Mormon Confusion

[zerinus]

Hi Z,

Typical LDS (and Biblical) thought has not interpreted these attributes in as absolute a sense as you (or the others here) seem to.

Boy, we Mormons are so awful. We can’t agree on anything! Of course, that’s just because we are such weasels, coming here and trying to confuse everyone.

We are commanded to go by what has been revealed, not speculate on what has not been revealed. I quoted what has been revealed. Whether those attributes “relative” or “absolute” has not been revealed. I accept as doctrine therefore what has been revealed. If you have an issue with that, you should address it to the First Presidency, not to me!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

zerinus,

I did, I read it cover to cover a few times and took institute classes on it. As I mentioned to Rebecca, and as she pointed out, the theology in the BoM is not the same theology presented in the BoA, for example. I agree, the BoM is monotheist, modalist most likely and overall presents a more or less traditional view of God as infinite Spirit. So how do you get from that, to the BoA’s plurality of gods, to the passages still taught as official doctrine worldwide that I quoted? Something to think about.

I think you are deliberately being disingenuous. What I have said in my previous posts is clearer than that. Allow me to clarify once again:

1. I have no difficulty with the doctrines of the plurality of gods and deification of man, as taught in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price. I believe them to be correct, biblical, and scriptural, and also in accordance with the teachings and beliefs of the early Christian Church. I had provided documentary evidence to prove that, and have no difficulties with teaching it, promoting it, or defending it. That is the doctrine of the Church, it is biblical, it is historical, it is Christian, and it is provable. That settles that once for all.
2. The idea that God the Father was once a man and progressed to became a God is not taught in LDS scripture, and therefore strictly speaking is not official LDS doctrine. At best it is a bit of speculation that Joseph Smith chose to indulge in, about which no information has been revealed. However, because it came from him it became popular in the Church for a time, and hence has entered into doctrinal folklore of the Church. But the recent comments from Hinckley which I had quoted demonstrates further that that is also the thinking of the leadership of the Church. Now if you are all hung up because it also occurs in the Gospel Principles manual, I don’t care whether you are or not. I am not worried about that, and I don’t think that anyone else need be either—unless they have a chip on their shoulder, or have something else up their sleeve. I have given you some possible reasons whey that might be; I don’t intend to belabor that point any further than that.
3. As for the other points you had mentioned, I do not accept that the BoM and the BoA teach “different” or “contradictory” doctrines; any more that the different parts of the Bible that do not teach the same doctrines thereforeare “contradictory” or teach “different” doctrines.

zerinus

 

[scipio337]

I think you are deliberately being disingenuous. What I have said in my previous posts is clearer than that. Allow me to clarify once again:

1. I have no difficulty with the doctrines of the plurality of gods and deification of man, as taught in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price. I believe them to be correct, biblical, and scriptural, and also in accordance with the teachings and beliefs of the early Christian Church. I had provided documentary evidence to prove that, and have no difficulties with teaching it, promoting it, or defending it. That is the doctrine of the Church, it is biblical, it is historical, it is Christian, and it is provable. That settles that once for all.
2. The idea that God the Father was once a man and progressed to became a God is not taught in LDS scripture, and therefore strictly speaking is not official LDS doctrine. At best it is a bit of speculation that Joseph Smith chose to indulge in, about which no information has been revealed. However, because it came from him it became popular in the Church for a time, and hence has entered into doctrinal folklore of the Church. But the recent comments from Hinckley which I had quoted demonstrates further that that is also the thinking of the leadership of the Church. Now if you are all hung up because it also occurs in the Gospel Principles manual, I don’t care whether you are or not. I am not worried about that, and I don’t think that anyone else need be either—unless they have a chip on their shoulder, or have something else up their sleeve. I have given you some possible reasons whey that might be; I don’t intend to belabor that point any further than that.
3. As for the other points you had mentioned, I do not accept that the BoM and the BoA teach “different” or “contradictory” doctrines; any more that the different parts of the Bible that do not teach the same doctrines thereforeare “contradictory” or teach “different” doctrines.

zerinus

Could you provide a link to your mentioned “documentary evidence” as to #1?

Although I’m a big fan of bare assertion fallacies, I would like to see this “historical proof” and reasoning.

 

[mark_a]

I personally don’t have a religious prefrence, but I have been reading up on mormon doctrine and would like to know why they aren’t called christians? The way I see it all religions have similarities with all other religions. And in christian religions Jesus Christ is the focus of their religion(s). Now according to most dictionaries being a christian is defined by professing a belief in jesus christ and following his teachings as recorded in the bible. Now to me this would easily qualify mormons as christians.

You want a new prophet?
You want a new book?
You want to claim to restore the Church started by Jesus?
You want plenty of wives for youself?

Well, we had to draw the line somewhere.

The reasons are always presented as theological, but I think the problem is a carry-over from the polygamy days.

I mean just because there are many differences in doctrine between catholics and protestants they aren’t saying one another isn’t christian.

Say what?

 

[zerinus]

To a certain extent I agree, but I think before zerinus is off the hook he needs to explain what the place of these official publications is.

I already have, in posts #151 and #152, and I don’t think I need to do so again.

If they arent’ worth anything, then well, ignore the Church Handbook and do things the way you want to as bishop, why not? I’m open to hearing about a system which priveleges the Mormon canon, but it cannot completely exclude other publications either.

No, you are not being very honest, and I am not going to continue this discussion with you in this vain.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Could you provide a link to your mentioned “documentary evidence” as to #1?

Although I’m a big fan of bare assertion fallacies, I would like to see this “historical proof” and reasoning.

Yes, you will find them here:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/deification-of-man-and-plurality-of.html
zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-on-deification-in-early.html

zerinus

 

[BDawg]

We are commanded to go by what has been revealed, not speculate on what has not been revealed. I quoted what has been revealed. Whether those attributes “relative” or “absolute” has not been revealed. I accept as doctrine therefore what has been revealed. If you have an issue with that, you should address it to the First Presidency, not to me!

zerinus

Hi Z,

You say that “whether those attributes [are] ‘relative’ or ‘absolute’ has not been revealed,” but then you go on to imply that taking your absolutist interpretation is “what has been revealed.” If it hasn’t been revealed, then it hasn’t been revealed!

 

[zerinus]

Hi Z,

You say that “whether those attributes [are] ‘relative’ or ‘absolute’ has not been revealed,” but then you go on to imply that taking your absolutist interpretation is “what has been revealed.” If it hasn’t been revealed, then it hasn’t been revealed!

Not true! The language of the revelation suggests the “absolute,” not the “relative”. Therefore we take it on face value, as the “absolute”. If it is “relative,” then that is what needs to be revealed, which has not been.

zerinus

 

[BDawg]

Not true! The language of the revelation suggests the “absolute,” not the “relative”. Therefore we take it on face value, as the “absolute”. If it is “relative,” then that is what needs to be revealed, which has not been.

zerinus

Hi Z,

The “language” just involves particular words that you happen to take in an absolute sense, unless a caveat is given. A study of how words like “eternal” are used in the scriptures, on the other hand, indicates that they are very often used in a relative sense. E.g., see Alma’s description of his conversion experience, where he described his very temporary pain as “eternal torment” (Alma 36:12). See also my comments about the use of olam in the Bible, and D&C 19.

 

[nebula]

I already have, in posts #151 and #152, and I don’t think I need to do so again.

No, you are not being very honest, and I am not going to continue this discussion with you in this vain.

zerinus

zerinus,

THere’s no need to insult my integrity, what point would there be in purposefully lying? Just because we’ve reached an impasse doesn’t mean that either of us is a liar.

Here’s the situation as I see it:

You argue for a plurality of gods, possibly similar to the JW situation based on synthesizing the BoM and BoA (along with other canonized LDS scriptures). Since you do not see the doctrine of ‘as god once was…’ in the canonized scripture you feel free to conceptualize God in a more traditional manner unless something else gets canonized which does spell that out.

My argument is that the LDS church does teach in an official capacity the ‘as god once was…’ doctrine and I think you are too quick to discount this fact. I agree that manuals are not as equal as canonized scriptures, but when they are used to teach worldwide sunday school to new members ought to be counted for something and you haven’t explained to me what that something is exactly. You say you think the doctrine is meant to ‘die out’ so the LDS church will simply let it all go away, but it’s still out there, being taught. And I have to agree with the other posters on that issue, that’s a terrible way of dealing with a rather important, central issue. After all, this is dealing with the basic nature of God and living prophets should be able to have a clear teaching on that. You argue that the BoM clearly teaches that God is infinite and eternal, alright, I agree, but I do not think that the BoM theology is the same as the theology in the BoA. I understand that you want to synthesize the two because you believe that Joseph was a prophet teaching a unified doctrine, but I don’t think that he was, from what I see his conception of God was radically altered by 1844.

 

[nebula]

I agree that it’s an important issue. But I don’t see how the issue of “what God is” encompasses more than a single issue among the dozens and dozens covered in Gospel Principles, even if the issue is “big.” I’m just saying that I think you exaggerate the extent to which Z disagrees with the teachings in the manual, and he certainly never said it was “worthless.”

bdawg,

All that I want from zerinus is a clear view on how he deals with the fact that it is taught worldwide to new members that God himself was once a man. I don’t think he’s clearly dealt with the issue.

 

[scipio337]

Yes, you will find them here:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/deification-of-man-and-plurality-of.html
zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-on-deification-in-early.html

zerinus

Thank you, but I would point out that your first post is your own interpretation of Scripture, that holds no particular historical context (reading any Jewish commentators like Maimonides would show you this).

Theosis is alive and well in both the Catholic and Easter Orthodox churches. It is still in the Catechism, and mentioned in every celebration of the Eucharist. However, there are vast differences, particularly, the nature of G*d’s essence, and if we humans share in that divine essence in those doctrines.

Here’s a start. Methinks you may misunderstand the Orthodox concept.

geocities.com/apotheoun/theosis

The Morg had an interesting article that pointed out these glaring differences, Theosis and Exaltation: In Dialogue, but it appears that has been removed.

To claim that the Early Church Fathers taught the LDS doctrine of exaltation is at least intellectually dishonest.

 

[zerinus]

Thank you, but I would point out that your first post is your own interpretation of Scripture, that holds no particular historical context . . .

Then you couldn’t have read it very carefully. Towards the end it quotes from Early Church Fathers and Patristics to show belief on the subject in early Christian history.

zerinus

 

[pismopal]

pismopal;4049917:

Hi pismopal,

Did you see my “note” in the middle of the post you quoted warning readers more intelligent than hosemonkey that the argument was not meant to be serious–but rather was a parody of hosemonkey’s ridiculous argument?

Did you see my other posts since that one where I had to explain once again to various indignant people the obvious meaning of the original post?

Perhaps you should examine your own reading skills.

I would be careful about references to intelligence if I adherred to a religion that was “ciphered” by a charlatan using magic stones and an oversize hat pulled over his head. That must be truly embarrassing for mormons…I am almost embarrassed for you. PS Why do you need to explain “again” the meaning of your posts? Try clarity and less sarcasm. The mormons I know are a little short in the humor department anyway.

 

[nebula]

BDawg;4049977:

I would be careful about references to intelligence if I adherred to a religion that was “ciphered” by a charlatan using magic stones and an oversize hat pulled over his head. That must be truly embarrassing for mormons…I am almost embarrassed for you. PS Why do you need to explain “again” the meaning of your posts? Try clarity and less sarcasm. The mormons I know are a little short in the humor department anyway.

I don’t know, maybe zerinus is feeling overwhelmed because of the number of fronts he has taken on on the board because unfortunately an otherwise interesting debate has degenerated into insults.

Why, zerinus? You accuse me of dishonesty, others of ignorance or stupidity, is that supposed to leave us with the impression that you’ve gotten in the last word and ‘win’ or what exactly?

 

[BDawg]

I don’t know, maybe zerinus is feeling overwhelmed because of the number of fronts he has taken on on the board because unfortunately an otherwise interesting debate has degenerated into insults.

Why, zerinus? You accuse me of dishonesty, others of ignorance or stupidity, is that supposed to leave us with the impression that you’ve gotten in the last word and ‘win’ or what exactly?

You guys are getting your quote functions all messed up. Pismopal’s post says he was quoting himself, when he was quoting me. Nebula’s post says he was quoting me, when he was actually quoting Pismopal, and nebula’s comments on the quoted material seem to indicate that Pismopal was responding to Zerinus. Of course, now that I look back, I probably started it all by quoting Pismopal, when the quote block says it was by me.

Let the madness stop!

 

[why_me]

BDawg;4049977:

I would be careful about references to intelligence if I adherred to a religion that was “ciphered” by a charlatan using magic stones and an oversize hat pulled over his head. That must be truly embarrassing for mormons…I am almost embarrassed for you.

Think of it this way: A young man writes a book, looking to conquer the world. When the book is finished he needs to make up a story to convince people of its truthfulness. Now of course, this young man, worked hard on this book. Heck, it took at least a thousand sheets of paper and many ink bottles, plus feathered pens and rough drafts none of which were ever found.

The book is finished. To translate the book from memory with a scribe he sticks his head in a hat and begins to translate a book that he himself wrote. He just rattles it off, without a manucript that he worked hard on to write.

Now that is incredible and not at all embarrassing.

Was god behind it all? Did he really write the book? Now these are great questions, with hat and all.

 

[zerinus]

Hi Z,

The “language” just involves particular words that you happen to take in an absolute sense, unless a caveat is given. A study of how words like “eternal” are used in the scriptures, on the other hand, indicates that they are very often used in a relative sense. E.g., see Alma’s description of his conversion experience, where he described his very temporary pain as “eternal torment” (Alma 36:12). See also my comments about the use of olam in the Bible, and D&C 19.

The language is clearer than that. This is the language:

Moses 1:

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

You are free to interpret that as you like. In the absence of a categorical declaration by the Church, I suppose you have the leeway to interpret it as you like. I also have the leeway to interpret it as I like. I believe that my interpretation conforms more closely to the guidelines established by the Church—i.e. that the doctrines of the Church are determined in the first instance by the standard works; and the language of the verse implies something absolute not relative. But if you want to interpret it differently, you can. In every religion there are theological boundaries of certainty beyond which diversity of opinion becomes possible and permissible. This is equally true of the Catholic Church. However, in this particular instance I think that I have opinion of Gordon B Hinckley on my side, which you don’t! So I would rather stick to my interpretation than accept yours!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

bdawg,

All that I want from zerinus is a clear view on how he deals with the fact that it is taught worldwide to new members that God himself was once a man. I don’t think he’s clearly dealt with the issue.

I think that I have, and need not do so again.

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

pismopal;4054612:

Think of it this way: A young man writes a book, looking to conquer the world. When the book is finished he needs to make up a story to convince people of its truthfulness. Now of course, this young man, worked hard on this book. Heck, it took at least a thousand sheets of paper and many ink bottles, plus feathered pens and rough drafts none of which were ever found.

The book is finished. To translate the book from memory with a scribe he sticks his head in a hat and begins to translate a book that he himself wrote. He just rattles it off, without a manucript that he worked hard on to write.

Now that is incredible and not at all embarrassing.

Was god behind it all? Did he really write the book? Now these are great questions, with hat and all.

First of all, we don’t know how Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon. The head in a hat thing was reported by witnesses, but the witnesses weren’t there all of the time Joseph and Oliver were “translating.” It is just possible that when people showed up he created a show by sticking his head in a hat to make people believe he was translating in that manner. The rest of the time Oliver and Cowdrey could just have been working on a manuscript together without any charade of divine intervention.