I have just finished reading through the entire gospel doctrine series called “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church” series, including the newest volume dedicated to Joseph Fielding Smith. Smith was known for being a church theologian, penning the massive three-volume set Doctrines of Salvation as well as the five volumes comprising Answers to Gospel Questions.
Smith, who is a direct descendant of Joseph Smith’s brother Hyrum, is the son of sixth president Joseph F. Smith. He is known for stating things as they were. He didn’t mince words in his writings, an attribute that I believe his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie later picked up and turned into his style.
After having read the 2013 manual made up of Smith’s teachings and how much of what he is quoted as saying is truly innocuous, I was seriously longing for the days of old when the leaders and the manuals were more upfront. From my shelf I picked up Smith’s book Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions, which was “a course of study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums 1972-73.” What makes this book different from Smith’s other writings is that this was published by the LDS Church’s First Presidency backed in the 1970s and was considered “official.”
Honestly, there are so many more “quotable” statements in this older book than what can be found in the newest manual. The church seems so much more cautious in what it prints these days. For example, I turned to Lesson 25 in Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions and, after quoting Matthew 16:13-19 (speaking about Peter and the “rock”), found the following quote in the section titled “The Church is Not Established on Any Man”:
“The interpretation placed on this conversation by the Catholics is extremely absurd. It is contrary to reason to think that the Lord would establish his Church upon any man, no matter how faithful and wonderful he might be.”
First of all, I love how Smith used the word absurd. Can you imagine seeing that word used in a manual today in reference to the Catholics or Protestants? I like it when the LDS leadership throws away political correctness and tells us what they really think rather than hide behind niceties.
What I find even more amazing is how Smith criticized the Catholics for placing too much emphasis on Peter. Yet let’s consider the life of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. This is a person of whom President Heber J. Grant once said, “The whole foundation of this Church rests firmly upon the inspiration of the living God through Joseph Smith the Prophet” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Heber J. Grant, p. 16).
In the Melchizedek manual referred to above, listen to what Joseph Fielding Smith said:
“No one else, but Joseph Smith, has ever made the claim that this restoration and setting up of the kingdom (i.e. Church of Jesus Christ) has ever been revealed. Joseph Smith as proclaimed to the world that power, keys, and authority were bestowed upon him. No one else has arisen to make such a claim; yet, this was revealed preparatory to these momentous and final restorations” (Selections, p. 338).
How important is Joseph Smith to the Mormon religion? Let me share several additional quotes that support my case:
Brigham Young: “I honor and revere the name of Joseph Smith. I delight to hear it; I love it. I love his doctrine” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, p. 345).
“Whosoever confesseth that Joseph Smith was sent of God to reveal the holy Gospel to the children of men, and lay the foundation for gathering Israel, and building up the Kingdom of God on the earth, that spirit is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, and revealed the everlasting Gospel to and through him, is of Antichrist, no matter whether it is found in a pulpit or on a throne” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 435).
Joseph F. Smith: “Where shall we go to find another man who has accomplished a one-thousandth part of the good that Joseph Smith accomplished?” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, p. 18).
George Albert Smith: “Many of the benefits and blessings that have come to me have come through that man who gave his life for the gospel of Jesus Christ. There have been some who have belittled him, but I would like to say that those who have done so will be forgotten and their remains will go back to mother earth, if they have not already gone, and the odor of their infamy will never die, while the glory and honor and majesty and courage and fidelity manifested by the Prophet Joseph Smith will attach to his name forever” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith, p. 34).
Harold B. Lee: “We must accept the divine mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith as the instrumentality through which the restoration of the gospel and the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ was accomplished. Each member of the Church, to be prepared for the millennial reign, must receive a testimony, each for himself, of the divinity of the work established by Joseph Smith” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Harold B. Lee, p. 71).
I’m not suggesting that Mormons somehow worship Smith any more than Catholics worship Peter—that’s not my case nor my point. What I am saying is that, according to LDS leaders, Mormonism truly has been established upon the name of Joseph Smith.
Rolleyes AGAIN. The NIV is far more CORRECT than the KJV. There are many errors in the KJV because of manuscripts that were not available in 1611, biased translators, and simply errors where they guessed at the translation. Wow, anyone with a mouse and the internet could figure this out in minutes if they cared to learn the truth. Shem, once again, doesn’t know what he is talking about. Sad, really, that he does this with every single post. Here are some of them, and this list is very long.
And Grindael expresses exactly why relying on a single translation is problematic.
MJP
” You cannot escape that you told me very plainly that a reason for your rejection is not just the wording and use of language, but the bias the translators of the NIV supposedly bring with them. You very clearly told me this. Do I need to quote you to refresh your memory?”
Don’t try to imply that I don’t know what I said. I know exactly what I said, and I know what I meant by what I said, and that is something that you don’t seem to be getting. The language of the translators is their bias, as I have shown. It is not a supposition, but a mere fact. They have a bias, something that no person can avoid, and no honest person would deny.
You are write, I don’t like their bias, because their bias is to take a clearly symbolic phrase and interpret it according to their interpretation, and to put the interpretation as the translation rather than the actual wording used. I do not like this approach, and it doesn’t matter to me what interpretation they go with, I like the symbolic nature of the original text that has been better preserved in the KJV.
Now, you have given me nothing except your claim that in reading the NIV with an open mind that I will somehow come to realize the truth of the trinity. Yet you also claim that the NIV and KJV do not teach different doctrine. If they teach the same doctrine than how is reading the NIV going to be different than reading the KJV? That is what you have failed to show me, and before I submit to anything I want to know why I am supposed to be submitting.
” If you now only tell me it is about symbolism then you are now being dishonest. This is the point of me harping on it. Your story has changed.”
You know, quote whatever you want because my story has not changed in the least. My first comment regarding it in our discussion was that it altered the symbolic nature of the text in order to force a single interpretation rather than allowing the reader to interpret the symbols themselves. It was you who first brought up bias by stating the KJV had such, and I simply replied that the NIV did as well, in an attempt to simply get rid of the focus on biases. So please, refresh your memory of my words and the course of our previous conversation before you start accusing me.
And you know, despite Grindael and his continual inability to understand the words of others, I never once claimed the KJV was perfect and completely full of errors, and anyone who knows the doctrines of our church knows that. So to list errors is meaningless, because I know all about them. The problem is that you have already stated that the doctrine of the KJV and the NIV are the same, so whether or not Genesis 1: 2 should say ‘was’ or ‘came’ doesn’t matter to that point, which is the point I was making.
MJP
” You cannot escape that you told me very plainly that a reason for your rejection is not just the wording and use of language, but the bias the translators of the NIV supposedly bring with them. You very clearly told me this. Do I need to quote you to refresh your memory?”
Don’t try to imply that I don’t know what I said. I know exactly what I said, and I know what I meant by what I said, and that is something that you don’t seem to be getting. The language of the translators is their bias, as I have shown. It is not a supposition, but a mere fact. They have a bias, something that no person can avoid, and no honest person would deny.
You are write, I don’t like their bias, because their bias is to take a clearly symbolic phrase and interpret it according to their interpretation, and to put the interpretation as the translation rather than the actual wording used. I do not like this approach, and it doesn’t matter to me what interpretation they go with, I like the symbolic nature of the original text that has been better preserved in the KJV.
Now, you have given me nothing except your claim that in reading the NIV with an open mind that I will somehow come to realize the truth of the trinity. Yet you also claim that the NIV and KJV do not teach different doctrine. If they teach the same doctrine than how is reading the NIV going to be different than reading the KJV? That is what you have failed to show me, and before I submit to anything I want to know why I am supposed to be submitting.
” If you now only tell me it is about symbolism then you are now being dishonest. This is the point of me harping on it. Your story has changed.”
You know, quote whatever you want because my story has not changed in the least. My first comment regarding it in our discussion was that it altered the symbolic nature of the text in order to force a single interpretation rather than allowing the reader to interpret the symbols themselves. It was you who first brought up bias by stating the KJV had such, and I simply replied that the NIV did as well, in an attempt to simply get rid of the focus on biases. So don’t tell me what I have said or what I meant.
Sorry for the double post, my computer was acting up.
You still don’t get it. Nor will you ever, as long as you are closed to God’s true identity.
Its not about versions, though I continually tell you that it is not just the NIV in question here as there are many, many translations. Its about openness to God.
Let me put it to you this way: I believe your attraction to the KJV is that it best supports your position. I believe you see the others as distorting your version of God with the bias to support the Trinity. I believe your reliance on the KJV is purely comfort. I believe you can couch it with whatever reasons you wish, including it is more symbolic, but the above sentences remain true.
All of that leads to this conclusion: you are not open to other versions precisely because they are a threat to your version of God. It is you who suggested they are the same, but then it is also you who insists there are real differences in the presentation of issues concerning the Trinity and symbolism. You therefore do not believe they are the same. And you choose the one in which you are able to support your position best.
It is an issue of being open to God. That is precisely what it is. And even in your position that they are the same you reject the others for reasons of ‘symbolism’ and bias against your version of God. If you were open, you would have no problem with other versions. But you reject them. In your own words, you reject them.
So, the matter is not just which version of the Bible you read, it is your openness to listen to God’s word. I could care less which version one prefers. There are many Christians who prefer the KJV. That’s not the issue– its how open you are to God’s word.
MJP said
“Let me put it to you this way: I believe your attraction to the KJV is that it best supports your position.”
I think you about nailed it, but before saying any more let’s look at this excerpt from the Ensign Magazine which as shem pointed out in another thread is overseen by the prophet & declares the doctrine of the church.
“On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some — especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel who was in authority in the presence of God, a son of the morning. (See Isa. 14:12;
MJP, that quote is a perfect example of what you are saying, it is only in the KJV that the name Lucifer can be found. In Isaiah 14:12 the KJV says “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”
That translation cannot be found in any modern Bible because the translators of the KJV simply copied Jeromes Latin vulgate which was itself an error. I don’t wish to go deeply into the details as it’s very late here (as usual) but let’s just say that the entire story of Lucifer being a younger brother of Jesus will simply fall apart if another version of the Bible is used. The title Lucifer is simply a mistranslation of shining one or possibly son of the dawn, it was used mockingly of the King of Babylon & has nothing to do with Satan.
The oracle concerning Babylon starts at the beginning of chapter 13 & continues to the end of chapter 14.The identity of the person mentioned in 14:12 is made clear in verses 3-4
“ On the day the LORD gives you relief from your suffering and turmoil and from the harsh labor forced on you, 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:”
This taunt against the Babylonian King continues to the end of the chapter.
I’ll conclude by saying that if Jo Smith really did translate the BofM why did God allow his translation to include an error identical to that found in the KJV?
Thanks, Old Man, for the example.
Here is poor, poor Shem trying to change the dichotomy of what he actually said and what I answered him with. This stuff is priceless. Shem is NOW claiming that I said that he said that the KJV “was perfect and completely full of errors”, (that would be lack of errors, wouldn’t it?). I never once said that. In fact, I quoted EXACTLY what Shem said. What he said was that the KJV was not a “more correct” translation. It’s not. I’ve proved it. It has far more errors than the NIV. But still, Shem has to try and change the wording of what he said because he knows that he was wrong. It is not grindael that doesn’t understand, it is Shem who can’t comprehend Mormon Doctrine, or what is plainly put forth as an answer to his wildly erroneous claims about Mormon “prophets” and their doctrines.
Next time Shem, read slower. It might help with your comprehension skills. But I doubt that.
MJP
“Its about openness to God…I could care less which version one prefers.”
In other words, as I stated before, unless I believe exactly as you do I am not open minded because an open minded person would only believe what you believe. That is exactly what you are saying, and you are pushing the other translations because you feel the KJV doesn’t present your version of God in as strait forward a manner as the others do.
Old Man
I know you like to think that all the LDS are ignorant fools who are blinded to the facts of what ancient manuscripts say and all that, but maybe you should actually try to learn a few things about us so that you will actually know what you are talking about.
I know what the translation of Isaiah 14: 12 is, as do most people among the LDS. It states in the footnotes of our copies of the Bible concerning Lucifer “HEB morning star, son of dawn. The ruler of the wicked world (Babylon) is spoken of as Lucifer, the ruler of all wickedness.”
Now, you yourself declare that Lucifer is a title, and thus to leave it as Lucifer is not a mistranslation, but the using of the title rather than the meaning of the title, which we LDS have known for some time.
All the errors and mistranslations you think are so important are noted in our footnotes and explanations are given for those phrases and idioms that are not common today. So if this is your only reason for pushing me into reading the NIV than I still see no need, as all that you claim is fixed by the NIV is explained to us.
Shem,
I started a much longer response, but decided only to post this: think about it. Think about what it is I am saying, and whose Truth I am defending. Think about the very nature of truth and how there can only be one ultimate Truth. Think about how your rejection of various versions and the reasons for your rejection play into you finding Truth.
I cannot lead you to the water, Shem. That is something you have to do on your own. You have to go to the Water to drink it. You have to figure it out on your own. All I can do is show you the way and explain how it is consumed. The rest is up to you.
–Mike
“I know you like to think that all the LDS are ignorant fools who are blinded to the facts of what ancient manuscripts say and all that, but maybe you should actually try to learn a few things about us so that you will actually know what you are talking about.”
You don’t know that because I happen to believe that you’re a pretty intelligent guy & when you say I should actually try to learn a few things about your organization once again you’re mistaken. I have had very good reasons over the years to learn much about the LDS
“Now, you yourself declare that Lucifer is a title”
I said no such thing, neither was it inferred. I said that Lucifer is a translation error, If the actual English words i.e. morning star or light bringer (Greek phosphoros) were used then it could possibly be used as a title but it is NOT used in that sense in LDS publications, by Mormons or by some Christians, it is always used as a name. That is easily shown not just in the Ensign magazine of June 1986, but also in the LDS Sunday school manual where it says
“3. Lucifer, who became Satan, was also a spirit child of Heavenly Father.”
Would you rather that was translated as a title so as to become ‘light bringer who became Satan’?
“The ruler of the wicked world (Babylon) is spoken of as Lucifer, the ruler of all wickedness.””
Isaiah certainly didn’t mean what you are saying he means. Have you ever read the book? God told Isaiah to prophecy against Judah, against Assyria & against Babylon & this is exactly what he did.
Here’s a quote from the Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, they should know what they’re talking about.
“The passage in question is a song of derision over the downfall of a Babylonian king;”
You then said this
“So if this is your only reason for pushing me into reading the NIV than I still see no need, as all that you claim is fixed by the NIV is explained to us.”
I was giving MJP an example of a translation error in the KJV I wasn’t even talking to you & I did not mention the NIV so how could I have been pushing you into reading it?
Stop twisting what I say!
Old Man
“I said no such thing, neither was it inferred. I said that Lucifer is a translation error, If the actual English words i.e. morning star or light bringer (Greek phosphoros) were used then it could possibly be used as a title but it is NOT used in that sense in LDS publications, by Mormons or by some Christians, it is always used as a name.”
You say it isn’t a title, and yet it is, but it isn’t because you don’t think we use it as such. This is just a rather confused attempt to make us wrong.
What is a title but a name, a formal name applied to a person or thing to distiguish them from others. Generally it is a name that distinguishes rank, which is what Lucifer does.
However, it doesn’t really matter. Hebrew names all have meanings and are frequently given to describe some aspect of the person, or as an honor to God. Why would the name of Lucifer be different?
Elijah means ‘Jehovah is my God’ but we don’t bother translating that meaning. Adam means ‘first man’ but we leave it as Adam. Every name in the Bible has an English translation, and yet, we leave them is their hebrew form so that we readily know they are speaking of a particular person. There is nothing different in Isaiah 14: 12 when we are given a name or title that is Lucifer, and we simply leave it as that rather than giving the English Translation.
As to the interpretation of the verse, that is a matter of opinion and thus doesn’t really mean much.
“Here’s a quote from the Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia, they should know what they’re talking about.”
If they knew what they were talking about they would be Christians, wouldn’t they?
“I was giving MJP an example of a translation error in the KJV I wasn’t even talking to you & I did not mention the NIV so how could I have been pushing you into reading it?”
My last comment was more directed to MJP, and I do apologyze for its bad placement. I was in a hurry.
However, I will say that by entering a discussion on versions of the Bible, and by doing so in support of MJP you have given your support to his argument and thus, in an indirect way you were assisting him in his argument that I should read the NIV or other versions, and thus, in a very indirect way, the comment could be addressed to you as well.
MJP
I have thought about it, and when I have been drinking deeply of the water, you telling me that I should go try the water of a different pond without good reason isn’t going to make me leave the water I already have.
As I have said, you have given me no compelling reason to read any other translation of the Bible. You have simply said that I am not open minded because I do not believe what you do, and that is not a compelling reason.
Shem, it is not my word you should think about– it is God’s. Don’t take my word for anything.
Think about it. Think about God’s words. Think about what it is He tells us. To do this, you have to be open to hear it. This should not be surprising to you when you tell others to be open when praying about the Book or Mormon. If you expect openness on that point, shouldn’t you be open to God’s word as revealed in the Bible, too?
You see, this topic is loaded, and we could go on and on and on about it. I don’t see the point. The better message is to encourage you to really consider God’s word as presented by the Bible honestly and openly.
A final thought: how many times do I have to tell you I am not really ultimately concerned with which Bible you use. That detail is important only so far as the reasons for the choice you make on versions.
Shem said,
In answer to Old Man, who said,
The Old Testament was not written in Greek, it was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word here is from הילל בן שחר which transliterates into hêlêl ben šāḥar, or “son of the dawn” or “(day) morning star”, and has nothing to do with Satan, but it is an oracle against a dead king of Babylon. The actual word for morning star WAS USED. This is the whole point which Shem seems unable to grasp because he adds the opinion “the ruler of the wicked world (Babylon) is spoken of as Lucifer, the ruler of all wickedness.” and acts like that is what Isaiah actually meant. It’s not. It translates (correctly by the NIV)
The Latin Vulgate “Lucifer” is taken from the Greek Septuagint, but it is not used as a name for Satan, but as the Descriptor of a dead king of Babylon. “Lucifer” is really not a mistranslation, it is a word translated into Latin from the Greek, which was taken from the Hebrew. Lucifer wasn’t equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn’t in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were, in equating “Lucifer” with “Satan”. Lucifer is just a Latin name for the day star, or Venus. Jo dug himself a huge hole when he copied the KJV into the Book of Mormon. He then compounded the error with this:
Which anyone with common sense can see was just made up. So with all his “inspiration”, Jo is actually saying that a Babylon King is an angel of God who “fell from heaven”. This is simply ignorance at its best, done with style by Jo Smith, the King of all such things. And what does Shem do to get out of all this? He says, “As to the interpretation of the verse, that is a matter of opinion and thus doesn’t really mean much.” Are you kidding me?
Shem just compounds the errors, by trying to explain it away as a “name” and that Mormons use “Lucifer” as a name. Yet the origin of the name (used by Mormons) is in the Bible and it is not Satan, but a Babylonian King. How could Jo see “Lucifer” the Babylonian King in heaven leading a revolt against God? An active imagination.
Grindael
It’s tempting to let things go but I have to say that it was I who said used the word ‘mistranslation’ Shem was quoting me.
I was going to add to my comments something to the effect of Lucifer being a Latin word & being completely out of place in a Hebrew book, that was what I meant when I said mistranslation. As you rightly say, Isaiah was translated into Greek from the original Hebrew but the translators of the KJV rather than translate from the Greek used Jeromes Latin translation. The reason I didn’t mention any of that was simply one of space, as you know a large number of my comments end up in mod jail & to avoid that I try as much as possible to be space efficient, sometimes that has a detrimental effect as something important can be left out. Having said all that it really makes no difference to the argument, Isaiah was taunting a real King of Babylon & Lucifer is not Satans name.
I apologise for any confusion I inadvertently caused.
Old Man,
What I was focusing on was the added phrase by Shem, “The ruler of the wicked world (Babylon) is spoken of as Lucifer, the ruler of all wickedness.” and I was just giving the background of the translation. I simply mislabeled your quote, which I have corrected. I use blockquote before, and /blockquote at the end (enclosed in arrow brackets which I can’t demonstrate because they won’t appear)of all quotes to make it easier to distinguish who said what. I totally understand about space, and that is why I gave more background. Thanks for clarifying my mistake about the attribution of the quote.
MJP
“The better message is to encourage you to really consider God’s word as presented by the Bible honestly and openly.”
And I say again, you do not know that I have not been open to God’s word as presented in the Bible. You claim that because I don’t read the translations that you have advocated I have proven I am not open, but then you tell me that it doesn’t matter if I don’t read them.
So, I will say once more, I have read the Bible with an open mind and it has only strengthen my beleif in the LDS church. I have witnessed this same thing in many others, as well as many who reject the church after reading the Bible with an open mind. Having an open mind is no guarantee of discovering the truth.
Shem,
Why is this a bit humorous? Because you claim you have to honestly and openly pray for the BoM when reading it. If one rejects it, as I have, he or she has not honestly prayed about it. This puts us in the same position, huh?
Well, not quite. You reject versions of the Bible specifically for reasons of their bias and their lack of symbolism. This is a very different thing than rejecting a single book with a single translation (though the book has been updated through time to alter some important areas of doctrine). I reject the Book of Mormon precisely through prayer and a study of the Bible, too, not just for a dislike of the language.
You’re right that having an open mind is no guarantee of any particular result. But its not just an open mind that I am advocating. I am advocating two additional things: first an open heart, and second a reading without rose colored glasses. An open heart to hear what God is saying is different than an open mind. And by ‘without rose colored glasses’ I mean that you need to abandon Mormon-think when reading the Bible.
As to others, who cares? I am talking to you– directly to you, Shem Atwater. A game of numbers is irrelevant. It is you who needs to lay aside the prejudices you have concerning God’s word, not anyone else. God is speaking to you, Shem Atwater, now. Are you listening? As I said above– don’t take my word for anything. Ask God. Look in the Bible. Don’t use LDS sources. Don’t just use evangelical sources, either: use a variety of sources. Free your heart, soul, and mind of all encumbrances and go to God.
God is indeed talking to you. Are you listening?
MJP
“If one rejects it, as I have, he or she has not honestly prayed about it. ”
When have I ever said this about anyone? I recall that maybe seven to ten years ago I had this opinion, but I have long since come to the conclusion that this is simply wrong. Many honest people pray about the Book of Mormon, and I don’t know why they reject it. That is not for me to judge, nor is it for me to judge how honestly they were praying.
“first an open heart, and second a reading without rose colored glasses.”
Now, you ahve not once mentioned an open heart, so up to this point you have not been advocating it.
“And by ‘without rose colored glasses’ I mean that you need to abandon Mormon-think when reading the Bible.”
And once again, you have no proof that I haven’t. You are judging my honesty and integrity, and basically saying that because I believe in the LDS it is impossible that I have actually read the Bible in any honest way. Quite honestly, it is insulting.
“Don’t use LDS sources. Don’t just use evangelical sources, either: use a variety of sources.”
I have to note something here. First you say not to use LDS sources, rejecting all of them out right. Then you tell me to mix up the sources I do use. A little prejudice there, are you. If I am going to find the truth of the Bible shouldn’t I read all sources, whether they are evangelical, LDS or some other kind?
You don’t know what my approach to the Bible and God has been or is now, and so all your lectures are meaningless. I have read with an open mind, and open heart, and I have used other sources, and I still conclude that the LDS church is the only church that actually teaches what the Bible teaches and that all the others have lost portions of the truth.
Shem, you know, I know you have not considered with an open heart or mind. How do I know this? Two reasons. First, your admitted reasons for dismissing the NIV– just one of many translations of the Bible– and your reason for doing so. Your reason for the rejection is that you find it biased in favor of the Trinity, which ironically does not fit with your theology. This indicates your mind is not open to what the Bible has to say.
Second, there is only one truth. I am confident enough in this truth to tell you that your inability to find it has nothing to do with the truth itself. Your inability has everything to do with you and your approach to it. If one is honest, open, and mindful of the truth, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion except belief.
You can call me arrogant over this. Perhaps I am, but I am also certain that it is truth. God loves us so much that He took the form of man to die for us so that upon our belief in Him we are saved from the death that we created.
God loves you that much, too. Its a very simple proposition with a huge host of consequences and much deeper meaning. But its genesis is as simple as belief. Your rejection of this cannot be of God. The source of your rejection is something other than God, and that includes your testimony. But you reject it the same.
You’re right– I don’t know your mind or your heart. But I do what the final result of an open heart to God looks like.
MJP
And finally you admit what I have been saying from the beginning. I do not have an open mind or heart simply because I do not believe what you believe.
I think the conversation has gone full circle and it is time to end it.
Shem, you are free to disengage, but consider that both of us cannot be right. You make a truth claim, and I make a truth claim. These are not compatible.
If you are not willing to engage in an honest discussion, then your mind is indeed not open. If you will not consider God’s message in your heart, then your heart is also closed.
There is no relativism in this discussion. Its an either/or proposition. Your argument seems to rely on the hope of there being a grey area, and there is not. You’ve done nothing to convince me of anything in all the time we have been discussing except that you do not wish to address the issues of the highest importance.
Fair enough, Shem. So be it. I pray that you do consider the things you have seen and heard from me, and hopefully from others, too. Your eternal soul depends on it. Lest you think I am exaggerating, I encourage you to read the Bible with a new heart.
MJP
I was going to disengage but I have to make one last comment.
“If you are not willing to engage in an honest discussion, then your mind is indeed not open.”
And what is your proof that I am not willing to engage in an honest discussion? Your proof is that I disagree with you, and nothing else. I have been honest in every comment I have made (sarcastic at times, but still honest) and I have been honest in every question I have asked, though, granted, it has not been many. You continually tell me I have a closed mind for the simple reason that I disagreee with you, and that is simply arrogant.
“If you will not consider God’s message in your heart, then your heart is also closed.”
Once again, you have no clue what I have and haven’t considered in my heart, so stop trying to judge me according to your own prejudices. I know you think, as has been clearly demonstrated, that no one who disagrees with you can have actually considered God’s message in their heart, but once again that only shows your own arrogance.
The one thing we do agree on is that we can’t both be right. I couldn’t agree more, and it is you that is in error. I don’t think I would ever be able to show you this, and so I have never tried. But it is the truth, as there can be only one truth, as you so clearly point out, and we are the ones that have it, not you.
(PS I usually try to avoid such statements in these forums as they have no real effect accept in shutting down any real discussion, but since you wanted to engage in it, I felt I would ablidge.)
Shem,
You simply need to remain nitrate how you have considered these things. Deep and personal details are not necessary, but more than you simply uttering the words that you have considered stuff is necessary.
It’s really that simple.
As to truth, I can show it to you. It’s found in the Bible. But you’ve closed your mind to it.
Stepping back: these conversations are very difficult, so understand no one here is here with a vendetta. It may remember that way, but its not that way.