Mormon Confusion

[majick275]

I’m claiming that the following points about the nature of God and humans are a restoration of early Christian beliefs.

1. God has a body in human form.
2. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings.
3. The Son and Spirit are subordinate in rank and glory to the Father, and are separate beings.
4. The Divine Nature is generically similar to human nature.
5. Therefore, the Logos could inhabit a human body in the same manner as a human soul (i.e., Jesus didn’t have an extra human soul), but Jesus was still truly a man.
6. God creates things out of pre-existing materials.
7. Human souls existed before their respective bodies.

On top of that, I consider the idea that God the Father has a father, and was once a man, to be something only publicly revealed in the last dispensation. So it isn’t a “restoration” of anything, in my book.

Maybe you don’t buy into Mormon arguments for #'s 1-7 being the original Christian doctrines, but maybe you can understand my point of view that the Mormon view of God is mostly a restoration.

i am quite surprised that you claim so much as restoration. I would have thought 3,6 and maybe 7 could at least be argued. 4 or 5 if you posit that some of the heretics were the “true” church. I see no support at all for 1 or 2 ouitside of exclusively mormon sources.

i also think you are attempting reverse engineering of early christian beliefs based on modern mormon doctrine.

I agree that nueser has a big reputation in the sense that he is well known and a prolific writer. as i said earlier he has been called the popes favorite rabbi. I just think his methods are questionable as other scholars have pointed out. i see him as popular because he tells people what they want to hear but not such a great source for truth. I mean robert schuller has written many books and enjoyed great success on TV…he doesn’t tell us anything significant though. he isn’t “bad” he just panders to the people so to speak. I see nueser the way. that’s my opinon but i tried to show that it was one shared by scholars and why they were critical of him.

 

[BDawg]

i am quite surprised that you claim so much as restoration. I would have thought 3,6 and maybe 7 could at least be argued. 4 or 5 if you posit that some of the heretics were the “true” church. I see no support at all for 1 or 2 ouitside of exclusively mormon sources.

Hi Majick,

For 4 and 5, I already cited JND Kelly saying that for the earliest Christians, by far the most common Christology was a “Spirit Christology” where Jesus’ spirit (the Logos) replaced a regular human spirit within a human body. There was no talk of “two natures and two wills” with both a human body and a human soul on top of the “Divine Nature.” Mainstream Christian scholars generally brush this aside as “pre-reflective theology,” or something like that. But I argue that if these people thought of Jesus as God, then there is no way they could have thought of the Divine Nature as totally different than human nature, if Jesus was supposed to be truly human, as well. From my point of view, these two are a pretty slam-dunk case, and the argument does not rely on “heretics” at all.

I also think 1 and 2 are very well supported, but I can’t really expect you to agree with me about that, since we have already hashed through that. In this case, you might call some of my sources (Jewish Christians like the ones that wrote the Clementine Homilies) heretics. They did seem to be somewhat anti-Paul.

On the other hand, I actually think point 7 is the least supported on the list. There are a number of early Christian (including Jewish Christian, proto-catholic, and Gnostic) and Jewish sources that teach this, but it is harder to support from the Bible, in my opinion, and there seems to have been quite a diversity of opinion on this very early.

i also think you are attempting reverse engineering of early christian beliefs based on modern mormon doctrine.

Of course you think that. And I’m fine with you thinking that. I do try not to claim too much, though. I would love to be able to support the KFD from the Bible and early Jewish and Christian sources, but it would really be a stretch, in my mind, so I just chalk it up to “further revelation.”

I see nueser the way. that’s my opinon but i tried to show that it was one shared by scholars and why they were critical of him.

That’s fine.

 

[scipio337]

i am quite surprised that you claim so much as restoration. I would have thought 3,6 and maybe 7 could at least be argued. 4 or 5 if you posit that some of the heretics were the “true” church. I see no support at all for 1 or 2 ouitside of exclusively mormon sources.

i also think you are attempting reverse engineering of early christian beliefs based on modern mormon doctrine…

True. You can also add Judaism to that list. Its the LDS way. Start with a preconcieved outcome. Have FARMs look for even a glancing reference to support that preconceived conclusion.

See FARMs defense of the Salamander letter. Immediately, they jumped the gun, pulling out references to “mystical salamanders” to support the bogus letter.

Had it not been disproved, BD might be arguing for “early Jewish beliefs of divine salamanders”. Of course, the Jews have gotten it wrong, all along. They don’t know their religion as well as a few researchers with an axe to grind.

Unfortunately, I think it makes for sloppy scholarship (and even sloppier theology).

 

[BDawg]

True. You can also add Judaism to that list. Its the LDS way. Start with a preconcieved outcome. Have FARMs look for even a glancing reference to support that preconceived conclusion.

See FARMs defense of the Salamander letter. Immediately, they jumped the gun, pulling out references to “mystical salamanders” to support the bogus letter.

Had it not been disproved, BD might be arguing for “early Jewish beliefs of divine salamanders”. Of course, the Jews have gotten it wrong, all along. They don’t know their religion as well as a few researchers with an axe to grind.

Unfortunately, I think it makes for sloppy scholarship (and even sloppier theology).

Hi Scipio,

It seems to me that all those nasty LDS scholars who write for FARMS are quite a bit more sophisticated than you give them credit for. They are always careful, in my experience, to point out that they are not presenting some kind of logical proof, but are making an argument for plausibility. That is, they are simply arguing that it is reasonable to believe in LDS claims. They know very well that the historical record is extremely spotty, and apparent trends in ideas can be upset next week by the discovery of new documents. They generally acknowledge that LDS interpretations of our own beliefs have not been completely static, and we may be interpreting some things incorrectly right now. When they claim parallels between ancient and modern LDS beliefs, they produce the evidence, and acknowledge that some parallels are stronger or weaker than others.

You, on the other hand, argue as if everything has been settled, and as if Jewish/Christian beliefs had been completely static over the centuries. And you don’t even produce any evidence to back up your claims. So far, you have just pontificated a whole lot about it, dismissed the evidence I provided for my POV, and waved your hands about people like Maimonides who lived a millennium after the period under discussion. Maybe people would take your blustering about the sloppiness of Mormon scholarship more seriously if you showed any evidence of understanding the nature of scholarship, yourself.

Furthermore, maybe you’re right that if Hoffmann hadn’t been exposed, I would be arguing for “early Jewish beliefs of divine salamanders.” I have quite a lot of reasons for believing what I do, so when anomalies come up, I generally try to make sense of them within my pre-existing framework of ideas. Just like everyone else. But one thing is sure. I would not be arguing for “early Jewish beliefs of divine salamanders” unless I could actually find some documentary evidence for it.

 

[scipio337]

Hi Scipio,

It seems to me that all those nasty LDS scholars who write for FARMS are quite a bit more sophisticated than you give them credit for. They are always careful, in my experience, to point out that they are not presenting some kind of logical proof, but are making an argument for plausibility. That is, they are simply arguing that it is reasonable to believe in LDS claims. They know very well that the historical record is extremely spotty, and apparent trends in ideas can be upset next week by the discovery of new documents. They generally acknowledge that LDS interpretations of our own beliefs have not been completely static, and we may be interpreting some things incorrectly right now. When they claim parallels between ancient and modern LDS beliefs, they produce the evidence, and acknowledge that some parallels are stronger or weaker than others.

Right. I’ve never seen them admit a fault, or acknowledge those inumerable “parallels” that go ignored.

BDawg:

You, on the other hand, argue as if everything has been settled, and as if Jewish/Christian beliefs had been completely static over the centuries. And you don’t even produce any evidence to back up your claims. So far, you have just pontificated a whole lot about it, dismissed the evidence I provided for my POV, and waved your hands about people like Maimonides who lived a millennium after the period under discussion.

You do know that Maimonides considered the canonical authority so, don’t you? Oh, I’m sorry, his views don’t fit your predetermined outcome. For Jews for over a millenium, he’s been good enough, but of course, for you, that isn’t enough. Why must you tell Jews what they’ve believed? Was there a Jewish “Great Apostacy” as well? Again, I think at least a rudimentary knowledge or rabbinical judaism would be helpful. But don’t fret, there are enough Torah and Mishnah scholars out there to find one or two who supported your whole weltanschauung. The fact that there is no consensus on that view shouldn’t deter you.

BDawg:

Maybe people would take your blustering about the sloppiness of Mormon scholarship more seriously if you showed any evidence of understanding the nature of scholarship, yourself.

Tu quoque. At least I can claim that I approach most material without the result already determined, and that most of the material I read is peer-reviewed.

BDawg:

Furthermore, maybe you’re right that if Hoffmann hadn’t been exposed, I would be arguing for “early Jewish beliefs of divine salamanders.” I have quite a lot of reasons for believing what I do, so when anomalies come up, I generally try to make sense of them within my pre-existing framework of ideas. Just like everyone else. But one thing is sure. I would not be arguing for “early Jewish beliefs of divine salamanders” unless I could actually find some documentary evidence for it.

Or, if you interpreted some documentary evidence for it. FARMs tried to squeeze that into their “pre-existing framework of ideas”, and failed (or succeeded, depending on how you look at it).

 

[Valke2]

It is really not disputed that in early judaism, many jews believed God had a physical body. If this were not the case, Rambam would not have felt it to be necessary to write “A Guide for the Preplexed” in which he takes much time in explaining why any reference to God having physical form is only allegorical (metaphorical?)

In fact, Chapter 1 of the “Guide…” opens as follows:

“Some have been of the opinion that by the Hebrew ‘zelem’, the shape and figure of a thing is to be understood, and this explanation led men to believe in the corporeality [of the Divine Being]; for they thought that the words “Let us make man in our zelem” …implied that God had the form of a human being, i.e., that He had figure and shape, and that, consequently, He was corporeal. They adhered faithfully to this view, and thought that if they were to relinquish it they would …reject the truth of the Bible and…deny even the existence of God.”

Rambam then goes on to explain why such assumptions were false…

 

[Jerusha]

It is really not disputed that in early judaism, many jews believed God had a physical body. If this were not the case, Rambam would not have felt it to be necessary to write “A Guide for the Preplexed” in which he takes much time in explaining why any reference to God having physical form is only allegorical (metaphorical?)

Could you open a new thread on this subject, Valke? Very interesting, and I suppose that material is not available on the internet.

 

[Valke2]

teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/the_guide_for_the_perplexed.pdf

A link to an english translation of the Guide for the Perplexed. It isn’t exactly easy reading. An overview in wikipedia may yeild better short term results.

 

[Jerusha]

Thanks. You aren’t kidding. More than 500 pages. I think I’ll read the whole thing.