How Biblically Literate are Mormons as a Whole?

[Moksha]

Jesus is boss man.

Regards,
MG

Il Capo di Holy Capo.

[huckelberry]

I would say that Mormons misunderstand the Bible in novel ways compared to the tried and true ways that Protestants and Catholics misunderstand the Bible.

In that the Bible has a variety of views in a fluid situation is it possible to have a correct understanding of the Bible? It appears that multiple implications can be read out of the mix.

The New Testament does not present a Trinity doctrine but that doctrine may be read as plied by various generalized statements about Jesus. Or perhaps someone would prefer a different summary of that idea.

[PseudoPaul]

I would say that Mormons misunderstand the Bible in novel ways compared to the tried and true ways that Protestants and Catholics misunderstand the Bible.

In that the Bible has a variety of views in a fluid situation is it possible to have a correct understanding of the Bible? It appears that multiple implications can be read out of the mix.

The New Testament does not present a Trinity doctrine but that doctrine may be read as plied by various generalized statements about Jesus. Or perhaps someone would prefer a different summary of that idea.

Reading the trinity into the Bible can only be understood as eisegesis. There are certainly a range of historically correct readings of the texts, but trinity is not one of them.

[PseudoPaul]

For me, the Bible is the authoritative voice for Jesus and his early followers. I'm so glad we have it and that it is there for us to study and gain a testimony of Christ.

This ironically is an example of a Biblically illiterate view.

[huckelberry]

In that the Bible has a variety of views in a fluid situation is it possible to have a correct understanding of the Bible? It appears that multiple implications can be read out of the mix.

The New Testament does not present a Trinity doctrine but that doctrine may be read as plied by various generalized statements about Jesus. Or perhaps someone would prefer a different summary of that idea.

Reading the trinity into the Bible can only be understood as eisegesis. There are certainly a range of historically correct readings of the texts, but trinity is not one of them.

As I understand it if a person starts with the idea of the trinity sees a text that kind of sounds that way and decides New Testament explains Trinity that would be eisegesis. The idea of a Trinity having become common encourages that sort of eisegesis and one hears that sort of eisegesis sometimes.

Historically that is not what happened. The idea of the Trinity was created in the attempt to bring together the implications of various New Testament ideas. It was creation related to the text. Any adult discussion of the doctrine is aware of how the problems of exegesis asked for invention.

[Ego]

Any adult discussion of the doctrine is aware of how the problems of exegesis asked for invention.

Exegesis will also show us that this text was not in a vacuum. Trinitarian thought was contributed to by other prominent philosophy of the time as well. I think of the greek philosophy surrounding Logos for example greatly contributing to the theology.

[huckelberry]

Any adult discussion of the doctrine is aware of how the problems of exegesis asked for invention.

Exegesis will also show us that this text was not in a vacuum. Trinitarian thought was contributed to by other prominent philosophy of the time as well. I think of the greek philosophy surrounding Logos for example greatly contributing to the theology.

Hi Ego and welcome.

I agree that what was written was a result of past ideas and then current understanding. Because it exists in time it is hard to freeze limiting to only one fixed idea. Human thought and text do not easily freeze in time.

I think Pseudopaul's point is that to understand history of the Bible and its people we need to separate later understandings and ideas from what was written to start with. That would be helped if we only had more earlier text for the edited and assembled material we have.

[Ego]

Exegesis will also show us that this text was not in a vacuum. Trinitarian thought was contributed to by other prominent philosophy of the time as well. I think of the greek philosophy surrounding Logos for example greatly contributing to the theology.

Hi Ego and welcome.

I agree that what was written was a result of past ideas and then current understanding. Because it exists in time it is hard to freeze limiting to only one fixed idea. Human thought and text do not easily freeze in time.

I think Pseudopaul's point is that to understand history of the Bible and its people we need to separate later understandings and ideas from what was written to start with. That would be helped if we only had more earlier text for the edited and assembled material we have.

Thank you for the welcome!

That is the great challenge with seeking a restoration isn’t it. One must understand the history of what was originally penned and intended. I wholeheartedly agree that the best biblical literacy comes from the historical approach.

[MG 2.0]

For me, the Bible is the authoritative voice for Jesus and his early followers. I'm so glad we have it and that it is there for us to study and gain a testimony of Christ.

This ironically is an example of a Biblically illiterate view.

Did the earliest oral traditions proclaim Jesus as the Messiah and Savior and testify that he was resurrected from the dead? Was this message at the core of the early Christian faith and evangelistic mission of the early apostles?

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

The Trinity concept was meant to pull Christianity back to the idea of a One God. Those theologians were unaware of the prophecy of the coming of Joseph Smith.

In Genesis 50:30–33 in his ‘JST’ or ‘Joseph Smith Translation’ or ‘Inspired Version’ of the Bible, Joseph Smith did insert himself…

30 And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them in the last days;
31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to a knowledge of their fathers in the latter days; and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.
32 And out of weakness shall he be made strong, in that day when my work shall go forth among all my people, which shall restore them, who are of the house of Israel, in the last days.
33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.