LDS Beliefs and the Bible (6 Discussions)

[FFH]

The Bible aludes to the doctrine of the Pre-mortal existance, the doctrine of the Spirit World, the doctrine of the Three Degrees of Glory, the doctrine of Proxy Baptism, the doctrine of Eternal Progression, etc. The Bible does not explain each of these in depth, which is what I suspect FFH meant.

Yes

If you want a full understanding of them, you need to be willing to look beyond the Bible, which you are not willing to do. If he meant that these doctrines are not even mentioned in the Bible, he's wrong.

They're mentioned in the King James, but we cannot fully back up our doctrine using the King James alone, nor even the Joseph Smith restored version of the Bible.

The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants fully back up our doctrine and without those two inspired books we are nothing more than saved Christians, not being able to partake of exaltation (life with God).

If that's what Fish wants to settle for, is salvation alone, then so be it, that's what he's gonna get.

 

[Katzpur]

...we are nothing more than saved Christians...

LOL! I've never heard it put quite that way, but considering to whom you were directing your remarks, I've got to say, "Well put!"

 

[FFH]

It was fun while it lasted. I will be taking a break from this site, waiting for the return of Clown. Hey Clown, send me a private message when you return and we will continue. What did you find when you studied the 13 Epistles of Paul?

I'll also check that out now since I have some time.

 

[FFH]

The thirteen Epistles of Paul starts with 1 Corinthians and goes through Hebrews, that's a lot to take in in just a few days.

1 Corinthians (1 Cor.)
2 Corinthians (2 Cor.)
Galatians (Gal.)
Ephesians (Eph.)
Philippians (Philip.)
Colossians (Col.)
1 Thessalonians (1 Thes.)
2 Thessalonians (2 Thes.)
1 Timothy (1 Tim.)
2 Timothy (2 Tim.)
Titus (Titus)
Philemon (Philem.)
To the Hebrews (Heb.)

I'll check out the errors in the King James, when compared to the Joseph Smith inspired version of the Bible, and point them out later.

 

[Orontes]

Actually you also suggested one with me as well. You put forward sola scriptura as one of your base assumptions. I accepted and stated I would be happy to discuss the absurdity of sola scriptura. You have not moved forward on this.

Hi Orontes,

A one on one debate offer has been made to you on the LDS Beliefs and Bible thread. I want to debate what God reveals in the Scriptures such as the gospel of God's grace or the complete sovereignty of God. I'm not interested in debating personal opinions or personal views. The presupposition is always the Bible being the Word of God and revelation from God. The offer always stands...but it is impossible to debate on topics as scripture being sufficient or trustworthy. The LDS Faith believes that the Bible is the Word of God. Therefore, let's see what God really reavels in His Holy Bible. I think you will be freshly surprised on what we find together. No bait and switch my friend, let's just discuss the Word of God.

Does this mean you do not want to debate the absurdity of sola scirptura? Here is my reply to your invitation in the other thread.

 

[Orontes]

Hi FFH,

There is no such statement from Joseph Smith.


Your link supports my comment. If you hold that "rah" is the correct word, that is fine. If you hold the meaning of "rah" is: Deity creates what is opposed to the moral order then you have embraced an absurdity: as I noted earlier: A cannot create -A. You have also turned God into an enemy. There is no reason to assume the view rah was intended to mean the opposite of the right and the good, particularly given the context of the verse and the fact rah is not a precise term and its larger meaning is tied to calamity, discord, disaster etc.

Now, I assume if you actually believe Deity creates evil then you reject verses like these:

"For I say unto you that whatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil." -Alma 5:40

"Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually". -Moroni 7:12​

"Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil." -Moroni 7: 14 ​

The above verses and the idea God creates evil are mutually exclusive. Conceptually I think the problem of ascribing evil to God is clear enough, I simply add the above verse to reinforce the point.

Of course he cannot comment on every word, so I'll rephrase.

According to Joseph Smith, and his inspired version of the King James, it's not a mistranslation from the original text.

I believe Joseph Smith completed his work on the King James, and restored it to it's fullest, as much as was humanly possible, through divine inspiration, before he died.

The only reason we don't use it is because Emma Smith kept it with her after Joseph Smith's death and chose not to go west with the saints.

There is a great movie out about her life which may explain some things. Emma Smith: My Story

This issue I consider an aside. I don't think it impacts the larger point on God and evil. The reason I don't think it impacts the point is because of the meaning of the Hebrew rah that I discussed here. Even so, I understand you believe the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) was completed, but you may want to consider the following:

1) Joseph Smith never claimed he had completed his work on the Bible. Further, we know he was working on it off and on up to his death.
2) The Church has never claimed the JST was complete.
3) Regarding Isaiah 45: there are no comments from Joseph Smith on the chapter. One cannot conclude a position based on an absence of commentary.

The best one can do regarding Joseph Smith's project (the JST) is take what manuscripts that were published as examples of what he considered to be complete and corrected. This does not include Isaiah 45.

One more aside to the aside if I may: if I understood your view correctly, it seems to be Joseph Smith "completed his work" and that you take this to include his various projects. I think this is a mistake. There are a host of projects left uncompleted at the time of his death. This includes the JST, finishing the translation of the Book of Abraham, even starting the translation of the "Scroll of Joseph" (also included in the papyri the Book of Abraham came from), the Nauvoo Temple, paying off the debts of the Church, providing the proper legal basis for the Nauvoo Charter to even exist, his presidential campaign etc. The list is quite large. The "work" you refer to is the restoration of the Church: an authoritative and functioning ecclesiastical body, not every project Joseph Smith was engaged in.

Those verses in the Book of Mormon only state that evil COMES from the devil, which is different than saying evil is CREATED by the devil.

Remember, the Lord placed a choice in the Ggarden of Eden that seemed to oppose his plan, yet it was part of the Lord's divine plan, to have a possibility of a wrong choice.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a representation of all the wrong choices we can make in this life.

The Lord has created evil (wrong choices) so that he can test us to see what we'll choose, given ANY particular circumstance in this life.

The Lord has set before us right and wrong choices, with blessings and cursings, that will follow, depending on our choices.

We have our free agency to choose good or evil, which the LORD (Jesus Christ) has set before us.

Remember Jesus Christ is the creator of this world and the author of all inspired scripture. He cannot lie.

I'm going to continue the critique of your God created evil view along two lines. The first you didn't address though you need to.

1) The rational flaw:

If you take the view God is good, then we can reduce that idea to the posit "A"
Good and evil are mutually exclusive. therefore evil would be "-A"
The problem: how does A create -A?

One cannot simply assert such is the case. The above needs to be explained if you wish your stance to be considered rational.

2) The scriptural flaw:

Isaiah 45: 7 has been discussed:

" (T)he Hebrew for evil translated here is 'rah' which can mean hurt, discomfort, displeasure, adversity, calamity etc. It can also mean what is diametrically opposed to the good. The Isaiah reference with its juxtaposition of light and dark and shalom (which means quiet, tranquility, contentment, peace) and 'rah' would seem to indicate the opposite of shalom: discord, adversity, calamity etc."​

​

​

There is no reason to assume the adjective rah needs to mean moral opposition to goodness given the context of the verse and the other larger meanings of the word.

Other scriptures:

"For I say unto you that whatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil." -Alma 5:40​

"Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually". -Moroni 7:12​

"Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil." -Moroni 7: 14 ​

"Comes from" is a source claim. Further, the source claim is juxtaposed against any other and contrary sourcing to Deity. Moroni 7:14 then warns against assuming evil is "of God" i.e. Deity is not the source.

To the Garden of Eden aside: I don't think it does any work for your view. The Tree you speak of is a Tree of moral knowledge (The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil ). Whether you take this as metaphor or literally, the issue remains: the tree conveys knowledge. It is not evil itself.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Does this mean you do not want to debate the absurdity of sola scirptura? Here is my reply to your invitation in the other thread.

Please check out the LDS and Bible Thread invitation on post 1161. Don't be a...

Maybe you are afraid of biblical revelation?

 

[FFH]

To the Garden of Eden aside: I don't think it does any work for your view. The Tree you speak of is a Tree of moral knowledge (The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil ). Whether you take this as metaphor or literally, the issue remains: the tree conveys knowledge. It is not evil itself.

The fruit of that tree was "forbidden".

Evil is forbidden, what's the difference ???

God created the "forbidden fruit" (evil) in order for men to become like him, knowing good and evil. By knowing the good from the evil we can make a series of right choices and eventually live with God and become gods ourselves. This would not be possible if God had not created evil (a wrong choice/the forbidden fruit). It's not a metaphor, it really happened that way. Adam and Eve ate a literal forbidden fruit from a literal tree. God (Christ) cannot lie.

God created evil (forbidden) things, in order to test our faith in him. Will we choose life or death, good or evil ???

Adam and Eve chose death and paid the consequences for their actions, by then being subject to death and the consequences of sin.

 

[McBell]

Maybe you are afraid of biblical revelation?

naw, Biblical Revelation isn't the problem.
Your opinion (interpretation) of it is, though.

 

[Orontes]

The fruit of that tree was "forbidden".

Evil is forbidden, what's the difference ???

God created the "forbidden fruit" (evil) in order for men to become like him, knowing good and evil. By knowing the good from the evil we can make a series of right choices and eventually live with God and become gods ourselves. This would not be possible if God had not created evil (a wrong choice/the forbidden fruit). It's not a metaphor, it really happened that way. Adam and Eve ate a literal forbidden fruit from a literal tree. God (Christ) cannot lie.

God created evil (forbidden) things, in order to test our faith in him. Will we choose life or death, good or evil ???

Adam and Eve chose death and paid the consequences for their actions, by then being subject to death and the consequences of sin.

An elephant is a mammal.
A mouse is a mammal
So, an elephant is a mouse?

The same applies to the forbidden, evil conflation. Both are non sequiturs. Something forbidden is simply a thing proscribed.

To the tree aside: there is nothing in the text that states the tree (which you have taken as literal) is evil. Further, the tree is identified as a tree of knowledge. Unless you wish to argue that knowledge is evil then this point alone stymies your view.

Note: knowledge of a thing (i.e. knowledge of good and evil) is distinct from the thing known. If I know about elephants it doesn't then mean I am an elephant or participate in elephantness. In other words, you have confused the subject-object distinction.

Now, you focused on the aside which as you can see above doesn't help your stance at all. I have given you two critiques: 1) the rational flaw and 2) the scriptural flaw. You need to deal with both of them.

 

[FFH]

To the tree aside: there is nothing in the text that states the tree (which you have taken as literal) is evil.

So it was just a learning experience for them, then so is evil a learning experience for us.

According to an LDS member who has had a near death experience and has conversed with Christ, during this experience, sin is looked upon as a learning experience. By experiencing it for ourselves we can know the good from the evil and their various blessings and cursings, and can then decide for ourselves what we want.

Oddly enough, Lucifer's plan was; to eliminate sin and force everyone into heaven by not allowing men and women to choose their own path. We would all be forced into heaven by only being allowed to choose good. There wouldn't have been the possibility of choosing evil.

That plan of Lucifer's got him kicked out of heaven.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (this life) is a literal learning experience.

 

[Katzpur]

According to an LDS member who has had a near death experience and has conversed with Christ, during this experience, sin is looked upon as a learning experience. By experiencing it for ourselves we can know the good from the evil and their various blessings and cursings, and can then decide for ourselves what we want.

You are actually going to accept this woman's word that she talked to Christ and this is what He told her? Suppose I told you that I'd had a near-death experience, spoke to God the Father and He told me to avoid sin at all costs? Whose personal experience would trump whose? Honestly, FFH, I seriously can't believe you are this naive.

 

[FFH]

You are actually going to accept this woman's word that she talked to Christ and this is what He told her? Suppose I told you that I'd had a near-death experience, spoke to God the Father and He told me to avoid sin at all costs? Whose personal experience would trump whose? Honestly, FFH, I seriously can't believe you are this naive.

God is not in the business of SHELTERING everyone from sin, he commands and urges us to avoid all sin, but even then, if we choose to sin, he has provided a way back, that being Jesus Christ.

It's a great plan, it's called the plan of happiness. The heavens rejoice over one truly repentant sinner, because they know that they have "learned their lesson," in this life, and they are ready to move on.

I'm at a point in my life where I know that sin has messed me up so bad that I'm nearly ready to give it all up, sin that is, but I'm not there yet.

I've learned, by my own experience, the consequenses of disobeying God.

It's better I learn that for myself, so that I can know what I want. I want to live a righteous life throughout the eternities. I'm not there yet, but I will get there. It's a learning experience, experiencing sin (this world) that is.

That's all she, Betty Eadie, was saying. Sin is a learning experience. We are not condemned, like the world is condemned when we sin, because we believe in Christ and we will eventually live with him, when we have rid ourselves of all sin.

We have the necessary saving and exalting ordinances done, all we have to do now is rid our lives of all sin.

We are in the LEARNING (sinful) stages of our existence. We're learning to choose the good, rather than the evil. We are still learning (progressing). It's a learning experience, I can't stress that enough. We don't need to beat ourselves up all the time over our weaknesses (sins). We'll get there, eventually.

"My hand is stretched out still"

See this link; God is Extremely Merciful

 

[FFH]

You are actually going to accept this woman's word that she talked to Christ and this is what He told her? Suppose I told you that I'd had a near-death experience, spoke to God the Father and He told me to avoid sin at all costs? Whose personal experience would trump whose? Honestly, FFH, I seriously can't believe you are this naive.

Just to make myself clear, no one is advocating a sinful life, all she said was is that sin is looked upon as a learning experience, just as eating of the forbidden fruit became a learning experience, for Adam and Eve, and their "eyes were opened".

No one will get through this life without sinning, so no need to beat ourselves over the head until we're black and blue and ready to commit suicide. I've gotten to that point many times, trying to reach perfection in this life. I can't do it, at least not in this life.

This life is nothing but "damage control". We are constantly putting out fires (trying to avoid sin) in our lives. We'll get there eventually, after we've learned all the negative affects the various sins of this life can do to our lives. It's like touching a stove, we know it's hot, but just how hot and painful is it ??? Some of us need to find out for ourselves just how hot the fire is. I've felt, to a degree, the pains of hell in my soul before, it's not good. I try with all my might to avoid things in my life that bring upon those feelings. God has convicted me many times. Usually it's when I'm just slacking and wasting time. That's when I get hit the hardest. I don't know why. I feel an urgency to do certain things and God opens the door wide open for me to do them and pushes me until I do whatever he wants me to do.

She, Betty Eadie had been divorced one or two times, I can't remember how many times, but she was beating herself up over it (failed marriage or marriages) and she was surprised at how loving Christ was to her in spite of herself (what she thought was a messed up life). God is in control of our situations. He loves all of us, regardless of our messed up lives and various religious beliefs, and wants us to be the best that we can, and want to, be and has died for us, so that we might not suffer for our own sins.

I want everything God is offering me, I just need to do everything he's told me to do. I'm not there yet, but I'm learning.

If you've ever heard Betty speak, which I did over ten years ago, you would feel the spirit of her experience with Christ. Christ's arms are "stretched out still". We are living in a grace period, there is still time to improve our lives and progress in the next life. It's not over until Christ says it's over.

 

[Katzpur]

If you've ever heard Betty speak, which I did over ten years ago, you would feel the spirit of her experience with Christ. Christ's arms are "stretched out still".

Look, I don't know what happened to Betty and what didn't happen to her. All I know is that Boyd K. Packer publicly denounced her book.

 

[FFH]

Here are some good links to who Betty Eadie is, the one who said sin is looked upon as a learning experience. In other words, what can we learn from sin, since we've ALL committed sin.

Instead of beating ourselves up over past sins, we need to look back and say, "what can I learn from this experience and teach or convey to others about what I've learned, so that they can perhaps avoid going through what I've been through".

David, in the Bible went through some things, after he had Uriah kiled in battle, so he could take Bathsheba for his own. What can we learn from his experience that could help us avoid the sufferings he had to go through. He lost his first child he had with Bathsheba, there was incest between one of his sons and one of his daughters, one of his sons also turned against him, Absolom, and wanted his throne and was killed in the pursuit. His family life was ravaged by sin and death.

We also need to remember that one of David's sons was Solomon, a great man, the second son born to Bathsheba, after the first one died.

Embraced By The Light: The Official Betty J. Eadie Web Site

Betty Eadie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Betty Eadie

Betty J. Eadie, The Ripple Effect

 

[FFH]

Look, I don't know what happened to Betty and what didn't happen to her. All I know is that Boyd K. Packer publicly denounced her book.

Wow, I didn't know that.

I've met Boyd K. Packer. He came into our classroom in the MTC.

We were all goofing off, because our Japanese instructor was late, and he (Boyd K. Packer), wasn't too happy about us goofing off. He was upset for sure. He was doing some suprise inspections, after he spoke to us that day, by popping into our classrooms.

He didn't even shake hands with us, I don't think, I can't remember, I just remember him asking us where our instructor was. He's a very stern man.

Give me a link where he's denounced Betty Eadie's book in conference, otherwise his statement is just his perosnal opinion.

 

[FFH]

I just found this link, I'll read it now.

CRI Journal - CRJ0171A
Betty Eadie is a member in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day ... Apostle Boyd K. Packer called the book 'bunk,' a witness said." ...

 

[Katzpur]

Give me a link where he's denounced Betty Eadie's book in conference, otherwise his statement is just his perosnal opinion.

I didn't say it was in conference. I don't have a link. He made a statement in an interview shortly after the book came out. I read the article in the newspaper at the time. Actually, I found his statement kind of disturbing since I don't feel that any of us is in a position to be able to judge someone else's spiritual experiences as valid or invalid. I read Betty's book and enjoyed it. If President Packer didn't feel the same, it is, as you pointed out, merely his opinion. My point was that whatever her experience was, all we can do is accept it as something she believes. She doesn't speak for the Church, and your post was implying that because she said something, that makes it fact.

 

[Katzpur]

I just found this link, I'll read it now.

CRI Journal - CRJ0171A
Betty Eadie is a member in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day ... Apostle Boyd K. Packer called the book 'bunk,' a witness said." ...

Wow! I wouldn't have expected that you could have found it.