Would God do that? - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Tex · 07-11-2007, 04:02 PM

New Tally

Arch: no
SoonerCoug: no
MikeWaters: no (?)
Tag Man: no
SeattleUte: no
creekster: not sure
Solon: not sure
Venkman: possibly, but not sure
Indy Coug: possibly
jay santos: no
BlueK: not sure (?)

Thanks to those of you who offered serious responses.

Put me in the Indy Coug/Venkman/creekster camp. Personally, I sometimes find it hard to reconcile the New Testament God with the Old, and it's obvious I'm not the first or the only person to struggle with that.

However, I'm unwilling to dismiss the events based on my discomfort. Barring further revelation, I accept them as written.

jay santos · 07-11-2007, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

New Tally

Arch: no
SoonerCoug: no
MikeWaters: no (?)
Tag Man: no
SeattleUte: no
creekster: not sure
Solon: not sure
Venkman: possibly, but not sure
Indy Coug: possibly
jay santos: no
BlueK: not sure (?)

Thanks to those of you who offered serious responses.

Put me in the Indy Coug/Venkman/creekster camp. Personally, I sometimes find it hard to reconcile the New Testament God with the Old, and it's obvious I'm not the first or the only person to struggle with that.

However, I'm unwilling to dismiss the events based on my discomfort. Barring further revelation, I accept them as written.

That's not fair I get a no. I'm very close to what Creekster says getting a yes.

BYU71 · 07-11-2007, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

New Tally

Arch: no
SoonerCoug: no
MikeWaters: no (?)
Tag Man: no
SeattleUte: no
creekster: not sure
Solon: not sure
Venkman: possibly, but not sure
Indy Coug: possibly
jay santos: no
BlueK: not sure (?)

Thanks to those of you who offered serious responses.

Put me in the Indy Coug/Venkman/creekster camp. Personally, I sometimes find it hard to reconcile the New Testament God with the Old, and it's obvious I'm not the first or the only person to struggle with that.

However, I'm unwilling to dismiss the events based on my discomfort. Barring further revelation, I accept them as written.

Put me also down as a no. That is because that is what I believe. It wouldn't bother me a bit or be a major surprise to me if I was wrong. Maybe that makes me a not sure leaning to no.

SoCalCoug · 07-11-2007, 04:23 PM

I'll be the anti-Tex and try to answer the question without ridiculing the question asker. The problem is, the question is defective, in that it doesn't take into account the LDS beliefs regarding the Bible

One of the basic tenets of our religion is that we accept the Bible as the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. Therefore, built into our belief in the Bible is a caveat that there are errors in translation. We don't know how pervasive the errors are, or even which specific portions are erroneous.

We also understand that the Bible was not written by the actual hand of God - in fact, there are many portions which we don't know (or aren't sure) who wrote them. Tradition attributes some of them to prophets.

In fact, one of our core beliefs - the belief in continuing revelation, actually obviates the need to rely on the older, less trustworthy records of previous prophets.

I believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. Therefore, the answer to Tex's question is that I cannot accept those accounts as actual historical events, because I cannot confirm that they are translated correctly, and because I cannot confirm that they are actual accounts of actual events.

With our current scholarship, we cannot verify the accuracy of the accounts of the Old Testament, in particular - we're talking about written records of events that purportedly happened four, five and six thousand years ago.

There are good stories in the Old Testament that teach correct principles. Whether they are actual historical accounts is not really relevant. The other primary purpose of the Old Testament in the modern day, I believe, is to show the prophecies of the Messiah, so that we can see how they have been fulfilled.

It's a trick question. Unless Tex has some specific revelation that indicates that the portions of the Old Testament he refers to are accurate and translated correctly, I don't think he can trump what Joseph Smith said (and implied) about the accuracy of the Bible.

It is because the the unreliability of the Bible, and the "plain and precious things" that have been taken from it, and the non-revelatory things that have been added to it, that God brought forth modern-day scripture, and that God relies on modern prophets.

Tex · 07-11-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

It's a trick question.

It isn't intended to be.

Thanks for the response ... I'll put you down as a no.

Taq Man · 07-11-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

It isn't intended to be.

Thanks for the response ... I'll put you down as a no.

Are you going to forward the list of No's on to the mormon gestapo when your done?

Indy Coug · 07-11-2007, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taq Man

Are you going to forward the list of No's on to the mormon gestapo when your done?

Why don't you write up a distribution list of who you think comprises the Mormon Gestapo? Do they have a bi-annual meeting in Colorado at a place called "The Meadows"?

YOhio · 07-11-2007, 05:17 PM

I'll be pissed if it turns out that Sampson's hair didn't make him strong. That was my favorite Bible story as a youth and my main argument as to why my mom should let me grow a mullet.

minn_stat · 07-11-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

I don't find this question necessary to my salvation or to my testimony and so I haven't really bothered to try to answer it. I find several of your examples to be very suspect, but I really am not sure if they are to be taken at face value or not. How will taking a side in your little litmus test, publicly or privately, make me a better person? I find the stories useful at several levels, but have not felt compelled to take a position on their literal truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

New Tally

Arch: no
SoonerCoug: no
MikeWaters: no (?)
Tag Man: no
SeattleUte: no
creekster: not sure
Solon: not sure
Venkman: possibly, but not sure
Indy Coug: possibly
jay santos: no
BlueK: not sure (?)

Thanks to those of you who offered serious responses.

Put me in the Indy Coug/Venkman/creekster camp. Personally, I sometimes find it hard to reconcile the New Testament God with the Old, and it's obvious I'm not the first or the only person to struggle with that.

However, I'm unwilling to dismiss the events based on my discomfort. Barring further revelation, I accept them as written.

I'd put myself pretty much in the same boat as Tex, with a dash of Creekster's wisdom thrown in.

Several times I've taught the Old Testament in gospel doctrine. I treat the stories as true, but focus on the principles contained therein. I've got enough feedback over the years to feel I'm a pretty effective teacher, and the feedback is usually focused on the ability to relate the principles in the stories to the reality of people's lives, here and now. And that's how I view the stories in the Old Testament. I've just finished reading the book of Daniel, one of my favorites. Did the interpretation of dreams, the lion's den, and all that really occur as stated in that book? It seems somewhat unlikely, but who knows? I just don't spend much time worrying about/discussing it, although I've had a few people over the years who I speculate on such things with from time to time. But I have little doubt that the lifetime habits of meaningful prayer that Daniel supposedly practiced can be a real force in my life.

SoCalCoug · 07-11-2007, 06:25 PM

This is where I find this discussion fascinating. As a basic tenet of our faith, we believe there are errors in the translation we have of the Bible. For this reason, we have been given modern-day scripture and living prophets.

Yet, LDS people claim to give the Bible face-value credit, as a correct recitation of historical facts, even in areas where the modern prophets have not confirmed it to be accurate.

Given that we have a basic belief that the Bible as we have it is not completely correct, and that modern scripture and revelation has been given to clarify and correct our understanding of the principles contained in it, how can you logically justify accepting it at face value, particularly as a record of events rather than a source of gospel principles, where its veracity has not been confirmed by modern scripture?

In essence, you're saying that you know it's not entirely accurate, and you're not sure where the inaccuracies lie, but you'll accept it as accurate anyway.

To me, that viewpoint minimizes the importance of modern scripture and prophecy. That viewpoint also aligns more with the beliefs of evangelical Christians who seem to believe in the deification of the Bible - that it is the immutable word of God.

07-11-2007, 04:02 PM	#21
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	New Tally Arch: no SoonerCoug: no MikeWaters: no (?) Tag Man: no SeattleUte: no creekster: not sure Solon: not sure Venkman: possibly, but not sure Indy Coug: possibly jay santos: no BlueK: not sure (?) Thanks to those of you who offered serious responses. Put me in the Indy Coug/Venkman/creekster camp. Personally, I sometimes find it hard to reconcile the New Testament God with the Old, and it's obvious I'm not the first or the only person to struggle with that. However, I'm unwilling to dismiss the events based on my discomfort. Barring further revelation, I accept them as written. __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

07-11-2007, 04:23 PM	#24
SoCalCoug Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Orange County, California Posts: 3,059	I'll be the anti-Tex and try to answer the question without ridiculing the question asker. The problem is, the question is defective, in that it doesn't take into account the LDS beliefs regarding the Bible One of the basic tenets of our religion is that we accept the Bible as the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. Therefore, built into our belief in the Bible is a caveat that there are errors in translation. We don't know how pervasive the errors are, or even which specific portions are erroneous. We also understand that the Bible was not written by the actual hand of God - in fact, there are many portions which we don't know (or aren't sure) who wrote them. Tradition attributes some of them to prophets. In fact, one of our core beliefs - the belief in continuing revelation, actually obviates the need to rely on the older, less trustworthy records of previous prophets. I believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. Therefore, the answer to Tex's question is that I cannot accept those accounts as actual historical events, because I cannot confirm that they are translated correctly, and because I cannot confirm that they are actual accounts of actual events. With our current scholarship, we cannot verify the accuracy of the accounts of the Old Testament, in particular - we're talking about written records of events that purportedly happened four, five and six thousand years ago. There are good stories in the Old Testament that teach correct principles. Whether they are actual historical accounts is not really relevant. The other primary purpose of the Old Testament in the modern day, I believe, is to show the prophecies of the Messiah, so that we can see how they have been fulfilled. It's a trick question. Unless Tex has some specific revelation that indicates that the portions of the Old Testament he refers to are accurate and translated correctly, I don't think he can trump what Joseph Smith said (and implied) about the accuracy of the Bible. It is because the the unreliability of the Bible, and the "plain and precious things" that have been taken from it, and the non-revelatory things that have been added to it, that God brought forth modern-day scripture, and that God relies on modern prophets. __________________ Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug Last edited by SoCalCoug; 07-11-2007 at 04:25 PM. Reason: More accurate

07-11-2007, 05:17 PM	#28
YOhio AKA SeattleNewt Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,055	I'll be pissed if it turns out that Sampson's hair didn't make him strong. That was my favorite Bible story as a youth and my main argument as to why my mom should let me grow a mullet. Last edited by YOhio; 07-11-2007 at 05:46 PM.

07-11-2007, 06:25 PM	#30
SoCalCoug Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Orange County, California Posts: 3,059	This is where I find this discussion fascinating. As a basic tenet of our faith, we believe there are errors in the translation we have of the Bible. For this reason, we have been given modern-day scripture and living prophets. Yet, LDS people claim to give the Bible face-value credit, as a correct recitation of historical facts, even in areas where the modern prophets have not confirmed it to be accurate. Given that we have a basic belief that the Bible as we have it is not completely correct, and that modern scripture and revelation has been given to clarify and correct our understanding of the principles contained in it, how can you logically justify accepting it at face value, particularly as a record of events rather than a source of gospel principles, where its veracity has not been confirmed by modern scripture? In essence, you're saying that you know it's not entirely accurate, and you're not sure where the inaccuracies lie, but you'll accept it as accurate anyway. To me, that viewpoint minimizes the importance of modern scripture and prophecy. That viewpoint also aligns more with the beliefs of evangelical Christians who seem to believe in the deification of the Bible - that it is the immutable word of God. __________________ Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug