HEY TONY PINA: re LDS beliefs

Re: Re: Bill and Bill

I, for one, appreciate this. I have refrained from writing sooner, because 1)I don't know enough of LDS doctrine to speak from their point of view, and 2)others were saying most everything that I would have from my point of view. Also, this is a personal issue for me (as I am sure it is for others) because of some family history with this topic.

But suffice it to say, that although I have some serious reservations, and outright disagreement with many LDS teachings, as I understand them, I have seldom found a group of people that were more friendly, helpful and caring than they are. I know there are exceptions to that, but as a whole, they are wonderful people.
To illustrate, one time a couple of LDS members met with me and a friend, in my friend's home. After an hour or so of discussion, it was apparent that they were not going to get very far with us (and we were too obnoxious to get very far with them - I was younger and stupider then....). As they readied themselves to leave, they asked if they could do anything for us, such as the dishes, mow the yard, etc. Honestly, I was astounded. Here were a couple of young men who were offering to do a good deed, simply for the sake of doing something good. That wouldn't hurt any of us to learn to do.

Anyway, I guess that I am saying that we all have something to teach one another. While I may have serious disagreements with LDS teaching, I really appreciate the way they put their faith into action.

just some thoughts running through my head

clint

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill and Bill

I'm sure that replying to Derrida, Rorty and Fish is valuable. (I disagree with the first two myself, and am unfamiliar with the third except by reputation.) But it's my own question that I'm most interested in.

How can conflicting claims to divine inspiration be adjudicated? How can divine inspiration be recognized in a text in the first place?

The best answer that the Degreeinfo theologians have ever been able to come up with is that one must have the eyes of faith, that one must be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately, that seems to be a pretty good description of Dennis' a-priori "parameters", since these things are unlikely to be shared outside the community of faith.

If God saw fit to inspire Joseph Smith to use the KJV, then how can God be criticised? In the same way, if God inspired the New Testament writers to use the Hebrew scriptures (or more accurately the Septuagint) in novel ways, who can argue with God's will? The Muslims, of course, have still another revelation from God, dramatically reinterpreting what came before.

Unfortunately in these problem situations, it's recognizing the hand of God that's hard.

 

Re: Re: Bill and Bill

I can certainly agree with that.

Perhaps part of my concern was with how this thread started. It arose, as I recall with a reference in the 'Walston' thread to Walter Martin's pathetic 'Kingdom of the Cults', and with Anthony's remark about Martin's scholarship. So the whole thing was conceived in the rancid air of "cult busting". Then you jumped in with what sounded like accusatory questions to Anthony about the LDS.

In fact, that may have been a serious misreading of your intention. If so, then I apologise.

But my point was that if this thread had an apologetic and evangelistic purpose, it was probably doomed to fail.

More generally, I find the whole question of religious disagreement interesting. I think that we are perfectly capable of coming to a sophisticated understanding of religions that are not our own. Scholars study belief-systems that they don't personally share every day. Overlap of personal commitments really isn't necessary for shared understanding, although that certainly isn't the case for shared belief.

If, as I suggested in my last post, we have no reliable way of recognizing the acts of the divine in a faith that is not our own, perhaps a descriptive approach is best. Obviously, we can form our own evaluative opinions, but they will probably lack force for anyone that doesn't share our own a-priori parameters.

 

Re: Re: Re: Bill and Bill

 

Yes it was fun for me.

I really like the term "lay expert" to describe Tony. One thing that the LDS church does extremely well is prepare the young men (and now even the young ladies) for their missions. They are well trained to handle the tough questions from an early age. It looks like Tony has enjoyed his little "test" here and was happy to share his knowledge. Thanks again.

 

And thanks Bill H for your humorous story. I will pass it on for the next edition of Sermon Antedotes for Pastors...you'll be famous!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill and Bill

I agree. The main thing is that dialogue occur and that it is respectful. Tolerance is allowing people to feel and believe differently than you without believing that they are necessarily correct.

I do not believe that the Mormons worship that same God I do (once was a man, stage progression, one of many Gods etc vs RC/protestant/evangelical christian view). I do not believe that Muslims worship the same God as Jews & Christians. BUT I absolutely respect their right to believe they way they do and even that they believe they have the correct perspective.

I find the actions of extremist protestants who picket Temple Square and yell and name call at Mormons to be disgusting & unChristian behavior. Some of these folks even disrupt Mormon wedding parties trying to take pictures. These folks are rude & intolerant and their nasty signs are not likely to convert many Mormons. If I were a Mormon I would find these folks to be just a little nutty.

The other thing is that we as Protestants should not be so smug that we think we can with a couple of words defeat Mormon theology. Your average protestant who sits in his bible study class on how to deal with Mormons laughs & ridicules what he believes to be simplistic nonsense. Yet, when you look at sites such as Jeff Lindsay's very well done site (along with other Mormon apologetics sites such as FARMS & FAIR) you quickly realize that they have a well thought out theological & doctrinal perspective that cannot be easily answered by a layman. Even a pastor I know (MDiv) did not have a solid answer for the Elohim issue and said basically "Well we have always just believed it is singular and did the Jews".

The last thing is that we have to realize that we are somewhat myopic in the sense that we look at things from within our own paradigm. I found it very interesting to look at Jewish sites where they were really hacked about Messianic Jews (who they do not consider Jews) and were taking apart Christan doctrine and scripture. To an Orthodox Jew we as Christians may not look a whole lot different than Mormons do to us. Orthodox Jews could look at us as some sort of cultic off shoot with extra biblical literature and fantastic claims.

North

 

Attaboy, North!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bill and Bill

Originally posted by BillDayson

I'm sure that replying to Derrida, Rorty and Fish is valuable. (I disagree with the first two myself, and am unfamiliar with the third except by reputation.) But it's my own question that I'm most interested in.

I understand your question, Bill, and Vanhoozer does address it in his book. I focused on the book's treatment of Derrida, Rorty and Fish in my previous post because your words implied support of reader-response theories over and against those of authorial intent. As you know, such theories are foundational to your question.

How can conflicting claims to divine inspiration be adjudicated? How can divine inspiration be recognized in a text in the first place? The best answer that the Degreeinfo theologians have ever been able to come up with is that one must have the eyes of faith, that one must be guided by the Holy Spirit.

I think you've received a partial answer. Allow me to explain.

We live in a society where identities must be verified at every turn. My signatures are compared when I make a credit card purchase, I must provide a picture ID when writing a check, and I need to supply my Social Security number when accessing personal financial, educational or medical information. I myself demand verification in certain situations. When I consider contributing to a new charitable organization, I ask for proof of 501(c)(3) status. If a man in street clothes showed up on my doorstep wanting to ask questions about a local crime, I'd ask to see a badge. And so on.

Though I readily admit the situations are not entirely analogous and that this is an a priori assumption on my part, I think there's a core principle that applies to those claiming spokesmanship for God: Such an individual or group should be able to verify any revelatory claims with visible confirmation. And if the communication represents a special act of God, I think the confirmation should be a special act of God as well. In other words, at least for me, the question of whether God has spoken is inextricably linked to the question of whether he has acted personally, powerfully and perceptibly in history.

As you may have guessed, I'm suggesting that new revelation be accompanied by some sort of sign or miracle. This seems to be a fairly wide assumption, found in the Bible (e.g., Exodus 4:1-5; Numbers 16:5ff.; 1 Kings 18:21-22; Matthew 12:38-39; Luke 7:20-22; John 3:1-2; Acts 2:22; Hebrews 2:3-4; 2 Corinthians 12:12), the Qur'an (e.g., Sura 2:184; 17:102; cf. Sura 23:45), the writings of agnostic Bertrand Russel, and, if memory serves me correctly, even the work of skeptic David Hume.

Now we encounter the problem of verifying a miracle or sign. Since many claims of the same have been recorded in documents represented by no living witnesses, we are forced to ask how we can determine whether a given text is trustworthy. In order to answer this question, historians have established certain criteria of authenticity, including but not limited to:

1. Historical intentionality (i.e., was the author concerned with accurate recording of events?)
2. Historical proximity (i.e., do we have eyewitness accounts and were events recorded within reasonable time frames?)
3. Authorial qualifications (i.e., did the author possess the requisite ability and character to accurately record events?)
4. Corroboration/multiple attestation (i.e., can the author's claims be independently verified by other texts, archaeological evidence, etc.?)
5. Publication for opposition (i.e., did the author's contempories have ample opportunity to dispute any claims?)
6. Faithful transmission (i.e., where original documents are no longer extant, have copies faithfully preserved the original gist?)
7. Coherence (i.e., can multiple standards like those above be met?)

When I consider items in the above list, dramatic miracles such as the exodus from Egypt and the resurrection of Christ fare quite well. In fact, both the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament on the whole exhibit tremendous reliability. Only an antisupernaturalistic presupposition can undermine the evidence. But what if the supernatural best explains the data?

When it comes to other sacred writings, I struggle to see their historical authenticity. For example, miracles credited to Mohammed in the Hadith were recorded hundreds of years after Mohammed's life. Due to the test of historical proximity (criterion #2), I can't find such claims to be authentic. Similarly, I struggle with the Book of Mormon, because although it records events with close temporal proximity, I don't see any corroborating evidence (criterion #4).

The above is just a rough, quick sketch of my personal views. A few here may want to read more support for some of the historical criteria noted above. And I'm sure some people will have questions about the Bible's ability to pass the tests, with respect to document dates, pseudepigraphy, supposed contradictions, and the like. I would be happy to point people to readily available resources on any such items should they care to contact me.

In the same way, if God inspired the New Testament writers to use the Hebrew scriptures (or more accurately the Septuagint) in novel ways, who can argue with God's will?

I think the label "novel" is a bit stretched. Within the cultural milieu of first century Judaism, four basic interpretive methods were used: midrash (drawing out further implications of a text), pesher (drawing attention to comparable situations in a "this is like that" fashion), allegorical (a "this represents that" type of interpretation that was often bizarre, used only by the Apostle Paul in an attempt to beat his opponents at their own interpretive game in Galatians 4:21ff.), and literal (advocating the plain sense of the text, while giving due attention to figures of speech, etc.). New Testament authors were not ignorant of and did not deny the historical basis for Hebrew and/or Septuagintal texts when they employed methods used by the rabbis of their day (which, by the way, were used with much greater restraint than that exercised by the rabbis). It is very important to understand that the use of the Greek verb pleroo ("fulfill") is most often used to refer to something other than completion of a prediction in the New Testament. Thus, what might initially appear to be a questionable claim to completion of a prediction is really nothing more than a semantic signal drawing attention to a New Testament teaching that embodies and/or extrapolates an Old Testament text to make a climactic point. In short, a historical reading of the Old Testament text is not abrogated or violated in any way by the New Testament authors.

Unfortunately in these problem situations, it's recognizing the hand of God that's hard.

Hard, but worth the pursuit.

 

In response to a private e-mail let me clarify my position a little. I believe in the tolerance issue and the fact that many Protestants go over board in dismissing lightly theological issues the Mormons raise when they would be not so easily dismissed by your average layman when faced by a Jeff Lindsay. I also think the boorish & offensive behavior of those Protestants who picket Temple Square is un-Christian. I also think other faiths might well have issues with Christianity that might surprise us.

Nonetheless, I absolutely feel that the evidence for the historic and orthodox Christian faith is quite overwhelming. The statistical improbability of the many... many prophecies in OT scriptures being fulfilled the way they are in history and in the person of Christ is staggering. No modern 'psychic' has ever equalled the feat. The coherence of 66 books written by very different authors over centuries is another testimony to the uniqueness of Christian scripture (one of the most reliable ancient written records). On top of that time and time again historians, geographers, archeologists, have ridiculed the biblical record only to have a 'discovery' prove it true. The guidance of the Holy Spirit in the process is amazing. Bill's monogenes is a good example. Arianists used it to support their view that Jesus was the first born of creation, that there was a time He did not exist and was brought into existence (Col 1:15). The early church instinctively knew that 'only begotten' could not mean what it appeared to based on other scripture and so they put this issue in the Nicene Creed (affirming that it could not mean created and that He was fully and completely God). It was in the 20th century that genos was found to mean class. The word therefore means 'unique' or 'one of a kind'.

I believe in the historic Christian faith and the fact that in spite of the well meaning attempts by other faiths to find God, they are missing the mark (1 Cor 2:14-16). By 'other faiths' I not only mean the usual but also folks that are into things such as the 'Word of Faith' movement in which many pew sitters hear teachings that are not all that different from Mormon & JW views of God but they are not discerning enough and do not have enough of a theological basis to contend with these views. Carried away by the charisma and pablum fed to them they give assent to Word of Faith preachers but laugh at Mormons not realizing some similarities. I would recommend Cristianity in Crisis by Hank Hanegraaff for more on this issue.

Just a clarification.

North

 

Thanks for the support Bill. My assertions are based on another ACCS Systematic Theology text (that of Grudem) who is a good solid Reformed Theologian.

As an aside, Grudem makes an interesting point about the Apostle's Creed and the fact that 'descended into hell' is not in the earliest versions. He has theological issues with the concept and believes the bible argues against descent to hell. Grudem points out that prior to 650 AD only Rufinus' version had the phrase in and Rufinus understood it to mean 'buried'. This is another example of theological argument. I have known solid evangelicals (conservatives) arguing how this phrase makes sense from a biblical/theological point of view.

North

 

The space below my name and stuff is for rent ; I really do know how to get rid of it

 

Bill,

Check your sig line and upload it again.

Tony

 

Fish oil works.

 

Tony and Unk, thanks. After I did it over it all came out ok. I'll save the quart of fish oil, Unk, for the next time things do not come out ok.

 

Hi Degreeinfo Colleagues!

Due to family vacation and beginning of semester obligations, I have been away from Degreeinfo since Dec. 21. I have recently received a couple of private messages expressing concern that my absence was due to having been offended at "attacks upon my beliefs". Nothing could be further from the truth.

It has been both my pleasure and privilige to participate in this exchange. I have welcomed (and, in fact continue to welcome and even solicit) questions about LDS belief. Due to the astounding amount of misinformation available about my Church, I appreciate anyone who is willing to go right to the "horse's mouth".

The concern that people on this thread have had for my feelings is greatly appreciated. I am actually quite thick skinned, since I have dealt with those who actually intend to attack my faith (usually with slavish rehashing of pathetic old anti-Mormon arguments). None of this has occurred on this thread. I have felt only sincere intentions from Bill Grover and appreciate his refraining from using his "big guns" on me. I have also not felt the need to bring out my own "big guns" with regards to certain aspects of Christian history and protestant doctrine. So-called "cult bashing" or any other kind of bashing serves little purpose (especially when it would be not be possible for anyone to convince me that I belong to a non-Christian cult).

Bill Huffman's portrayal of me as a "lay expert" is far too generous. I am merely an active member of the LDS Church who tries to pay attention during Sunday School. My field is instructional technology, not systematic theology. I know scores of Latter-day Saints who are more knowledgable than I am, but, as I have said before, I am quite expert in what I do and do not believe. Many people have been taught that Latter-day Saints believe things that we do not.

To quote Bill Huffman again, "It looks like Tony has enjoyed his little 'test' here and was happy to share his knowledge." That is certainly true. I have been having a great time.

Tony Piña