Mormon Coffee Tabletalk: Friday, December 5th in West Jordan, UT
On Friday, December 5th some of us will be meeting in the side-room at High Pointe Coffee in West Jordan, UT, from 7pm – 9pm. The meet-up is casual, but we’re having one evangelical and one Mormon each present on a topic for 10 minutes.
Evangelism and testimony-bearing is in our respective evangelical and Mormon DNA, so you’ll need to come with a friendly spirit of patience. Even if you don’t want to participate, feel free to come and just listen.
One assumption of the meeting is the value of informal religious “dialectic”. In curiosity we would also just like to meet you guys, both evangelicals and Mormons, who have participated or lurked here. If you come, I hope you make a friend!
PS: High Pointe serves plenty of non-Coffee drinks and smoothies!
Comments (72)
Aaron, Judging by the various comments I have seen posted on MC over the past while and also listening to various forums (Discerning Truth etc.) it is apparent that evangelicals really do not know what is meant by the Mormon term "Testimony" – it is much more than just a subjective "warm fuzzy". This might be a good topic of discussion.
Please in the future, give more warning of this type of get together so people can better plan their time
In the words of Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by that much." I am coming to Utah to visit family but do not arrive until the 10th.
This is why I feel isolated in Texas! All the fun happens in Utah! Oh well. Give all details of how it turns out (no doubt you will). Discussing this discussion would be a good topic on here.
Nate
This is why I feel so isolated in Texas! All the fun happens in Utah! Oh well. Give all details of how it turns out (no doubt you will). Discussing this discussion would be a good topic on here.
Nate
If ever I get out that way (I'm in Laramie, WY), I'd love to hook up with some of ya'll.
steveH,
Accepting the reality of LDS testimony regarding the Book of Mormon, modern day revelation/the restoration- would depreciate the value of evangelical testimony (or so they think). So I am pretty sure (based on past behavior) lds testimony will continue to be rejected.
When are you guys coming to Idaho? I'll make you cake/cookies- which will be well worth the 2 hours of driving.
well, I was under the impression that when one bears testimony, they are testifying of truth- and you cannot separate truth from God.
Hmmm…Craigo's, big foot pizza (i've never been there so i don't know how accommodating they would be)- We could always do it at my parents hangar at the idaho falls airport- don't worry, it's not a metal shack- it's a great place to hang out. We could eat there, play pool- and then get to the business of proving each other wrong!
when two conflicting testimonies are stated can both be true?
Again, that is not what I was saying. There are obviously going to be moments where I am wrong, and you are right (in generic terms)- I was speaking of my testimony of Christ- and your conclusions regarding that, I know the truth because of my personal experiences – which you are not privy to. So I know for myself, and don't need your stamp of approval.
In terms of our experiences clashing, i wouldn't say our experiences clash if we are both Christians and believe in Christ. There are doctrinal beliefs of ours that clash, obviously. The important thing is that we aren't seeking to fix the other person, but to seek out the truth according to God. And if we are both doing that, day by day, we will be coming closer to the path that God wants us on- and in effect, closer to each other.
If our experiences are the reason for our doctrine, or why we affirm our doctrine we affirm then wouldn't that mean that the very experiences themselves are in conflict? If your experience leads you to utterly reject what my experience utterly confirms how can we say that both are from God? Would that not be the definition of a clash of experiences? Furthermore if either of us are Christians are we not called to destroy arguments and any high thing that has raised itself up against the knowledge of God, even the experiences of others for the sake of their soul?
Lautensack
Interesting conversation b/w Amanda and Lautensack.
I would say it is a fundamental error to base doctrine on your experiences. Doctrine is based on revelation from God. Your experiences then confirm whether what has been revealed is indeed true. That is why both of us can testify that Jesus is the Christ. That can only come from revelation, thus it is true doctrine that He is the Christ.
If your argument that JS is not a prophet is your "experience" then that is false doctrine (at least in my mind) Why? Because my experience has confirmed to me this truth that can only come by revelation.
The argument here is about revelation not about experience. right?
DOF: interesting post; could you flesh out your comment
Doctrine is base on revelation from God.
Be as specific as you can, including how this is/isn't the same as personal experience and/or testimony.
thanks GERMIT
Aaron,
Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say:
"perhaps is the difference between bearing God's testimony and bearing one's personal testimony."
That wasn't really my point, Lautensack. But to answer your question, of course truth cannot conflict. This is somewhat problematic for those who say LDS aren't real Christians when that comes in direct conflict with our own personal experiences knowing the Savior. So, basically, when you say I am not a Christian, I KNOW that isn't truth because of my own personal experience- I don't even need you to agree with me in order for me to come to this conclusion.
Well, even if someone bears personal testimony of the truth, God's own testimony of that same truth has more authority. For example, if John Doe of 2008 bears his own testimony that Jesus resurrected from the dead, his testimony is not equally as compelling or authoritative as God's very own testimony borne as scripture.
Christians believe in scripture as God's very own direct testimony, whereas Mormons seem to believe the Bible is for various reasons too indirect to be a sufficient ground for believing its claims, and it is seen instead as more man's testimony of God, than it is God's testimony of God. So Mormons seek a more direct private and personal emotional epiphany of God instead of receiving God's public testimony about himself. And when they subsequently bear testimony, they are bearing their own personal testimony about the emotional epiphany from God. In contrast, Christians don't merely bear personal testimony, they also bear God's very own testimony. See where I'm going with this?
Are you suggesting that I believe based on YOUR experiences with scripture and the Holy Spirit? Surely God loves me enough to bless me with knowledge of Him when I seek Him.
What I meant by "experiences", I meant experiences with the spirit–with actual truth. But regardless of whether our experiences are in contrast- if both of us seek the Almighty- He will guide us. The Lord works in mysterious ways- assuming the restored gospel is true, not all Christians/people have to be born a "mormon" in order to know truth. Everyone has the light of Christ. But everyone will have a chance to reject or accept His gospel in its' fullness at some point, and the Lord is in charge. Heavenly Father loves each and every one of us- my job is not to judge you, my job is to love you- so I would be wrong by entertaining any thoughts that you are in the wrong- because I simply do not know your heart like the Lord does. We can judge doctrinal differences- but that is different than the path an individual takes regarding faith. Real faith is an experimentation on His words…which ultimately brings the miracle of testimony/knowledge. And it would not take away from my testimony to assume that you are walking by faith, I'd like to believe you are. All of our paths to Him are different, the important thing is that we are headed in His direction. This brings me full circle to my original point: It is erroneous of anyone to suggest that I am not Christian- because I am headed His direction.
Are you suggesting that I believe based on YOUR experiences with scripture and the Holy Spirit? Surely God loves me enough to bless me with knowledge of Him when I seek Him.
What I meant by "experiences", I meant experiences with the spirit–with actual truth. But regardless of whether our experiences are in contrast- if both of us seek the Almighty- He will guide us. The Lord works in mysterious ways- assuming the restored gospel is true, not all Christians/people have to be born a "mormon" in order to know truth. Everyone has the light of Christ. But everyone will have a chance to reject or accept His gospel in its' fullness at some point, and the Lord is in charge. Heavenly Father loves each and every one of us- my job is not to judge you, my job is to love you- so I would be wrong by entertaining any thoughts that you are in the wrong- because I simply do not know your heart like the Lord does. We can judge doctrinal differences- but that is different than the path an individual takes regarding faith. Real faith is an experimentation on His words…which ultimately brings the miracle of testimony/knowledge. And it would not take away from my testimony to assume that you are walking by faith, I'd like to believe you are. All of our paths to Him are different, the important thing is that we are headed in His direction.
Actually, I'd say most of us are not so concerned about OUR testimony being discounted as much as God's testimony, given in HIS book:
AARON wrote above:
Christians would rather receive God's testimony about himself rather than receive any man's personal testimony (including our own) about God.
note the phrase, 'including their own'. I am as nervous about MY OWN personal testimony being potentially off base as I am of yours. Hence the need for a reliable benchmark (the Bible) to test everything against.
I see where you are trying to go with this, but are you really rejecting the power of the Holy Ghost and revelation from God? Are you suggesting that God himself is bound by the bible? Is the tail wagging the dog here?
I find it problematic that you would basically tell God that if He were to show Himself to you through the Holy Ghost, or in a vision, that you would say, "wait a second, let me verify this with my bible". Scripture is a concept of HIS words- but you cannot place a book (open to discrepancies by man's imperfections) over intended scripture, and certainly not over God Himself. I have always thought that evangelical doctrine suggests that individuals worship the bible over a living God Whose word is living, not stagnant.
"So Mormons seek what they think is a more direct private and personal emotional epiphany of God instead of receiving God's public testimony about himself."
These are your words. "Emotional ephiphany" is your erroneous characterization of personal revelation through the witness of the Holy Ghost. We receive all truth- no matter the source. Whether it comes through scripture, preaching, prophesying, testifying- and this "truth" is certified through the Holy Ghost- not scripture- again, tail wagging the dog here. Scriptures are a tool on the belt of faith…we don't worship them. It's a good thing that you weren't in that grove of trees! JK.
Amanda, real quick true/false question here: the Bible tells us we are to test the spirits that speak to us.
How do we test the spirits? What does the Bible say about scritpture?
Take the discussion of marriage going on at the other post, for instance. The question is what Paul's addition to scriptute in 1 Cor 7 has to do with your 'commandment' of marriage. Seeing as 1 Cor 7 is scripture, are we to discount it because it is someones mere opinion? If this is the case, then the Bible lies when it says all scripture is valuable. Or is it not scripture to begin with? If its not scripture, then how do we determine what is scripture? Based on the spirit? The same spirit that we are told test? By that route, You end up with a conclusion that really is only guided by the spirit, and anything written cannot be taken seriously.
Amanda,
I also meant "experiences with the Spirit," yet I do not see how you can say we are having experiences with the same spirit if we are being lead in completely opposite directions, did Christ not say He alone was the way and that there was but one narrow path that lead to eternal life?
I am called to love you, and the most loving thing anyone can do is tell someone that they are headed for destruction and beg them to repent. Again I must express that if our experiences with the spirit are leading us in different directions ought we not move to a higher standard, that being the unchanging word of God?
Lautensack
Aaron,
This all smacks of bibliolatry – in other words the worship of the Bible over God. Why is it that evangelicals always try to muzzle God? Are evangelicals really Christian? I am inclined to think not. Is not the Bible God's Word written by His prophets who received direct testimony of the Lord?
So according to the evangelical approach you would totally discount the Apostle Paul's epiphany which he received on the road to Damascus because it was a private, emotional testimony. Paul's account was certainly not in accord with the interpretation of the scriptures of the religious experts of the time (the Sanhedrin and Sadducees). Likewise you would discount the meeting between the Lord and Moses because this was a personal epiphany.
According to this evangelical formula all communication between man and God is to be discounted because it is an emotional epiphany. Well, doesn't that discount the entire Bible?
DOF,
I am not basing my doctrine on experience, what I am saying is that if our experiences (testimonies of the spirit) lead us to different ends ought we not to examine the claims of said spirit according to the scriptures? Unless you classify personal testimony as revelation I am agreeing with you, we should seek the higher authority of God's Holy Word and test all things according to it, including the prophecies of any that claim to be prophets.
Lautensack
Yes…everything can be verified by the Holy Ghost, even written word. So yes, if written word is truth, you most definitely can take it seriously…not sure what the problem is here. Text is verified by the Holy Ghost, not the other way around. Don't make my statement out to be something it isn't. I have never said that scripture isn't to be taken seriously, I have only prioritized these dynamics…God/Jesus Christ/Holy Ghost are first, ALWAYS.
Let me outline another problem with your point of view…When I read the book of mormon, it verifies and provides further context to the bible…and the bible does the same for the book of mormon. Now if you assume that the BIBLE is the all powerful force in discerning truth, you ignore/neglect the much needed context God is trying to provide you -further light and knowledge. The bible does not have ALL of God's words or truth, correct? It can't…because our God would be too small. Therefore, a believer who believes in an almighty infinite God is FORCED to concede that the bible is limited in it's revelation and truth. So is the book of mormon. God is infinite in knowledge, scripture is not- scripture is intended to lead us to an infinite being by speaking to our level. Get me?
What's perhaps being missed here is that Christianity teaches the Bible is the "living" word of the Holy Spirit—what he is telling, speaking, communicating, and testifying us today. So you can stand up and read John 1, and preface the reading with, "This is what the Holy Spirit says and is saying."
So to differentiate inspired scripture with the testimony of the Spirit is awkward and odd for us, but we don't make that distinction.
What's perhaps being missed here is that Christianity teaches the Bible is the "living" word of the Holy Spirit—what he is telling, speaking, communicating, and testifying to us today. So you can stand up and read John 1, and preface the reading with, "This is what the Holy Spirit says and is saying."
So to differentiate inspired scripture with the testimony of the Spirit is awkward and odd for us, but we don't make that distinction.
What's perhaps being missed here is that Christianity teaches the Bible is the "living" word of the Holy Spirit—what he is telling, speaking, communicating, and testifying to us today. So you can stand up and read John 1, and preface the reading with, "This is what the Holy Spirit says and is saying, publicly testifies and is publicly testifying."
So to differentiate inspired scripture with the testimony of the Spirit is awkward and odd for us, but we don't make that distinction.
Instead of responding with a long response to your obviously inappropriate position- I will just allow readers to judge for themselves. I'll just say that I'm glad you are only a random person online and not my judge in Israel.
Instead of responding with a long refutation to your obviously inappropriate position- I will just allow readers to judge for themselves. I'll just say that I'm glad you are only a random person online and not my judge in Israel.
Amanda,
According to this position then not only must the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants be inspired, but also the Qu'ran, the Shruti and Smritis, Science and Health, the Zohar, the Gospel of Truth, etc. By saying that God cannot limit human understanding of Him to specific truths about Him is like saying God can be both the epitome of Good and the epitome of Evil at the same time in the truest sense of the words.
Lautensack
Amanda,
According to this position then not only must the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants be inspired, but also the Qu'ran, the Shruti and Smritis, Science and Health, the Zohar, the Gospel of Truth, etc. By saying that God cannot limit human understanding of Him to specific that are true about Him and other that are not is like saying God can be both the epitome of Good and the epitome of Evil at the same time in the truest sense of the words.
Lautensack
Well, even if someone bears personal testimony of the truth, God's own testimony of that same truth has more authority. For example, if John Doe of 2008 bears his own testimony that Jesus resurrected from the dead, his testimony is not equally as compelling or authoritative as God's very own testimony borne as scripture.
Christians believe in scripture as God's very own direct testimony, whereas Mormons seem to believe the Bible is for various reasons too indirect to be a sufficient ground for believing its claims, and it is seen instead as more man's testimony of God, than it is God's testimony of God. So Mormons seek what they think is a more direct private and personal emotional epiphany of God instead of receiving God's public testimony about himself. And when they subsequently bear testimony, they are bearing their own personal testimony about the emotional epiphany from God. In contrast, Christians don't merely bear personal testimony, they also bear God's very own testimony. See where I'm going with this?
God's testimony in Isaiah 43:10 is far more authoritative than Amanda's testimony about having a private emotional epiphany about the truthfulness of the BofM and the modern mainstream LDS organization.
Well, even if someone bears personal testimony of the truth, God's own testimony of that same truth has more authority. For example, if John Doe of 2008 bears his own testimony that Jesus resurrected from the dead, his testimony is not equally as compelling or authoritative as God's very own testimony borne as scripture.
Christians believe in scripture as God's very own direct testimony, whereas Mormons seem to believe the Bible is for various reasons too indirect to be a sufficient ground for believing its claims, and it is seen instead as more man's testimony of God, than it is God's testimony of God. So Mormons seek what they think is a more direct private and personal emotional epiphany of God instead of receiving God's public testimony about himself. And when they subsequently bear testimony, they are bearing their own personal testimony about the emotional epiphany from God. In contrast, Christians don't merely bear personal testimony, they also bear God's very own testimony. See where I'm going with this?
God's testimony in Isaiah 43:10 is far more authoritative than Amanda's testimony about having a private emotional epiphany about the truthfulness of the BofM and the modern mainstream LDS organization. Christians would rather receive God's testimony about himself rather than receive any man's personal testimony (including our own) about God.
So when my personal experiences and yours clash yours win automatically? Is that a valid standard? If your experience with God leads you to believe that He wants you to commit suicide and mine suggests that He doesn't want that, what then? (I use an extreme example not to be facetious, but when dealing with the life of the soul ought we not to understand the ramifications?)
Lautensack
Ooooh I'm up for cookies. Do you have any pizza place nearby where one can reserve a room for a small crowd (for 5 – 10 people, I presume)?
One subject I would like to explore later perhaps is the difference between bearing God's testimony and bearing one's personal testimony.
What's perhaps being missed here is that Christianity teaches the Bible is the "living" word of the Holy Spirit—what he is telling, speaking, communicating, and testifying to us today. So you can stand up and read John 1, and preface the reading with, "This is what the Holy Spirit says and is saying, publicly testifies and is publicly testifying."
So to differentiate inspired scripture with the testimony of the Spirit is awkward to us, but we don't make that distinction. Inspired scripture is the public testimony of the Spirit.
Germit,
Consider Adam finding himself in the garden of Eden. Genesis 1. He is having quite an experience yet he knows nothing of the creative process, why it was created, what was his role, what was he to do. How does he find out? Search the scriptures? He doesn't have any. Genesis 1 was written by Moses (topic for another day) He gets his knowledge from God himself. Revelation. He is being taught things are they really are. On the contrary, Satan comes and is "teaching" him lies or rather truth mixed with error about his experience.
Consider Peter. Having quite an experience with Jesus. The rest of the Jews also. So why don't the Jews believe Jesus based on the "experience" of the miracles being performed? They are not receiving revelation (or rather rejecting it). Peter sees that Jesus is the Christ because he accepts revelation being given to him.
Experience is something that happens to everyone. Testimony comes by the power of God through revelation. I like to think of it as the built in safeguard to God's knowledge. You cannot get it with going directly through Him.
Remember the 6 a day comment limit everyone. Thanks.
Lautensack,
Read my post for Germit.
Testimony is certainly an "experience" that each of us have. However, just because one has experience doesn't mean he has a testimony. I would have to say that I am classifying personal testimony as revelation since, by definition, that is what it is. He cannot get a testimony without revelation.
Which has more authority? The spoken word of God or the interpretation of the written word of God?
DOF,
You ask, "Why are you suggesting that the Bible be that benchmark?" I would answer that I do not claim the Bible as the bench mark, the Bible claims to be the benchmark (2 Tim 3:15-17; Gal 1:8, 9; 2 Thes 2:2).
You continue, "Do the prophets who wrote the book ever suggest that a compiled document would serve such a purpose?" To answer simply, yes (Luke 24:27).
Your last question "If so, how do you convince a Jew that the OT is not sufficient? Why should they accept the NT if their "benchmark" of the OT seems sufficient for them?" Might I suggest that we follow the example of Paul and "preach Christ crucified" 1 Cor 1:23-25).
Aaron,
"whereas Mormons seem to believe the Bible is for various reasons too indirect to be a sufficient ground for believing its claims"
I would have to disagree with you. We believe the scriptures is God's testimony. However, God himself did not pen to words we have in the Bible. They were recorded by his prophets. Thus, God's own direct testimony is, in fact, the testimony of his servants. ARe you not simply stating "whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same"?
The irony of this statement is that when Joseph Smith records has testimony of seeing the Father and the Son it is somehow not seen as being God's own testimony. On what basis can someone except Stephen's testimony and at the same time reject Smith's?
Germit,
I admire your humility!
However, how do you reconcile the following direct statement the Savior contained in the Doctrine and Covenants regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?
D&C 17: 6
6 And he has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true.
OK. I can hear you. But you don't necessarily believe that that is the Lord speaking. Herein lies the problem. These are serious claims. God's testimony is recorded in scripture. How does He insure that His children are not deceived? You have suggested that a benchmark is needed? I agree.
Why are you suggesting that the Bible be that benchmark? Do the prophets who wrote the book ever suggest that a compiled document would serve such a purpose? If so, how do you convince a Jew that the OT is not sufficient? Why should they accept the NT if their "benchmark" of the OT seems sufficient for them?
Nice post
DOF: I appreciate your comments. I used myself as a target of concern to underline the fact that as ev christians we are NOT singling out the LDS in advocating for an OBJECTIVE benchmark. There are a zillion privatized 'words from the Lord" out there, I'm sure you've been exposed to a few dozen , or more, yourself. Hence the caution. Hopefully CAUTION does not morph into : God is done speaking, or worse yet, "God never spoke". I'm not directing that possibility to you, if anything, that might be more of an ev. christian liability (potentially).
I believe that JS is basically responsible for (not the word for word AUTHOR of) both the BofM and D&C. IF he was not a true prophet of God……well, connect the dots.
I believe the bible to be COMPLETE, not in the sense that it contains the whole mind of God (all of God's thoughts), but in the sense that it is the only book He has or will give us that rises to the level of scripture. I'll have to think on how to explain that………or maybe stall and whine and let Lautensack do it……just kidding……sort of.
The Jews (and others in the NT: Luke, for instance) had no idea AT THE TIME, that what they were writing was to become scripture, even when they were sure that the LORD's voice and will was being spoken or written. God knew, and had HIS hand on that, just as HE had HIS hand in the councils that ratified canonicity.
The best way , or at least ONE way, to convince a Jew that the NT is his/her business is to point out how marvelously the OT points to Jesus Christ. IF they can begin to accept that fact, the rest will follow.
Amanda: you wrote
text is verified by the Holy Ghost, not the other way around
I have a guess and a hunch what you are talking about, but I'd prefer you put this (verification process) in your own words. I realize we are talking about dealing with a Loving Personality (God Himself) so I'm not trying to make this 'ultra-rational', but I would like to understand what it is you (and DOF, perhaps, since he liked your post) are talking about.
THANKS Germit
DOF: I knew someone smarter than I would pipe up: read Gundek's comments about the Bible below. I know it may seem "circular" , but the Bible testifies to the Bibles ability to be that benchmark.. I think that's GOD Himself at work how things are.
And of course, it (the Bible) has not lost its lustre in 2000 yrs of careful scrutiny…..that counts for something as well.
Good job GUNDY. GERMIT
SteveH,
I would not call it "bibiolatry" because it is not worshiping the bible but looking at the bible and seeing that it's claims are true. The authority of the bible to make these claims does not come from a church or a council but from the very God revealed in it's pages. These claims cause us to worship the Truth revealed outside of the bible, namely God.
As for your examples of Paul and Moses you miss the point that we are no longer in an age of inscripturation. Moses lived in the time of the Prophets and Paul in the Apostolic period. Communication with God certainly is not over, that would miss the gift of the Holy Spirit. What we do not believe is that anything can be added to Scripture (Gal 1:8, 9) because it contains the "… whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life.." (WCF I, IV)(2 Timothy 3:15-17).
In accord with Paul's teaching in Romans 10:17 we do believe that "…faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Because of this Reformed Churches confess in the SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION…
"Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is preached, and received of the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be feigned, nor to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; who, although he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God abides true and good."
Let's examine the scriptures you have quoted to support your position.
2Tim 3:15-17: Letter from Paul to Timothy. Reminding him that the scriptures have made him wise unto salvation. What scriptures? Certainly not Paul's letter because that was not scripture, at the time. He is referring to the OT. So that scripture would justify the OT prophets only.
Gal 1:8,9 Another letter of Paul's. Not scripture at the time he wrote it. It talks of another "gospel" and says nothing about what is scripture and what is not.
2 Thes 2:2 Interesting you are quoting a prophecy that is predicting the pending apostasy. Nevertheless, it says nothing of what is scripture and what is not.
What is my point? The Bible does not suggest that the compilation of books that we know as the Bible today was intended to be the complete canon of God's words. It was not compiled in the day that Paul wrote those letters that you referred to. Who decided, at some later date, that indeed Paul's letters is the Word of God? The Bible says that the benchmark IS THE WORD OF GOD, not a set of books known to us as the OT/NT.
Luke 24:27 relates how Jesus used the scriptures to show that they testify of Him. If the scriptures were complete at that time why the need for the rest of the NT?
Finally,
Preaching of Christ does not answer the primary question first posed. Why should someone accept the NT as scripture? You are "preaching Christ" and so are you suggesting that your words in this blog become additional scripture? If not, then why should one accept a letter from Paul to Timothy as the literal Word of God?
And if I accept Paul's simple letter to his friend as scripture (which I do) how can you and I dismiss D&C 1:38 "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."
Germit,
I was a little wordy above with Gundek. But certainly more complete. The Bible does not testify to it's OWN ability to be the benchmark by the simple fact that it wasn't compiled at the time the words were penned (at least NT). The prophets (Bible) testify that the Word of God is the benchmark.
I respect your belief that the Bible is the only book that God has given as scripture. But if that is true I would expect Him to emphatically state so! i.e. "That is the end of my words, do not expect anything more from my mouth, you have enough, yada yada yada" But it is simply not there!
DOF: those are good points but for me, it comes down to this: do I want to trust the Mormon 'take' on what constitutes the word of God, or the early church fathers. I know VOOK, among others is very convinced that early church history leans your way, but I think/believe that the same God who had the words penned was able to preserve them for future use thru the councils and have the basic truths re-stated for church-wide unity as (hold your nose……..) the creeds. It doesn't matter to me that the authors themselves did not know what they penned was "scripture" or "Gods word" AT THE TIME. Shoot, not all of the D & C was written like that, am I wrong about that ?? It's been re-stated MANY times, but let me throw in: the councils did NOT decide what WAS Scripture, they RATIFIED what was ALREADY SEEN and USED as authoratative throughout the church universal, More later. GERMIT
Interesting thing about personal testimonies… When I was reading the Book of Mormon, I got a burning sensation in the area around my heart. I would say that my heart seemed to burn within me as I read. However, as I prayed to God with a sincere heart and resisted Satan (Eph. 4:7), I discerned the burning sensation to be demonic. I believe this was born out of my relationship with God as well as experiences God has given me with spiritual warfare. As Hebrews 5:14 states, discerning between good and evil requires experience: “strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
When I read the introduction to the BofM, I discerned the angel of light that appeared to JS to be an evil spirit "transformed into an angel of light" (II Cor. 11:14). My personal revelation was further confirmed as I continued to “test the spirit” (I John 4:1) of the LDS movement, its teachings, and founder with the Bible, objective evidences, and historical facts. Jesus commends the church in Ephesus (described in Revelation) because they “tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” (Rev. 2:2). He rebuked those churches that tolerated false doctrines (Rev. 2:14-15, 2:20).
So, once again, we see the glaring difference in personal testimonies. I have a testimony that the BofM is not true, JS was not a prophet of God, and the LDS church is not the true church but, rather, I believe LDS people are being deceived by demonic spirits disguised as angels of light. How can we even discuss our differences if we appeal to personal revelations since our personal revelations are diametrically opposed to one another?
PS Perhaps if it had been Aaron in that grove of trees we might have 1 consistent record of what actually happened there!
Jessica,
Thank you for sharing that personal experience. I don't want to take that for granted. Since you are so sure that burning feeling you felt was demonic- then I am sure you are prepared to answer for your decision at the last day. Personal experiences are mostly meant for us as we try to walk by faith. Also, they are valuable when shared with others, to compel them to take that same journey. So in that way, in discussions, our alleged differences don't actually make a difference when making personal decisions. You had this experience, and are responsible for your actions. So, it matters very little that on this website we are outlining our differences. Even if we acknowledge them all day, it will not diminish our personal responsibilities to seek God sincerely, and the reality of the consequences if we don't.
I do question your assumption that I have little experience with spiritual things…those scriptures you cited could be used in the converse as well.
Aaron, you should allow the minority (LDS) two more comments than other readers simply because it is impossible to address every question from non-LDS. Sorry I went over by a LOT yesterday.
DOF, I believe in the dual-authorship of the Bible. As 2 Timothy 3:16 says, scripture is God-breathed. And as Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers."
So scripture is not one-author removed from God's word. It is God's word and testimony. I reject Smith's alleged scripture because of a package of reasons which show him to be a fraud, but that's for another thread.
Well, I like your post but here is the deal: history is replete with people who claim that their experiences/epiphanies are a whole lot like Moses, Abraham, Paul, etc. This list of "God came to me and told me…." is long. So how would we know that YOUR claim is legit, and Mary Baker Eddy's , or Warren Jeff's is not so legit?? Do I depend on God visiting me bodily, as He supposedly did JS numerous times ?? Or do I just take someone's word for it (and they ALL claim to be special servants/prophets/apostles.
You reference the "power of God through revelation"….but you aren't telling me what that is, tho I get the idea of God somehow meeting (spiritually ??) with you as HE did the ancients. Can you add to that ?
Aaron,
On the contrary, I accept the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Covenants because the Holy Ghost has borne witness directly to me of their sacred veracity. It is you who is rejecting Christ.
So the relevant question to you is: is the witness you speak of scripture itself, or is it a private emotional epiphany about the testimony of scripture? It seems everyone here is appealing to some kind of self-authenticating, authoritative testimony. For Christians it is God's public personal testimony as scripture, for Mormons they bear personal testimony of a private emotional experience.
I would rather trust God's public, personal word and testimony than trust someone's interpretation of a private emotional experience. I mean that with all seriousness. It is not a snide comment.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Gundek,
It always amazes me how evangelicals are so ready to reject Christ and his messengers.
In the Revelations 11 John reveals in considerable detail the mission of two witnesses (prophets) who will be sent to Jerusalem to preach the Gospel just prior to the Second Coming of Christ. If you sincerely believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible then would not the words and message of these two divinely appointed individuals be of great worth? Or will you reject them because what they say does not identically comport with your Protestant interpretation of the scriptures?
Aaron,
Not to be contentious, but it appears that you truly do not understand what Mormons refer to as a "Testimony". It is much more than a private emotional experience. To the Latter-day Saint a testimony entails personal revelation directly revealed to the individual through the power of the Holy Ghost who bears witness of the truth or through other means of divine revelation.
A testimony as personal revelation can take many forms whether it be something as dramatic as a visitation from Christ, the ministering of angels, hearing the audible voice of God, being transfigured, being caught up in the spirit (as the apostle Paul would describe it) and transported to heaven, having a miraculous healing of a terminal disease and so forth. More commonly a Latter-day Saint can receive a testimony of a specific principle of the gospel such as the blessings which come from obeying the law of tithing or the greater spirituality that comes from praying and reading the scriptures on a daily basis.
Latter-day Saints affirm that God speaks not just to prophets but all who are willing to listen to Him. This is the great blessing of having modern revelation.
Aaron,
Not to be contentious, but it appears that you truly do not understand what Mormons refer to as a "Testimony". It is much more than a private emotional experience. To the Latter-day Saint a testimony entails personal revelation directly revealed to the individual through the power of the Holy Ghost who bears witness of the truth or through other means of divine revelation.
A testimony as personal revelation can take many forms whether it be something as dramatic as a visitation from Christ, the ministering of angels, hearing the audible voice of God, being transfigured, being caught up in the spirit (as the apostle Paul would describe it) and transported to heaven, having a miraculous healing of a terminal disease and so forth. More commonly a Latter-day Saint can receive a testimony of a specific principle of the gospel such as the blessings which come from obeying the law of tithing or the greater spirituality that comes from praying and reading the scriptures on a daily basis.
Latter-day Saints affirm that God speaks not just to prophets but all who are willing to listen to Him. This is the great blessing of having modern revelation.
Unlike evangelicals, we do not try to muzzle Christ in saying that God cannot speak to mankind in this day and age.
DOF,
I believe that God has fulfilled His promise in Proverbs 22:19-21, revealed Himself and through His providence brought together His Word, compiling it and preserving it so that the faithful may know His Truth.
I am sure that you have heard all of this before but hear goes. First Peter testifies to the canonical nature of Paul's letters (2 Peter 3:15-16). Second Peter also teaches that the words of the prophets in the Bible are the Word of God and not of men (2 Peter 1:19-21). These words are "carried along by the Holy Spirit" who testifies of their truthfulness to the faithful. The writer of Hebrews tells also tells us that the age of the Prophets is over (Heb 1:1, 2).
As to how I can reject the D&C or any other modern revelation, once again I refer you to 2 Peter 1:20. Scripture is not something for personal interpretation. This verse and others are the basis for the Reformed teaching that "the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself…" (WCF I, IX) Add to that Paul's teaching in Galatians chapter 1 verse 9, "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
It is my contention that when you take the Old and New Testament and compare them with the teachings of the D&C you will not find the same Gospel that Paul preached.
SteveH,
Another example of a mispresentation of our beliefs. No one would say God is done talking to us, you do know that, right? So do YOU understand OUR beliefs?
The idea of a testimony is entirely subjective, because there is no way that I can, or anyone here, can deny how you view your experience. I do not know what you have felt, but nor do you know what I have felt, right? You'll probably say that I have not truly experienced God because I am not a Mormon, or something along those lines. Even though you say all can experience God in their own way, unless they accept the Mormon view, they haven't gone all the way (accurate enough?). But the experience is something you cannot know from my view point, because it is not you experience it. Right? So, when I have an experience contrary to yours, how do we resolve the discrepency of what the experience speaks to?
It is more important to appeal to scripture, God's testimony, than it is to tell our testimony of how God has worked in our lives. Both are important, but God's testimony as scripture is primarily what the Holy Spirit uses to affect the heart. After all, the Holy Spirit is the divine author of scripture.
This is a big reason why Christians often open their Bibles in evangelism, whereas Mormons see it often quickly as mere bashing instead of the beautiful and compelling and important opening of God's testimony. If Mormons thought of scripture as God's very testimony, then they would appeal to it instead of bearing personal testimony of their own feelings. And they wouldn't see the Bible as a club to be bashed with, but a healing, disciplining, life-giving medicine that comes from the Almighty God.
DOF,
Interesting positions, I am wondering what the definition of sola scriptura you are working with to make these assertions.
Lautensack
DOF wrote: Not scripture at the time he wrote it. It talks of another "gospel" and says nothing about what is scripture and what is not.
This phrase seems a bit odd to me, while I agree no letter of Paul's was scripture prior to its inscription, when do you think it became scripture?
Lautensack
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1193
God breathed?
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Actually the Greek word is "theopneustos".
"Theo" meaning God and "pneustos" a variant of the word "pneuma" or spirit (as in 1 Cor 2:11) and it literally means spirited.
The word breathed in John 20:22 is translated from the Greek word "emphusaO" literally meaning 'He-IN-INFLATES'.
If you look at 2 Tim 3:16 in different English versions of the Bible you find;
American Standard Version = "inspired of God"
Darby Translation = "divinely inspired"
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition = "inspired of God"
Holman Christian Standard Bible = "inspired by God"
King James Version = "inspiration of God"
New American Standard Bible = "inspired by God"
New Century Version = "inspired by God"
New King James Version = "inspiration of God"
New Living Translation = "inspired by God"
Wycliffe New Testament = "inspired of God"
Contemporary English Version = "God's Word"
21st Century King James Version = "inspiration of God"
New World Translation = "inspired of God"
Are all of those translations “infallible” or “inerrant”?