The Weekly Town Crier
Lot’s of links, lots of stuff. So many links, so little time. Don’t you worry, I’ve sifted through the chaff to bring you the wheat of the blogosphere. Here’s some of what caught my eye this week:
See what I hear.
Sign up for eMusic, find lots of DRM-free downloads and help me earn free downloads in the process. Everyone wins!
Read as Time examines the secrecy surrounding the last Harry Potter installment.
Read the report that Antioch college will close its doors.
Read as Yahoo Food discusses the “musts and myths” of organic food.
Consider as Albert Mohler and Orson Scott Card discuss whether or not Mormons can be considered “Christians.”
Read about the Arkansas pastor who is standing against his city’s recent move to legalize same-sex “domestic partnership.”
Read about the city officials of St. Petersburg, FL limiting the protest surrounding the city’s upcoming “homosexual festival.”
Read about Russell Crow and Leonardo di Caprio both starring in an upcoming Al Quada movie (htx3: pr).
Ever wonder why sometimes the moon looks bigger?
Read about the funeral for Captain America.
Browse the week in photos from Yahoo.
Read about what London record shops are doing to fight online sales and stay in business.
Visit the world’s largest “corn labyrinth.”
Read about the rumors of Imus’ return to the radio.
Read as Paul Helm considers N.T. Wright’s ordo salutis.
Read as the American Thinker thinks about what it means to be “American.”
Consider buying “Dracula’s Castle” for somewhere around $135 million.
Read about people breaking open the iPhone as soon as they got one to see what was inside.
Read as Mark Joseph says: “I’ve produced three books, The Rock & Roll Rebellion, Faith, God & Rock n’ Roll and Pop Goes Religion, all making the case for lowering the wall of separation between faith and entertainment. But if the result is both dumbed-down religion and comedy as in the box office flop Evan Almighty, it may be the strongest argument yet for reinstating that wall and keeping religion and the movies as far apart as possible.”
Watch an incredible yo-yo-er, or is that yo-yo-ist?
Read about the first baby born from a frozen, then thawed egg.
Read as Apple Matters calculates that the iPhone will end up costing you about $3,000 after two years.
Read about the first town ever auctioned online being back on the market.
Read as Books & Culture remembers Robert Webber.
Read about a former “Gay Rights” advocate “quitting” homosexuality.
Read about President Bush commuting “Scooter” Libby’s sentence.
Bid on a dinner with Spinal Tap.
Read as scientists say it is now possible to “to glimpse before the supposed beginning of time into the universe prior to the Big Bang.”
Read about the drug scientists hope will allow you to block bad memories.
Browse as Time looks at 80 years of robots in movies.
Read as Christianity Today reviews Andrew Osenga’s free “Letters to the Editor” EP.
Read about Joey Chestnut eating 66 hot dogs in 12 minutes, a staggering hot dog and bun every 10.9 seconds, setting a new world record.
Read about Al Gore’s son being arrested on suspicion of possessing marijuana and prescription drugs.
Read about the Nepal girl who recently had her status as “living goddess” revoked.
Read about the Live Earth Rio concert being cancelled.
Read Christianity Today’s thoughts about Sinead O’Connor’s latest, Scripture-filled, but not necessarily Scripture-faithful album, Theology.
Read as British band The Arctic Monkeys decry the hypocrisy of the Live Earth concerts, saying: “Especially when we’re using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It’d be a bit hypocritical.” Later in the same article, Pet Shop Boy Neil Tennant says: “I’ve always been against the idea of rock stars lecturing people as if they know something the rest of us don’t.”
Read as the American Thinker examines the “religion of peace’s” “war” on Christianity.
Read about the backlash surrounding Cal Thomas‘ recent comments regarding Islam and terror.
Read about Dick Gephardt endorsing Senator Clinton for President.
Watch “The Lost Book of Abraham,” which examines Mormon claims (note, this video is an hour long).
Pre-order season two of the animated Tick series.
Read about a painting by Italian Renaissance artist Raphael that recently sold at auction for $37.2 million.
Vote for the new “7 Wonders of the World” list.
Read as Bob Dylan asks “Where’s the global warming?”
Read about Mitt Romney being criticized for apparently not publicly fighting against pornography while serving on the board of Marriott hotels.
Read about the MI man who sold marijuana out of an ice cream truck.
Meet the new richest man in the world.
Read about the public restroom in China with 1,000 stalls.
Brent,
Thanks for the tip on “The Tick!”
Best animated show. Ever. That I can think of right now.
Ken
I read the Link provided about organic food. With so many frightening foods and health-care substances coming in from China (melamine, bad tilapia, toxic swordfish, poisonous toothpaste, etc.), and the current administration delaying food labeling, with regard to nation of origin, our family is consuming more locally produced organic food than ever. I am disgusted about our national lack of ideals, with regard to our nation’s eager importation of Chinese goods, while China is yet so openly hostile to Christians, and indeed hostile to its general population’s freedoms, and to fair-play in general.
Serious rant of the week.
The private jet flights of rock stars participating in the Live Earth concerts (hundreds of thousands of miles in gas guzzling private jets) reveals that carbon-footprint issues really must not be as big a deal as preached. If these folks really believed that we all should sacrifice and reduce, and that austerity measures even be imposed upon us all, because of a real impending catastrophe, organizers would surely have planned to utilize satellites to beam concerts, rather than having all these people, and their equipment, moving about in such ostentatious individual comfort.
I’m not defending the Live Earth people, but from what I understand, they have bought carbon credits to offset any of the travel emissions and actual emissions from any of the events themselves.
So you claim this is all wheat and no chaff, eh? :)
I had already read that article about the guys breaking open the i-phone. I don’t care why they were doing it, the disregard for big bucks just spent makes me cringe. *shudder*
Well now, “wheat of the blogosphere” can be a fairly subjective term, can’t it?
Pastor, these carbon offset credits somehow remind me of those pre-Council of Trent indulgences, which Martin Luther was so rightly perturbed about; financial acts for the purchase and sale of salvation. (As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs). In the case of carbon offset credits, it seems that no repentence is required, and, if one has the wealth, it seems that one might purchase freedom from temporal morality, and freedom from a lifestyle of careful stewardship.
With regard to the celebrity folks participating in these concerts, I can’t shake a feeling akin to being preached-at, even denounced, by the town’s public drunk for my one champagne toast a year.
A British newspaper reported that in a single hour a privately operated Gulfstream jet (popular among Live Earth celebs) consumes the same amount of fuel that the average British family car consumes in one year.
Love it, BJT!
Brent two things:
First, whats the downside to the emusic thing?
Second, I bought Kind of Blue yesterday on your recommendation and wow. Wow.
Anyway. Thanks a bunch.
Josh
“…the word of God is not bound.”
–2 Timothy 2:9
I’m glad you like Kind of Blue. It’s one of my favorite albums of all time. As for eMusic, I’ve been very pleased with it. I’ve subscribed off and on since 2002. They have a great selection of independent artists with DRM-free downloads. I guess the downside would be that they recently raised their rates and are getting pressure by several labels to do so again, but I’ve been locked in at a lower rate.
Speaking of Apple.. (sort of…) thought you’d get a smirk out of the fact that I’m fiddling around on my first ever Mac computer to ever actually see in person. ;) (Well, unless you count the apple computer I worked on at school in 3rd grade - I don’t.) :P
Brent, I enjoy your Friday links. Thanks.
However, I’m so over the debate about Mormons being Christians. Who has the authority to say whether we are or aren’t? The Bible? We read the Bible, too. We don’t read the Bible the right way? Give me a break. As far as I’m concerned, God is the authority.
From the Book of Mormon: “And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.” (2 Nephi 25: 26)
We don’t talk, rejoice, preach, prophesy, and write of Christ the right way? This argument is really so trite. Let’s move on.
Emily,
Thank you so much for commenting. I always look forward to your viewpoint and the thoughts it sparks.
I hardly think this issue is trite. In fact, I think it is one of utmost importance. You and I do not worship the same god/God, nor do we “rejoice in, preach, prophesy and write” of the same Christ. Our traditions define Him and His work quite differently.
This is fine as long as we both admit that we approach these things differently, but if one of these tradtiions claims to be in line with the other as yours has done, then, far from trite, these become essential conversations.
Though our traditions use many of the same terms, we mean quite different things by those terms and it would seem to me to be in everyone’s interest to clarify just what we do mean, especially when we mean different things, as we do.
Thoughts?
Brent, of course we believe in the same God. There is only one God! Of course we rejoice in the same Christ. We just understand his characteristics a little differently. It’s just like how you and I both know Amy Harward. Maybe you think she’s one type of person and I think she’s another, but we’re still talking about the same person. There are probably even things about Amy that neither of us understand, and when we learn those things, our relationship with her gets deeper. Not trying to be blasphemous here, just illustrating a point. I think it is outrageous that you think we worship different Gods.
This ties in to the Obama discussion, too. Might Obama have some level of relationship with his Savior? Might he have access to God through personal prayer? Absolutely! Everyone has access to God through prayer. You do, the Pope does, Barack Obama does. I can testify that I most certainly have prayed and received sure answers to these prayers. I have participated in the blessings of the Atonement of the Savior Jesus Christ and felt his love. Were my experiences with a “fake” God? There is no way.
How is Amy by the way?
If I say that I recall Amy having black hair and you tell me that she had blonde hair, if I say that I remember Amy being fair-skinned and you say, no, she was tan and had freckles, at what point are you going to ask me, “Are you sure you even knew Amy?” We cannot have opposite understandings and say that we’re talking about the same person.
If I say that “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24) and you say that “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22), if I say that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2) and that there is none like Him (Isaiah 46:9) and you say “God himself. was Once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens” (Joseph Smith’s King Follett Funeral Discourse), it ought not take long before we realize we are talking about different “gods.” We cannot both be right.
As our friend Adam Groza has recently pointed out here (pdf file), there are irreconcilable differences between our understandings of God, not the least of which at the doctrine of omnipotence.
1. Am I sure I even knew Adam?
2. OK. Then I’m right, you’re wrong.
3. I keep coming back to the authority question and I am not getting a direct answer from you. Who or what is the authority that says Mormons are atheists? That I am going to hell? That God does not have a Spirit of flesh and blood? That your interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation? That my relationship with Deity is of the lower-case variety? Is it the Nicene Council? Is it Al Mohler? Is it The Bible, because see #5.
4. I’m trying to be magnanimous. I abhor and will never understand the criticisms my faith.
5. I READ THE BIBLE TOO!! Are you sure we are reading the same Bible? Or is mine a lower-case bible?
So aggravating!!!!
So how is Amy by the way? I really do appreciate your dialogue and I aplogize that you’re aggravated but I do think that these are important discussions to have.
Ultimately God is the authority, but for our purposes in this discussion, His revelation of Himself in the Bible is what we must consider. We both agree that God has revealed Himself in the Words of the Bible (66 books of the Old and New Testament just to clarify). It seems to me that the Bible certainly has the authority to deem who is Christian and who is not, would you agree?
But one of the problems is that your tradition, in practice, rejects the authority of the Bible by holding doctrines which are contrary to its teachings, which we have already, to a very small degree, seen.
It’s not just a matter of interpretation when we are saying opposite things about God. We’re not just talking about theological nuances, we’re saying diametrically opposed things. The reality is that if LDS doctrine is authoritative for you, then the Bible is not, because they contradict one another at many points. We can’t both be “Christian” in the same sense.
What’s interesting here is that you’re quick to point the finger at my tradition for saying that yours is incorrect while yours does the exact same thing. “Truth restored,” by definition means to bring it back, that it was lost. Your church’s very foundation is that mine has lost the “truth,” is it not? Am I misunderstanding?
It’s interesting that authority is raised. In my conversations with LDS missionaries, they’ve been quick to assert how they believe the same Bible, but when I raise a passage that contradicts LDS doctrine the response has repeatedly been, “Well that’s not correctly translated.”
If the Bible is so important to the Mormon church, how come this supposed lack of a reliable translation has been tolerated for more than 170 years?
Instead it seems like the LDS church is content saying, “Pray for a personal revelation that the church is true, and by the way here’s another testament that we know is correctly translated. Trust that the office of the Prophet won’t lead you astray.”
It seems to me that the LDS church is willing to stop conversation by appealing to its authority saying that all Bible translations are flawed and unable to guide one into the fullness of truth.
Amy is good, I think. Lives in Seattle. Has five kids.
Can you see how it would be aggravating to have someone tell you: despite that you read from it, study it and teach from it, you don’t actually believe in the Bible; despite your personal relationship with God, you don’t believe in Him; despite the saving ordinances you have participated in through the Priesthood–the authority to act in God’s name–you’re going to hell. It’s also frustrating that I feel like I’m given no credit for having studied these issues, prayed about them, come to a knowledge of the truthfulness of the Gospel through study, through meditation, through prayer. To me, my testimony is pearls that are, at such times as now, being trampled on by the proverbial swine.
I do believe the authority to act in God’s name was taken from the earth for a time following the death of the original 12 apostles.
I don’t study your beliefs because I have no desire to shred them to pieces or to preach against them, but I am confident that you have a portion of the truth.
I believe that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are in complete harmony. I believe there is more scripture that God has not yet revealed that will continue to add to the fulness of truth.
This serves as a correct translation of the Bible, although there is a more complete version, the copyright of which I believe is owned by the Community of Christ church.
I don’t see how asking one to come to a personal knowledge of the truthfulness of any gospel principle through prayer and personal revelation constitutes stopping conversation or keeping someone from the fulness of truth. Quite the opposite, actually.
And by preach against them, I mean to say that I don’t desire to indoctrinate congregations about the error of your ways, nor do I wish to write thesis papers about that which I do not understand.
I do see your frustration, but can you see mine? Someone contradicts the Bible I so dearly believe yet claims to believe it? I’ve only pointed out a few contradictions but there are many more we could consider. Simply put, we believe opposing things and they cannot both be true.
So you don’t even have access to a complete version of the “correct” translation of the Scriptures?
I’d like to ask upon what Hebrew and Greek exegetical issues this translation is “correct” and what errors in the translation process it corrects. This will be difficult to answer, becuase this is not actually a “translation” at all (it was not done from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) but actually an “interpretation” (it is in fact the King James version with modifications and additions).
By you saying that this is the “correct” translation, you are, by default saying that others are incorrect. Could you please point out specific translation points at which other versions are wrong?
I’d also like to ask you to be more specific in pointing out what it is that Adam has misunderstood in his paper or what I have misunderstood in my presentation of your doctrines. If you’re going to imply that Adam or I have misunderstood, then please point out specifics.
Taking issue with Mr. Groza’s paper:
Emily pointed Adam’s paper out to me. I’ve done a quick read of the paper and have the rejoinders that follow. My overall view is that Adam’s premises, particularly his notion of God, rely more heavily on “the Western Tradition” and Greek logic than the revealed word of God. The scriptures, including the Bible, show that Christ grew from grace to grace – which Mormonism calls “eternal progression.” That does not lesson the fact that he is all-powerful – or make him less of a God, thereby disqualifying him from deity and consigning Mormons to a designation of atheists.
I. Eternal Progression.
Adam’s thesis appears to be that Mormons are atheists because they believe in a God who has not always been God. In contradiction of this notion, Groza states, “If God is perfect there is no point such that God needs to change, grow, increase, or develop.” In order to illustrate his point, Groza resorts to logic maxims, arguing that a being cannot be omnipotent if he was not always omnipotent. The Bible, on the other hand, points to the progression of Christ. Speaking of Christ, Luke states: “And the child grew, and awaxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the bgrace of God was upon him.” Luke thereafter states: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”
The scriptures here demonstrate that the Son of God grew and increased, which would exclude him from Adam’s definition of God. And the gospel writers were not the only ones to teach these ideas in the New Testament. Paul expounded on the notion to the Hebrews: “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.”
This is an easy concept to understand in Mormonism. Mormons believe that Christ “received not of the fullness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fullness; and thus was he called the Son of God, because he received not of the fullness at the first.” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:13-14). Mormons believe that in this progression Christ was following the example of his Father (whom Adam correctly identifies as Elohim). We believe that this is what Christ was talking about when he said:
The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. (John 5:19)
If it is hard for Adam to believe in a God who grew from grace to grace, how does he explain the explicit growth of Christ? If there is no such thing as eternal progression, why was it necessary for Christ to take upon himself flesh, live through an earthly experience, then be resurrected and glorified? Perhaps Adam would counter that Christ’s condescension and passion were for our benefit – not for his own progression. To this I would agree, but I would ask, if he were already perfect and omnipotent before the events of his life, why the events of his life? I believe that it is just as Paul said: “being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.”
II. Limited by the Agency of Man.
Adam quotes Ostler for the notion that Mormons believe in an omnipotent God who respects the agency of man. Adam does not directly attack Mormons for the belief, but does seem to poke a bit of fun at it with another of his logic games:
“Jeffry’s freedom not to listen to the Eagles would presumably be impinged upon if God made him listen to the Eagles. So the Mormon God is a maximally powerful being that respects personal decisions such as music tastes, and the like.”
I cannot tell if Adam’s reference to the Eagles is his own or Ostler’s – whom I’ve not read. But regardless, the notion that God respects, and may even limit himself according to the choices of men is also clearly set forth in the New Testament. Christ’s miracles were not evenly distributed through all of the people he visited. Rather, his demonstrations of power were contingent upon their particular faith. For example, the people in Christ’s home area were offended at him:
“And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.” (Matt. 13:57-58)
Again, this is not a difficult concept for Mormons. Mormons believe that Christ works according to the faith of men:
“For it was by faith that Christ showed himself unto our fathers, after he had risen from the dead; and he showed not himself unto them until after they had faith in him; wherefore, it must needs be that some had faith in him, for he showed himself not unto the world.
* * *
For if there be no faith among the children of men God can do no miracle among them; wherefore, he showed not himself until after their faith.” (Ether 12:7, 12)
This appears perfectly consistent to me with what Christ told the woman with the issue of blood in the New Testament: “Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.” Mark 5:34.
III. Multiple Gods being Omnipotent.
Adam’s final point is that Mormons are atheists because they believe in multiple Gods (ie, the Father and the Son), and multiple gods can’t all be all powerful. But again he appeals to logic circles, rather than the revealed word of God, for back up.
Let me first say that I do not postulate that the word of God is illogical. Rather, the logic of men can be flawed. Adams states: “I will argue that the Mormon deity fails to be God because the property of omnipotence, . . .cannot be instantiated by more than one being.” But I ask, “Says who?” Does Adam cite scripture for the maxim? No. He cites:
• “the logic of omnipotence.” Not scripture. And not compellingly logical. Because our own earthly experience is always with the finite, how can we apply definitions to the infinite. Wouldn’t the same logic circles get themselves into trouble by asking why cannot God, who is omnipotent, raise up another omnipotent being? If he can’t do it, then wouldn’t that inability limit his potents?
• Adam compares eternal life to “an endless baseball game” ie, a competition. Not a very apt analogy; eternal life is not a competition. It is not survival of the fittest.
• He cites his own intuition: “At this point we must ask the critical question: Can two beings be maximally powerful? My sense is, no.” –Well, my sense is why not?
• He cites “the Western tradition”; “traditional Christian theism”; the “Creeds”; and, the “Trinitarians”. What about the scriptures?
The scriptures state that Christ inherited his power from his father:
“For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” (John 5:26-27)
And again: “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Matt. 28:18.
Adam would likely tell us that the Father and the Son are the same being, and so the one was giving the other (or the same one?) his own power. But try putting that up against the PNC.
I believe that the Father had all power and bestowed that power also upon the Son – and that the Father did not lose anything in the bestowal. I believe that “all power” is “infinite power”, and infinite power does not lesson with the sharing of it – it is not a limited resource. (By contrast, everything we know on earth – and from which we construct our logic circles—are finite resources.) I believe that God’s power would not become less even if he shares it with his obedient children:
‘The Spirit itself beareth awitness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Romans 8:16-17.)
So. We might stop with the question: Does common sense, logic, the scriptures, the Holy Ghost etc lead to the conclusion that Mormons are atheists? “My sense is no.” Give me a break. If Adam wants to compass sea and land and logic to convert one proselyte to the notion that Mormons are atheists, then I guess he can have at it. But if I am an atheist, then there’s no meaning left in the term. I believe in God. I believe in the God of the New Testament. And I believe that the fact that He reveals himself to prophets in our day does not lesson the fact that He revealed himself to prophets in all the past ages of the earth.
Hi Steve, this is a quick response, so I hope that it is a charitable response. The claim about Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, is that he is fully man and fully God. Clearly, the Gospel of John states that Christ has always existed and has always been God (John 1:1-14). Christ has always existed. When the Bible discusses the growth of Jesus, i.e. becoming a teenager, then an adult, it is his human nature. No Christian (or Mormon) would believe that someone fully human does not grow, in fact, this may be an essential characteristic of humans is that they begin to exist at one point in time. That is, humans are contingent beings. This is why the doctrine of Christ is so paradoxical, how can God become man? Yet he did in the person of Jesus, and furthermore, the Son has always existed.
As far as logic goes, Jesus used logic in Scripture. He claimed that one cannot serve God and mammon. So, Christ’s claim was that if he cast out demons he didn’t do it in the name of evil, but for God. This is clearly a logical argument by Christ relying upon the law of non-contradiction. To dismiss Adam’s argument about omnipotence because it relies upon logic is uncharitable.
Steve (Emily’s husband),
Thank you so much for commenting and taking the time to intelligently and passionately interact.
I cannot speak for Mr. Groza, so I will not pretend to do so, but I do find something quite interesting in your post. You criticize Adam for using logic and then proceed to do the exact same thing.
Reasoning to eternal progression from Jesus’ growth as a youth seems to be quite the logical leap yet it is a leap you are quite comfortable making; based on your presuppositions that eternal progression is true, not the text. The text says nothing about *eternal, ongoing* progression, simply that Jesus took upon Himself human form and grew and matured.
Let’s be honest here: you use logic just as much as Adam does, you just don’t like his logical conclusions.
Some more interesting things in your response: you sort of half-handedly swipe away the doctrine of the Trinity and imply that there is more than one god without directly asserting that and you imply that one can have the attribute of omnipotence without being “the” god. I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here, is Jesus Christ THE God or is He not? If not, then, as I have asserted with your wife, we worship (a) different God/god(s).
Brent,
Have you ever encountered any paradoxes within the bible or your system of beliefs that didn’t seem to jive? I’m certain you have — there are many. Did you put trust in the notion that God’s ways are higher than our ways and there must be a way to reconcile seeming discrepancies? I do that, too. When there are things that I come upon in my studies that contradict one another (oh, let’s say — the creation vs. the scientific case for evolution, for example), I do many things: exercise faith, study it out, read the scriptures, pray, and ALSO turn to living prophets and apostles of the Lord to lead me in the right direction and to help me understand what the Lord would have me know. Thank goodness for living prophets! I am so grateful that Heavenly Father loves us enough to not leave us alone in this world. That the Gospel of Jesus Christ that has existed throught the history of this world, from the time of Adam, has been restored to the earth in this final despensation, after it had been lost from the earth for a time. That living apostles and prophets of the Lord can help clarify what the scriptures mean, and add upon the teachings in the scriptures through revelation.
I was reading last night in a book called Jesus Christ and His Gospel: Selections from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and there were a couple of passages that directly address some of the issues you have brought up. I was going to scan some pages and email them to you, but my scanner isn’t working, so I bought the book for you, and one other. When you get it, please read the selection under “Doctrine: LDS Doctrine Compared With Other Christian Doctrine.” In my book, it starts on page 132. In reading it, I was reminded that your tradition of understanding the Bible is heavily influenced by “Greek philosophical concerns” while their in another, more orthodox tradition exists that is more closely aligned with Latter-day thought. Is that right? The other book is simple, and one of my favorites, for you to have as a reference.
I didn’t put Steve up to answering for me. He was very put out by Adam’s erroneous and very misguided assertion. He knows the scriptures very well and is a great teacher. Usually he prefers to teach the scriptures rather than use them to fight with, and I think he regretted having put so much time into “fighting with the Baptists.”
Anyway, if you read the books, perhaps you will understand our faith to a greater degree.
Oh, and yes, we read primarily from the King James Version, with the Joseph Smith Translation in the footnotes and appendix as additional light and clarification. That we don’t have the complete version of the JST seems inconsequential in light of ongoing modern-day revelation.
Emily,
I don’t know much about Mormonism, I have no Mormon friends or acquaintances, so I have been following this conversation with interest.
I’m confused though, because the link that you included earlier about the JST seemed to imply when it said, “The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written”, that the KJV is not completely correct because things are missing. So I am surprised to hear that you teach and study out of that with only footnotes at the bottom, rather than a complete corrected version.
Also, I could echo your earlier statements “Can you see how it would be aggravating to have someone tell you: despite that you read from it, study it and teach from it, you don’t actually believe in the Bible” because it seems that the JST tells me that my bible isn’t right. So you see, I don’t think this is a one-sided thing, it seems that both sides are claiming ‘we have what we believe is correct, and we disagree with that over there.’
I do not mean to pick a fight, I am truly curious.
Emily,
Thank you so much. I will definitely read those books but please know that I may ask you do return the favor at some point! I hope your husband knows that, though we disagree, no one is here to beat each other up (at least I hope not!). I for one am thankful that he is willing to discuss and, if he is willing, certainly look forward to more friendly dialogue.
About your last comment, of course I find paradoxes in the Bible. How can Paul be “sorrowful yet always rejoicing” (2 Corinthians 6:10) for example, but what we’re talking about is not just paradox but outright contradiction. LDS doctrine and Christianity are not just different “shades,” they are absolutely different and mutually exclusive. We cannot both be right because at many points, we are saying opposite things.
I reject the word of the “living prophets” as the revelation of God when it directly contradicts the Word already contained in the Bible, which it does at many points.
Do you believe, as Joseph Smith stated that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man?” If so, we do not worship the same God. Do you believe that “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s”? If so, we do not worship the same God. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is THE only God with the Father and Spirit, co-existing in eternal Trinitarian fellowship? If not, we do not worship the same God.
We are not just pointing out different characteristics about God as you have asserted, we are not even talking about the same thing.
As much as you don’t like being told your tradition is wrong, that is exactly your position towards my beliefs. In the end, your position cannot just be that I have a “kernel” of the truth, because 2,000 years of Christian orthodoxy contradict, at nearly every point, a great majority of LDS teachings. They are simply incompatible.
Hi Emily, I’d like to address two points about your last comment. First, in listing the many things you do when encountering a contradiction, you note:
You seem to imply that those of us who don’t give primacy to a “living prophet” are positing that the Father has left us “alone in this world” if all we have is the Bible. This is a mischaracterization. In actuality, we are just holding to Christ’s promise that he would send the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all truth” (John 16:12). He gave this promise while comforting the disciples about his departure when he said, “Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you.” (John 16:7) If the LDS office of prophet were as you say, the Lord Jesus would have comforted them by assuring them that he would send “living prophets” to guide us into all truth. Instead he specified the Holy Spirit who would reveal the Word of God through the Scriptures and would convict us of sin and regenerate us, just as it says in Titus 3:5,
Realize also that you’re not the only faith group in the world that claims “living prophets” who stand as the only reliable interpreter of the Bible. Why then should anyone believe your prophet over the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Roman Catholic Magesterium? The appeal to authority prevents any rational dialogue.
It seems like the only discussion that you could have with one of those groups is to say, “I have the true prophet with apostolic authority!” And they would retort, “No, my prophet is the true one!”
Instead, Protestants have the Bible as our only infallible rule of faith. Note how when Paul preached to the Berean Jews, the author of Acts judges them to be “more noble than those in Thessalonica” Why? It was because, “they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” And that’s the Apostle Paul we’re talking about!
The second thing I want to point out is how perfectly you prove my point about the LDS Church’s practice of making people content to view the Bible as a decidedly second-tier authority.
Isn’t that exactly what I thought you would say as I predicted in comment #17?
Proverbs31 — You and your blog are beautiful! I was trying to figure out where you live, because I’m guessing that you do know some Mormons, just maybe not know that they are ??
I just did some quick research on lds.org because I honestly wasn’t sure why we don’t read directly from the Inspired JST version. (By the way, my husband assures me that we do have access to the complete translation now and even have a copy on the bookshelf in our home. See how much I know!) This article explains that the church has not adopted it officially as the version we read because its authorized publication was not properly attended to by Joseph Smith before his death.
(Forgive my lack of block quotes, but my browser doesn’t support Brent’s quicktags, and my html is not that advanced)
“An official editorial of the Church News, dated December 7, 1974, contained these words:
‘The Inspired Version does not supplant the King James Version as the official Church version of the Bible, but the explanations and changes made by the Prophet Joseph Smith provide enlightenment and useful commentary on many biblical passages. …
‘When the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price offer information relative to biblical interpretation, these should be given preference in writing and teaching. But when these sources of latter-day revelation do not provide significant information which is available in the Inspired Version, then this version may be used.’”
As to your second question, I don’t know what your beliefs are regarding the history of the Bible. As I understand it, the Bible has been compiled, edited, translated and retranslated; and much of this has been done by committee. It stands to reason that, because of human error, portions are incomplete or missing, or have perhaps lost some of their original meaning. The Bible is sacred and it is holy and I believe it is the Word of God, as far as it has been translated correctly. The Joseph Smith translations are not that earth-shaking, if you read through them.
I need to go get dinner for my kids. I will come back and read and respond to the other couple of comments tonight or tomorrow. Brent, I’m not trying to hijack your blog and I completely respect that this is your forum and, like I said once before, if you want me to quit coming around, I’d understand. I tend to be vocal, and perhaps your ministering blog isn’t the appropriate forum for me to be a dissenting voice.
Emily,
I want to point out again that you’re accepting “revelation” that clearly contradicts what is already in the Bible. If the Bible is true then it directly cuts off the reliability of many of your teachings.
Also, the idea that the text has been “compiled, edited, translated and retranslated” is simply inadequate. We have access to excellent manuscripts in both Hebrew and Greek. With some study, you could translate them yourself. I’d be interested if you would point out some of these specific errors you keep referring to.
You obviously feel the need to use the phrase “as far as they are translated correctly” when referring to the Scriptures which implies that other versions are not translated correctly. But again, the Joseph Smith version is not a translation at all but an interpretation. It is nothing more than a study version of the KJV. Was the KJV translated correctly and what are the exegetical issues present at any points you feel it was not translated correctly?
Brent,
I’m intrigued by your definition of friendly dialogue: “Hello, good to hear from you again! You’re going to hell! You worship an illegitimate, lower-case god! You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about! Thanks for stopping by!” Charming, as ever.
I’d be honored to read any books or material you give me that is supportive or explanatory of your faith. I will not be reading anti-Mormon lit of any nature, so don’t bother sending that. It is vile and destructive and I want no part of it. I’ve heard all the arguments; I’m not dumb and I’m not naive; I’m just not going to read the stuff. Your blog is plenty anti-Mormon enough to fill me up for a while.
No offense, but you seem a little (a lot) closed-minded about religion. What if you get to heaven and find that God has thrown you a curveball that you weren’t anticipating? Something that wasn’t explicitly spelled out in the Bible? OR, what if it is something that is explicitly spelled out in the Bible, like plural marriage or something like that? Would you be up for a, “huh, wasn’t expecting that one.” Now I’m just being cheeky. Not advocating plural marriage. Please don’t go quoting me stuff about what I believe about plural marriage.
I completely don’t understand this that you said: “I reject the word of the ‘living prophets’ as the revelation of God when it directly contradicts the Word already contained in the Bible, which it does at many points.” Are you serious? You just don’t believe that there are living prophets. But if you DID believe in a prophet of God being God’s mouthpiece on the earth today for all the world, then his instruction would trump the Bible, right, Because it would be coming directly from God’s mouth? If you say no to this, we have reached an impasse, because to me there’s no arguing that God’s word now direct from his mouth trumps God’s word written down thousands of years ago and translated from the Greek.
When you quote LDS scripture, yes, of course I believe those things. I love that scripture found in Doctrine and Covenants 130:22.
Jim — you seem very thoughtful and contemplative and like someone with whom it would be interesting to converse in person. I agree that the Holy Spirit, a member of the Godhead, is indispensible! I daily pray for and seek to have the companionship of the Holy Ghost to comfort me, teach me, help me to know right from wrong, enlighten me, bring things to my remembrance, and many other gifts I am incapable of having by my own accord. I didn’t mean to imply that God has not given us the power of the Holy Spirit.
Here’s a good scripture.
Amos 3:7 — “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”
As I kind of crudely tried to explain to Brent above, you are correct in your assessment that as Latter-day Saints, we believe in open-ended canon. Here is a lengthy quote from page 135 of the book Jesus Christ and His Gospel that I referenced in another comment:
“While common ground for Latter-day Saints and other Christians is an acceptance of the Bible and its teachings, issues of interpretation aside, Mormonism agrees with “high church” orthodoxy against conservative Protestantism on the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture. Though they accept the Bible, Latter-day Saints, like Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, for example, do not believe that the biblical text alone is sufficient for salvation. Biblical teaching, while true and accepted, has been imperfectly preserved and can be fully reconstituted only through supplemental REVELATION. This is not because New Testament Christianity was defective, but because New Testament Christianity is only partially preserved in the modern Bible. Those doctrines that were not preserved must be restored; consequently, Mormons deny both biblical inerrancy and sufficiency. Since the apostle and prophets of earliest Christianity received direct revelation from God (see, e.g., Acts 10:9-16, 28), Latter-day Saints believe that any church claiming the fulness of the gospel must also enjoy this gift.”
The question of from whence our authority came is another topic entirely. In short, God the Father and Christ the Son of the Living God appeared to Joseph Smith. JS received the keys of the Priesthood directly from the laying on of hands by John the Baptist and by Peter, James and John. And, Jim, I bet you already know what I am going to say: if you want to know if that really happened, pray about it.
Brent, I am too tired to get into your second response. Sorry. There’s only one of me, and guess what, I don’t even know what exegetical means. I don’t know offhand what has not been translated correctly. I’ll try to find out for you. Your Friday’s links have turned into quite the discussion. Have I mentioned that I think nothing useful or productive comes from bashing religions? I love to talk about what I believe, but I prefer to do it in a non-accusatory, non-demeaning sort of fashion, with the accompaniment of the Spirit. If anyone has legitimate questions about Mormonism, please email me. Otherwise, I am headed for San Diego and Chicago this coming week, and I’ll be back next week for another invigorating discussion about Brent’s Friday’s Links.
Emily- Thanks for the sweet compliment! I attend Brent’s church, and I really don’t know much about Mormonism or know any Mormons. I even asked my hubby who said the only guy he knows actually lives in CA and not TX. =)
As far as translating goes, I have a generic understanding of how the bible was compiled, but I think that usually is brought up in reference to entire books that were not included (like the ‘extra’ books in the Catholic Bible.) It sounds like the JST is ‘adding understanding’ to the existing texts included in the KJV. I don’t know why the compilation process would argue a need for a restoration of truth, because as far as I understand it, they didn’t leave out pieces of texts, right? And for the translating, I had the impression that most of the current translations were translated straight from Greek and Hebrew texts. I currently use the ESV which says that it was translated from the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts to determine the most accurate meaning. That gives great confidence, doesn’t it? I agree that I’m taking this version on faith that they did a good job, and that I haven’t compared them to the original manuscripts myself. Btw - Brent has made a similar comment to me as well, pointing out that I could learn Greek or Hebrew and study those manuscripts. I couldn’t argue, it was a good point.
The thing that bothers me though, is the statement that things have been left out or mis-translated. To say that part of it is not correct would call into question the validity of the whole. And for me, it’s all or nothing.
Brent - For a better understanding, are you saying that the JST is kind of like a Ryrie Study Bible? I used to have one, and I believe that was just an NIV bible full of notes and commentaries and interpretations at the bottom made by Mr. Ryrie. Correct? So in a sense, the JST is a similar set up? The KJV PLUS Mr. Smiths interpretations?
I, too, apologize, I’m just helping the conversation continue by jumping in with more questions.
A different Brent here (BJT of New Mexico). I find it interesting that the Old and New Testaments have been an issue of dispute here: there is so very much mainsteam anthropology, archaeology, and literary history (documentary evidence) to support much of the related material in those testaments. Just a small example: I’ve been reading Tacitus, his Annals and Histories, and he was overtly hostile to Christianity within his writings; but this is antique evidence, albeit of a hostile kind. There is a plethora of strong record, too, of such writings being read throughout history, and commented upon.
The book of Mormon altogether lacks such historicity, and cannot be supported by mainstream anthropology and archaeology.
When I was a child, attending after-school primary education at the nearby Mormon Temple in Orange, California, and when our family had many repeat visits with Mormon missionaries, I remember the Book of Mormon being the dominant material covered, almost exclusively. The songs we sang were about the Book of Mormon, Lamenites, and such.
Mormons are passionate people, dutiful people, and I pray that they will hear the loving call, the message of salvation,which is only through the work of Jesus, and by the Grace of God,and not the result of our works; by Jesus who came to give sight to the blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.
I remember that the people shown in the paintings, in the literature brought to our home by Mormon missionaries, were very, very white. As a half-Mexican kid, browned by the California sun, this caught my attention. The book of Mormon abounds with references to white skin being indicative of righteousness and blessing. Yipes! Here’s just one example: 2 Nephi 5:21 says “…wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsom, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”
The Bible is largely free of this kind of stuff. In the Song of Songs, the bride says, in 1:5-6,”I am black but lovely, daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Kedar, like the pavilions of Salmah. Take no notice of my swarthiness, it is the sun that has burned me.” Regardless of her swarthiness she is described shortly after as loveliest of women, and praised for many good characteristics. It is commonly said by Christians that this book of the Bible can be read as a love between Christ, the Bridegroom, and His church, the Bride.
I need to touch up my last sentence: This book of the Bible can be read as a love story between Christ, the Bridegroom, and His church, the Bride.
Let me just clarify that Brent from New Mexico did not attend Primary in the temple. It would have been in a church building.
You are right, Emily. I stated the nomenclature of the facility incorrectly. It was in a classroom, on the church building grounds. The class was led by a nice older lady. Many o