Pardon me for intervening--Perry makes some good points in general, but
fails to give specifics. He says, "I consider the verses from
the Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts because
out of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for which
you are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do not
support the doctrinal position that you claim they support."
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Perry, some biblical passages used by Mormons do seem
nebulous as to what they mean--but please consider the possibility that the
meaning ascribed to the passage by Mormons may actually be the true meaning, or
at least one of several true meanings. There are quite a few biblical passages
that most Judeo/Christian writers agree defy interpretation. The passages
concerning the sticks of Judah and Joseph are good examples. If these do not
refer to what Mormons say they refer to, that is, the Book of Mormon and the
Bible, please tell us what they do refer to? I have never read of any
explanation that held up under scrutiny, other than the Mormon interpretation.
Yet you do suggest you know. If so, I am a quick learner, so please, tell
me/us, OK?
BlaineRB
-- "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>from: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Perry wrote:
>>A mormon prooftext. Claim that men become gods, then find some scripture
>>that seems to support it. This type of activity occurs in Mormonism
>>because the LDS regard the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenants
>>to be the prime documents in their belief, and then try to read them into
>>Bible.
>
>DAVEH: I will agree to that, Perry. I'm glad to see you have finally come
>to that conclusion. My beliefs are not solely dependent on Bible
>interpretation, as is so common for many folks. Yet when people (like Kay)
>ask me why I believe as I do, I try not to bury them with LDS Scriptures,
>but rather offer my support from Biblical evidences. I'm not sure why you
>have a problem with this, Perry, as I'm only trying to frame my believes
>with supporting passages with which most TTers are familiar. Call it
>prooftexting or whatever else you feel belittles my explanations.......but
>is that a problem for you?
My goal is not to belittle your explanations. I consider the verses from
the Bible that you quote in support of LDS doctrine to be prooftexts because
out of context they contain some of the words in the LDS doctrine for which
you are seeking Biblical support, but within their context, they do not
support the doctrinal position that you claim they support. Thus, when you
use such scripture to try to support a Mormon doctrine, it certainly appears
to me as thought you are trying to create doctrine where none exists. And I
point that out when I see it.
Now, I believe that there is an interesting phenomenon that has occurred
over time that produced the prooftexts that you use in support of LDS
doctrine. (In fact, I'll bet most of the scripture you use to try to support
LDS doctrine are "standard" LDS references, because I have heard other
Mormons respond with exactly the same verses when asked for scriptural
support of the same doctrines.)
The phenomenon goes like this... Joseph Smith came up with a
"revelation". Good Mormons wanted to know that it was indeed from God so,
being good Bereans, they searched the scriptures for support of the
revelation, and latched onto the verses that contain words that relate to
the doctrine. Not seeing a relationship at first, they wrestled with the
text and, over time, refined the meanings of the words and twisted it out of
context until they felt they could support the doctrine. Then the phenomenon
occurred...they came to believe it, and passed it on as truth.
Now, coming in cold, and not having learned the prooftexts that have been
refined over the years to support the Mormon doctrines, I read the verses in
their context and absolutely cannot see any relationship between the
Biblical context and the Mormon doctrine (except for some common words). It
just is not there. So, I see them merely as hokey prooftexts for pagan
doctrines.
Mormons, on the other hand, have probably heard these prooftexts since
they were little tykes, and maybe even were taught them in Sunday School,
and I'll bet that most Mormons (and possibly yourself) have never tried to
place the text it in it's Biblical context, then compare it back to the LDS
doctrine they are trying to support. That would be almost impossible for a
good Mormon to do so. Plus, there is a good reason not to do that. To do so
might reveal that the scripture indeed has nothing to do with the doctrine.
In fact, it might reveal that the doctrine is not supported anywhere in the
Bible. And we can't have that. Nothing validates a false doctrine like a
text from the Bible to support it...no matter how twisted the text has
become in its interpretation.
>
>>There are many other such prooftexts, like baptism for the dead, the two
>>sticks of ezekiel representing the Book of Mormon and the Bible, and
>>"another flock" representing the hebrews that descended from those who
>>migrated to America just after the tower of Babyl fell. All prooftexts.
>
>DAVEH: You say that as though it is a crime, Perry. I've got the feeling
>I could copy and paste the whole Bible to this post and you would consider
>it prooftexting. :-)
Well, actually, I do think that prooftexting scripture to support pagan
doctrine is a crime. Sorry. Yes, I would consider your posting the whole
Bible prooftexting if you tried to use it to support some non-biblical pagan
doctrine.
> That's OK though. If anybody asks me a question regarding my beliefs,
>I'll continue quoting Biblical passages I feel pertain to my beliefs. If
>you want to counter each with a prooftexting complaint, that's OK.....I
>understand your need to undermine my comments.
It's nice to be understood :-)
>Though I would prefer you respond with a contrasting explanation of your
>perspective.
Well, I have tried that over and over. But, as you have said, you are not
here on TT to learn the truth. Izzy can attest to that, and I am sure she
will.
>I think that would benefit all of us more than simply
>crying.......prooftext........every time I post a Bible passage and my
>understanding of it. After all....you really don't want me to quit
>responding to questions, do you??? :-\
Well, I don't cry "prooftext" every time you post a Bible passage, David. Be
fair. I cry "prooftext" only when you try to use that scripture to support
some unrelated LDS doctrine. And, I hope that doing so benefits some of the
others on the list who may not have the time to unravel the twisted text. Do
I want you to quit answering questions? No. But it would be neat if for just
15 seconds you saw what we see.
> Would you explain what was meant by Ps 82:1........
>
>*God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the
>gods.*
I have already offered my explanation in a previous post.
>
>.........When I look it up in my (non-LDS) concordance, it says the root of
>*/gods /*is */Elohim/*, which also applies to how it was used in verse 6.
>When I looked up gods as used by Jesus in Jn 10:34, it says the root is
>/*theos*/, an */object of worship/*. Neither reflects implication of being
>a /*judge */instead of a deity. Is my concordance dated or incorrect on
>this, Perry? What am I missing???
It is not, in any way, indicating that these judges are exalted or will
become gods. That is what you are missing. Psalm 82, and it's reference in
John, are so important to the LDS "men become gods" doctrine that you cannot
possibly see it any other way. It is the prooftext upon which the doctrine
that men can become gods hangs. To see it any other way would deny you your
godhood. Your secret passwords would mean nothing. The secret handshake you
learned to get into heaven would be meaningless. And the promise of your own
planet to populate and myriad spirit wives to impregnate would be gone. And
all of those people for whom you were baptised vicariously would still be
lost. The whole house of cards would come tumbling down, and the only ones
left would be you and Jesus. The real thing. Mano y mano.
> Now you've got me wondering, Perry. You quoted.....
>
>*those who sit in judgement for God*
>
>.......as the intended meaning of /*gods */in vss 1 & 6......is that
>correct? What root word(s) do you use to come to that conclusion?
Did I put that in quotes? I was stating my understanding of the verse, not
quoting a text.
>Is that something Protestantism concluded to explain an otherwise difficult
>passage that contradicts the T-Doctrine?
Not that I know of.
>DAVEH: Could it be that they were foreordained to be such, much as was
>the Saviour? IOW....how could he be called the Redeemer /before /he died?
>Does that make sense, Perry?
Sure it does. He was the Redeemer from the beginning...it is just that the
redeeming was not complete until he died.
>DAVEH: When I do such, you call it prooftexting, Perry. Do you think the
>Lord's detractors thought the same way when he quoted a verse?
No. I think he spoke with such authority that no one could legitimately
question Him (Mt 7:29).
Perry
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
