What Mormons Believe--according to a Former BYU Professor
- Thread starter Prayer Warrior
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Hey, you are the one that said that. I got that when I was young...don't ask questions eventually came to mean....they did not have clue and did not appreciate being put on the spot.
I'm all for asking questions, esp. when it comes to children! It's very sad that you were told not to ask any questions. How can children learn if they can't ask about the things they don't understand?
One of the reasons I loved home schooling my kids is because I was there with them in the teachable moments throughout the day. I'm not saying that this ensures they will make all of the right choices in life, but at least a good foundation of God's Word was laid for them to build on if they choose to do so.
Last edited:
The Bible has corrupted the scriptures?? This is a bizarre idea. The Bible IS the Christian scriptures.
I don't think I underestimate you. I think you underestimate God and His ability to communicate His truth to us through His written Word. But I cannot convince you of this. I can pray that the Holy Spirit will help you put aside all that you have filled your mind with that is not the truth and that He will lead you into ALL truth.
This explains so much to me! So much! If only I had known this way back.
But God knew what I didn't know............
And who gets to decide which books are Scripture and which aren't? Do you think Paul was talking about any New Testament books when he wrote that? What books was he talking about?
1 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
He was talking about the books we now call the "Old Testament."
So say the Jews who call it "the Word of God." They do not call the other books that. Why? Because no other prophet spoke with God face to face as Moses did.
Deuteronomy 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face,
Now I believe there rose one "like unto Moses" in the person of Jesus; but Jesus never committed his words to writing. Thus Moses is unique in history. David and Jesus spoke highly of the "Law of Moses" if that Law is understood correctly. David wrote:
Psalm 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
Perfect! No need for any revisions ever. What Jesus said of it is usually misconstrued. Remember now that the "law" means the books of Moses known as the "Torah."
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
People whose minds are clouded by misunderstanding what Paul wrote read that to mean Jesus destroyed the law by fulfilling it. It's laughable.
After saying some confusing things in Romans, Paul states a clear and true statement:
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
He means the Torah, of course. He does not mean however that anyone can pick it up, read it and understand it all at once. If people have the wrong tradition, they do not possess the actual "law." They have only words in a book. Thus the prophet wrote:
Jeremiah 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
How could Jeremiah say the Jews in his day didn't have the Torah? Here is another place where Jesus talks about the "Word of God" (or Torah) and how wrong traditions can obscure and nullify it.
Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Yet people claim that Jesus somehow contradicted Moses or did away with what he wrote. Of all the men who wrote books, only Moses was spoken to face to face, or mouth to mouth by God.
Numbers 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
Other prophets got spoken to in speeches of varying darkness. Even Paul admitted he was in the dark at times. Paul was obviously thinking that passage from Numbers when we wrote about seeing as through a glass darkly. He would be shocked to think people considered his writings on a par with Moses'.
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Paul was not receiving dictation from God word by word. He never says he was; and at times he even says he's giving personal opinions. I asked you why you aren't a Catholic and got no response. Maybe you should be since they decided these books of Paul were divinely inspired. Do you think God prevented the Catholic Church from erring in what books they chose but allowed them to err in other matters?
I also ask why Luke talked to anyone about Jesus if he was writing by divine inspiration. Luke makes it clear where his information came from. He talked with eyewitnesses. He wasn't sitting and receiving "words" from Heaven to write down. Is there any inspiration in his book? Certainly. I would say deciding what was worth including and what not required some inspiration.
The meaning is clear to me. They were "magicians" of some sort. They certainly had spiritual sight, able to see spiritual "objects" since the Star was not a physical star. If it had been a physical star, Herod could have "followed" it himself. It wasn't a physical star at all. It was a spiritual Star, the Star foretold in the Old Testament. And yes, such a Star could come to "rest" over a house. A physical star in the physical sky could not.
So why try?
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Off the top of my head, including intentional alterations, deletions, and additions, around 30,000 changes. You can call it corruption, editing, tampering, deception....etc whatever.
The Bible is what it is....a translation of the scriptures. Unfortunately a lot of fingers in the pie.
On the positive side....most of the truth is recoverable, Most of the accuracy is recoverable. You just have to seek and you will find.
Last edited:
Have you ever read a Bible publisher's explanation for which books of the Bible are included in the canon and why. My Bibles explain this as part of their prefaces. It's very interesting to read how the 66 books were chosen. I'm satisfied with their explanation.
The verse you quoted is in Paul's 2nd letter to Timothy (not the 1st). This verse is a mystery to me. Logically, I would say that Paul meant the OT exclusively, but the part about making Timothy "wise unto salvation through faith that is in Jesus Christ" makes me wonder. How could this exclusively be the OT? Where does the OT talk about "faith that is in Jesus Christ"?e
I can look at some commentaries. Do you have any thoughts about this?
.
God spoke directly to the prophets, but this was not "the Word of God" spoken to them?? They heard His voice! Is it only "the Word of God" if God is seen? Before, you were splitting hairs about only the spoken words being "the Word of God." Now, you're saying only those who saw God received "the Word of God."
Moses was just a man, but Jesus IS God, so are not His words "the Word of God"??
Here's an explanation of the verses concerning Moses:
We know from Scripture (e.g., John 4:24) that God is spirit. Spirits do not possess physicality. So, when Moses spoke “face to face” with God in Exodus 33:11, there are only two possible ways to understand it: either Moses was speaking to the pre-incarnate Son of God (a Christophany); or the passage is using a figure of speech called anthropomorphism, in which human qualities are applied to God. While a Christophany is certainly possible, it is probably better to view the chapter as using figures of speech. The terms face, hand, and back in Exodus 33 should not be taken literally, and face to face, being idiomatic, is also metaphorical.
In verse 11 the idiom face to face can be simply understood to mean “intimately.” Moses spoke with God familiarly, as a man speaks to a friend. In verses 20 and 23, face and back are in reference to God’s “glory” and “goodness” (verses 18–19). Since God is spirit, and since glory and goodness are both intangibles, we can take face and back to signify varying “degrees” of glory. God’s hand (verse 22) is an obvious reference to God’s “protection.”
Source: If Moses met face to face with God, why, later, was he not allowed to see God's face? | GotQuestions.org
Source: If Moses met face to face with God, why, later, was he not allowed to see God's face? | GotQuestions.org
@Grailhunter
Indeed, there is power in the Name, but even a deaf mute in the natural may take hold of the power through the Spirit of God, can he not?
Are we limited by God because of our carnal/fleshly limitations? I would think not for as in all things, God is looking at our hearts rather than our physical words spoken.
Then again of what 'name' was David speaking in this and many other places where he definitely anointed by God to write?
"O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens." Psalm 8:1
David did not know that the Messiah was to be called Yeshua, or Jesus, did he, but he did recognized that His name was already 'excellent'!
This is like 'truth'. We are to love the Truth of God even when we only know it in a measure... that is as through a glass darkly.
Give God the glory!
I ask again why you aren't a Catholic if you trust Catholics to pick the books you read. Why reject the Book of Enoch which Jesus also quoted more than once? Jude also quotes it. Me? I think most of it is legitimate; but I also think the last chapters of Enoch are later additions and forgeries. But still, if they quoted from it, I'd think most Christians would view it as legitimate. I did not adopt any list of some theologian -- I went through the Gospels to see what books Jesus quoted. I figured if he quoted a book, I'd consider it authentic.
One thing that seems certain is that the early Church Fathers almost never cited any books of the New Testament when writing. They quoted almost exclusively from the Old Testament. That tells me they did consider them of equal authority.
For one thing, many Jews see much of Genesis as prophecy. That is not to say the things didn't happen; but they believe the events recorded will be fulfilled again in a different way. Thus Paul compares Jesus to Isaac as the "child of promise." There is one I think remains to be fulfilled. We are told that Isaac and Ishmael buried Abraham -- that the two of them were at peace with each other. The rest of that story isn't in the "Written" Torah but it is in the "Oral" Torah. It is said that after Sarah died, Isaac played peacemaker between his father and Hagar and Ishmael. Hagar's name was changed to Keturah and Abraham married her. Thus while Genesis says Keturah was his wife, 1 Chronicles 1 says she was his concubine. Both are right since Hagar had started off as his concubine and wound up later as a wife. Chronicles shows respect for Sarah by not calling Hagar a wife -- since spiritually a man can have only one true wife. All that being said, I read the story as a prophecy stating that eventually there will be peace between the Jews and Arabs, and that the Jews will play the important role.
There are few prophecies if any in the Old Testament that specifically mention Messiah. It is more a "Jewish tradition" than something that can be "proved" by the Old Testament. When Daniel mentions "messiah," he probably means an anointed king, and not "the" King Messiah -- although many Bibles capitalize the word and lead people to believe it means Jesus. It's rather like the doctrines of the afterlife. The Old Testament isn't that explicit. There are hints here and there.
The book of Job is controversial too. I read it as prophecy. I see Job as representing Israel and Elihu as John the Baptist since Elihu is a variant spelling of Elijah. I see that as being fulfilled once and to be fulfilled once more at the end of this age.
David said that the law was "perfect." Paul said that the law was "good." The Mosaic law was perfect and good for its main intended purpose--as a tutor or guardian to lead people to Christ. (Gal 3:24)
I don't agree that the law is the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible. How is Genesis the law?? The Mosaic law is outlined mostly in Leviticus, with some in Exodus and Deuteronomy, which are PART of the Torah.
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
In this verse, Jesus obviously isn't only talking about the law. He said that He fulfilled the law and the prophets as well. How do you explain this in light of your theory that only the Torah was "the Word of God"?
DITTO for "Torah" not only meaning only the books of the law.
So, Paul was confused, eh?? You and I have been round and round this mountain about the law. Read Paul's epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians. He makes it crystal clear that believers are not under the Mosaic law--that we have died to that law and are now to live by "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" which "has set us free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:2)
Paul asked the Galatians who had "bewitched" them because they started the Christian walk by faith and were trying to live it out according to the law. He asked them, "Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"
I don't believe that all of the prophets experienced this darkness you mention. And Paul did not say that he was "in the dark." HCSB says in 1 Cor 13:12, "For now we see indistinctly, as in a mirror,..." I believe that this is the meaning of seeing in a "mirror darkly."
Paul also said, "Now I know in part but then I will know fully as I am fully known." And yet Paul was taken to the third heaven. Do you not think that the "extraordinary revelations" given to him served as inspiration to write the epistles?
2 Cor 12:2-7--I know a man in Christ who was caught up into the third heaven 14 years ago. Whether he was in the body or out of the body, I don’t know, God knows. I know that this man — whether in the body or out of the body I don’t know, God knows — was caught up into paradise. He heard inexpressible words, which a man is not allowed to speak. I will boast about this person, but not about myself, except of my weaknesses. For if I want to boast, I will not be a fool, because I will be telling the truth. But I will spare you, so that no one can credit me with something beyond what he sees in me or hears from me, especially because of the extraordinary revelations.
I completely disagree that Paul's writings were not on par with the Torah! Moses sat in the tabernacle built by man and heard from God. Paul was taken to the third heaven and heard "inexpressible words, which man is not allowed to speak." I believe he was taken to the throne room of God. Surely, this is higher than the man-made tabernacle.
The Torah is an amazing revelation, to be sure, but it is not greater than the revelations given to Paul. The Torah represents the Old Covenant, but Paul's writings explain the New Covenant, which is a better covenant!
Hebrews 8:1-7--Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
It was Moses who served "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." But the ministry and covenant of Jesus Christ is far superior. Jesus' is a "ministry of the...true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man."
.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
What you are saying is true...Still, it is what it is and the real applies. Grailhunter and Amadeus are translating the scriptures...with or without wine...that is up to you. Grailhunter says, "What do say we take the name of God the Father out of the Old Testament and replace His name with Lord or God?" Amadeus says ____________! Grailhunter says, "We can give Yeshua and new and more hip name, Jesus. Just take Yeshua out of the New Testament? What do you say? Amadeus says____________ Grailhunter says, "I do not like the idea of the Jewish Messiah being in the New Testament. What do you say we just use the Greek reference Christ. I think it just sounds better. We can call Him Jesus Christ." Amadeus says____________Grailhunter says, "I believe that the Trinity is one God, not three united. What do you say we take out some scriptures and insert my belief?" Amadeus says _____________ Grailhunter says, "Ya know I believe that Satan was more active in the OT than the scriptures say, "We got this neat word here, Lucifer, what ya say we introduce a new name for Satan in the OT." Amadeus say_____________ Grailhunter says, "we can translate some words that are jackal to dragon, and will imply that Satan was there." Amadeus says____________ Grailhunter says, "We can add chapters and verses for easy reference, but just for fun we can break up sentences and set chapters in places to confuse the topic....won't that be fun?" Amadeus says______________
Now you can fill in the blanks, but I am hoping in such a scenario that I would end up with knots on my head.
Last edited:
I remind you Jesus did not write anything down. He was the promised one, like unto Moses; and he spoke the Living Word just as Moses did. All the other prophets heard in a lesser fashion.
While it is true many prophets heard the Word, their minds were not as clear as Moses'. Often they were shown "objects" that they themselves knew were "metaphors" so they say "like unto" or "as it were" to let the reader know not to take things literally.
Then there were people who could see or hear prophetically but misunderstood what they saw or heard to one extent or another. Hagar saw an angel and said she had seen God. She erred, of course; but the point was she got the message God wanted her to have even if her spiritual vision wasn't the best. The seventy elders who had the "vision" of God had a flawed vision. The scene should shock us.
Exodus 24:9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.
They saw something that could be related to God; but their vision was flawed. Nadab and Abihu and the seventy elders were eating and drinking, being too carnally inclined. They deserved to die on the spot (so the Talmud says, you can debate whether this was the same seventy who died later if you want) but it would have spoiled the day; so their death sentence was deferred.
That doesn't alter my point. No one should suppose God has a physical face that Moses could see. It surely is a metaphor. That does not change the fact that Moses was the only Old Testament prophet for whom this was true. Surely it means God spoke to Moses directly in a way He did not speak to the other prophets.
Consider the case related in 1 Kings 22. Do you know why Jehoshaphat was suspicious about what the prophets said? They all said the exact same thing, that's why. He knew each prophet is expected to have his own unique style.
6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.
7 And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord besides, that we might enquire of him?
The "Word of God" does not arrive to prophets "word for word" the way many may think. Someone who says he's receiving messages word for word exactly is almost certainly deceived. Such messages almost always come from deceiving spirits or pranksters. Call it "channeling" if you like. I would say myself only Moses and Jesus could be trusted to receive that kind of prophecy. With other prophets, the "Word" comes to them in the form of an idea to their minds -- and sometimes it's translated into visual material, sometimes oral, sometimes both. Since each prophet's mind is unique, how they translate the message into human language will also vary. Thus all the prophets except for Micaiah were wrong.
I would say people who go into trances (or semi-trances) and say they are receiving exact words from Heaven are almost surely being deceived.
Not getting into your discussion of the lack of J's on the one hand and the abundance of them on the other, specifically, but generally. Your thoughts bring to mind the following event in the book of Judges:
"...when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay;
Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand." Judges 12:5-6
This story in Judges of the problems people have in pronunciation reminded me also of a personal experience I observed when I first arrived in southern Germany as a student in 1969. I met a man from Puerto Rico who like me was trying to learn German. I already knew quite a bit of Spanish and soon realized his biggest trouble with conquering the German language was his native Spanish pronunciation in the Puerto Rican dialect. German is very dependent on word endings at times to determine what part of the sentence the word is, such as subject, predicate, nominative, accusative, dative, etc. My Puerto Rican friend, like those men of Ephraim, could not help but mispronounce words where the endings made a difference. Anyone having been around a native Spanish speaker speaking English will often hear for example the word "Spanish" pronounced "Espanish". This happens with many words and the person may never lose this way of speaking.
In another example my step-father, a native Portuguese speaker, spoke fluent English, but no native American would ever believe that English was his first language.
Similarly, the contention that there is always a right way to say the name of God with our human mouths of flesh for me stems from the human influence, that is in human frailties and shortcomings or limitations, both in speaking and in writing... as if man's speech and man's writing would really have a bearing on how God communicates with men. I do not believe God spoke in Hebrew to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and I would be surprised to hear that Adam and Eve spoke to each other in Hebrew.
Men have always had among themselves communication problems. God has never had such a problem. As we approach being like God, our communication problems with one another should also be on the decrease...:
"He must increase, but I must decrease" John 3:30
But... do not His sheep hear His voice? When we hear His voice, why would we fail to understand what He was saying. The problem of course is many of us too often have a mixture what we hear from God and what we hear from elsewhere. This is the root of those many thousands of denominations claiming to be followers of the Holy Spirit.
Your point is perhaps my point as well. Communication is always the problem. Anyone speaking and reading any human language can be a follower of God becoming always more and more like Him. As we become more like Him it is unlikely we will become more like those who had Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek as their first language when God inspired them to write what any man calls the scriptures.
"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." Gen 11:1
They were of one language and one speech, but they were not one with God... and this was their problem. God helped them by removing the ability to understand their leaders who were in error allowing them a new opportunity to become one with Him.
"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." Gen 11:6
They missed the boat with the tower they were building. They may have imagined that it would reach onto the heaven where God dwelt... but their imaginings were in error. Similarly, I believe, that even if we had the original manuscripts of scriptures and were, each of us, able to understand them ourselves without needing to trust the translations of language experts, things would not be better, because we would still be men with the shortcomings of men.
Last edited:
