seminaries and schools of divinity / theology which perpetuate the already established interpretations that are more tradition than reality.  So, right there, we have an external source other than the Bible.  But because of their world view, it's not indoctrination.  It's common sense.

2) The word "translated" is an ambiguous one and possibly inaccurate.  It was, I suppose the best word Joseph Smith could have used at the time based on his vocabulary.  I tend to think that it is more accurate to say "interpreted".  

James Clavell did an edition of Sun Tzu's Art of War.  In the preface he decided that he was not going to debate the exact translation with anyone else who had a different interpretation of Tzu's work.  He reasoned:

Quote

Any translation from ancient Chinese to modern English is largely a matter of opinion.

And he certainly had a point.  The same can be said of Ancient Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc.  Even if we go back to the earliest editions of texts now available, how can we truly know what the original writers meant to properly translate into modern English?

In any translation effort, there are matters of opinion and context that are required to be taken into account.  Even when we translate from modern English to modern Spanish or French or... we have differences in how words are used.  We even had a thread where we just looked at the words of a single verse in the D&C and found that the words don't say the same thing or even meaning.  Yet, those are the approved translations by a single authoritative source.  How much more difficult, then, to translate any ancient work, who has no current representative, nor commentary documents such as the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers, to say what the original intent was?

That is what I believe the 8th article of faith really refers to.  It is about the "lost in translation" effect - which is unavoidable, as well as the errors by well-meaning, but ignorant men.

 

 

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

2) The word "translated" is an ambiguous one and possibly inaccurate.  It was, I suppose the best word Joseph Smith could have used at the time based on his vocabulary.  I tend to think that it is more accurate to say "interpreted".  

I know you  have a copy of Webster's 1828 Dictionary at your house: I've seen it.

Here's what it says about "translate":

Quote

Translate

TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another. The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.
2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death. By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death. Hebrews 11:15.
3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.
4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.
5. To change. Happy is your grace, That can translate the stubbornness of fortune Into so quiet and so sweet a style.
6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.
7. To explain.

In Joseph's day, the word translate did not mean "To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the word of another" as a primary or even common connotation. It was, of seven meanings, the sixth. All of the more common definitions had the sense of moving from one place (or time, although not expressly stated here) to another. We still use it in this sense when speaking of spacecraft: "translate from one orbit to another". In today's dictionary, we have:

 

Quote

Translate

verb (used with object), translated, translating.
1. to turn from one language into another or from a foreign language into one's own: to translate Spanish.
2. to change the form, condition, nature, etc., of; transform; convert: to translate wishes into deeds.
3. to explain in terms that can be more easily understood; interpret.
4. to bear, carry, or move from one place, position, etc., to another; transfer.
5. Mechanics. to cause (a body) to move without rotation or angular displacement; subject to translation.
6. Computers. to convert (a program, data, code, etc.) from one form to another: to translate a FORTRAN program into assembly language.
7.Telegraphy. to retransmit or forward (a message), as by a relay.

1250-1300; Middle English translaten < Latin trānslātus (past participle of trānsferre to transfer), equivalent to trāns- trans- + -lātus (suppletive past participle of ferre to bear¹), earlier *tlātus, equivalent to *tlā- bear (akin to thole²) + -tus past participle suffix

 

The primary connotation has receded to fourth, and the sixth advanced to the first over the past two centuries.

 

When we read older texts, whatever they may be (the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, for example), or what people from earlier centuries said, we need to be aware that they did not speak XXI American English, but the vernacular of their day.

 

When Joseph Smith wrote We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, he wasn't nearly as concerned about the languages it had passed through as much as about the hands it had passed through:

 

Quote

Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.

Lehi

 

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

Ahh, yes.  The intricacies of the mathematical language!

You make a good point.  I'd forgotten about that aspect.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Guest

[Rhoades]

21 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I agree that revelation is the only way God communicates to man. Yet  I would argue that the Scriptures are a revelation from God to man. To say that the only way to not misunderstand the Scriptures is to have revelation of their meaning is unwarranted. This amounts to saying that we need a revelation from God to understand a revelation from God. Are you saying that there will be no misinterpretation or misapplication if we all get a revelation from God about the meaning of Scripture? What about false prophets with false revelations. You and I should both agree that Muhammad of Mecca was a false prophet with a false revelation. According to the revelations he received from the angel Gabriel Jesus is not the Son of God, nor God, the Son, nor the Savior of the world, did not atone for the sins of the world, etc. Yet Muhammad teaches that Islamic beliefs are in the Bible. Why is Muhammad wrong?

 

Quote

To say that the only way to not misunderstand the Scriptures is to have revelation of their meaning is unwarranted.

I wouldn't word it the way you did.  See what I write below about misinterpretation even after getting revelation.

 

Quote

This amounts to saying that we need a revelation from God to understand a revelation from God.

This is right.  Recall 1 Corinthians 2:12,14

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The Holy Ghost is given to us so we can know the things "given to us of God".  This includes the scriptures.  We need the Spirit to know them.  We need personal revelation to know the revelations.

 

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. "  As the Apostles remembered and reflected on the things Jesus had said (which was already scripture/revelation), the Holy Ghost was able to further teach them and help them understand.  They received revelation to understand the revelation.  Like you mentioned, we pray for help in understanding the scriptures and he can open our understanding (Luke 24:45).  This is revelation.

 

Others have mentioned our belief in modern prophets and apostles and their help in interpreting scripture.  I would point out that even assuming they are of God speaking truth through the Spirit, one needs personal revelation to truly understand what they teach.  Revelation through the Spirit is ultimately the way we learn truth.

 

Quote

Are you saying that there will be no misinterpretation or misapplication if we all get a revelation from God about the meaning of Scripture?

Even if we are talking about real revelation from God, I say no.  We could still have misinterpretation or misapplication.  Let me explain.  A key thing to know here is that although He reveals things to us, He doesn't reveal all things to us all at once.  Just because He reveals something to me doesn't mean He has revealed all to me.  I could therefore make incorrect overreaching conclusions or misapply things.  We are weak and imperfect and simply don't know everything.  However, if we are striving to walk with Him our knowledge and understanding will increase over time.  In His wisdom, He doesn't reveal everything to us all at once.  We learn bit by bit over time.  We see evidence of this in the New Testament with the apostles.  He'll give us more and more truth as long as we accept what we have and we're open to learning more.  If we personally learn something that dispels a wrong interpretation we previously had, we accept it.  Another key thing to know is that although our understanding might not be perfect and complete, if we sincerely rely on Him things will work out for our good.  In other words, it's OK that our learning is a process.  He'll give us as much as we need to know and as much as we can handle according to His timing.  If we reject what we already know and don't walk with Him, we have no such promise.  We can lose the spiritual knowledge we once had.

One of my favorite scriptures from the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 50:24) is: That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

 

Quote

What about false prophets with false revelations. You and I should both agree that Muhammad of Mecca was a false prophet with a false revelation. According to the revelations he received from the angel Gabriel Jesus is not the Son of God, nor God, the Son, nor the Savior of the world, did not atone for the sins of the world, etc. Yet Muhammad teaches that Islamic beliefs are in the Bible. Why is Muhammad wrong?

Of course not all that is claimed to be revelation from God is revelation from God.  Furthermore, the Muhammad example reinforces the notion that although the Bible is scripture and from God one can misunderstand some of its teachings.  We need God's help in discerning it.  He's given us great gifts to help us understand scripture (e.g. other scriptures, apostles, prophets, teachers, prayer, etc. ) but the ultimate helper working hand in hand with all of these is the Spirit.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Rhoades
Corrected reference to D&C 50. Changed wording; I didn't like my use of "led astray" which could be misinterpreted.

[LeSellers]

21 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Muhammad teaches that Islamic beliefs are in the Bible. Why is Muhammad wrong?

In certain respects, he was not wrong. Many of his teachings are in the Bible, but not all of them. Many of the teachings of the Bible are in his, but not all of them.

If I had the motivation, I'd draw a Venn diagram. It would look like two intersecting circles, not entirely overlapping, and neither included entirely within the other. The intersection would be significant, but the non-intersection would be even more so.

The same could be said of almost any religious or semi-religious texts. Wicca, for instance, has a version of the Golden Rule. That does not make Wicca "true".

Lehi