Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[TOmNossor]

I believe your insight is shedding light on the meaning of Jesus’ words in John, chapter 16:

12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."

For, everything Joseph Smith taught, you agree, certainly is not truth (his quote about God the Father once being a man like you or i being one example). So, it cannot be that even God’s prophets are always led to the truth by the Holy Spirit.

Why is it, then, if the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth did the Mormon prophet fail to see the truth on occasion? I do not think his teaching false doctrine was intentional, for i am giving him the benefit of the doubt until i have reason to believe otherwise. Would you say he was, at times, deceived?
Again, I believe that God the Father was once a man, I just believe this to be true in the same way it is true that God the Son was once a man. I have found little within Joseph Smith’s thought from which to run. There are however a number of things (though a small fraction of his teachings) within Brigham Young’s thought from which I do run. Virtually all LDS disagree with things Brigham Young taught and some LDS leaders have specifically called out where they thought he erred.
God’s prophets are led by the Holy Spirit, but as Joseph Smith said, “a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such.” (History of the Church 5:256)

Some of the things that Brigham Young taught can be traced from what appears to be revelation to man derived error. I believe that every interaction between God and man has a fallible man involved. While God could imprint truth directly into the mind and I think He does, a mans mind then builds upon said truth and such is not without potential for problems.

Here is an example. Joseph Smith went to God with a question as to when the second coming of Jesus Christ would be. He records this, “I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. (D&C 130:14-15).

Joseph Smith then speculates upon what this communication meant. Our critics frequently suggest that Joseph Smith prophesied the return of Christ in 1890, but Joseph clearly offered some other possibilities in his speculation on this revelation (including that he might die before 1890 AND that the second coming might not occur until 1890 or later). It is consistent with my view of a prophet if Joseph Smith had leaned towards an interpretation that was in fact mistaken. Thus, real communication from God occurred, but a fallible man struggled to interpret what it meant.
BTW, if I recall correctly in the General Conference of Feb 1890 or Aug 1889, a talk was given that said contrary to what some might think Christ is not likely to return within the year.

Charity, TOm

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… There are however a number of things (though a small fraction of his teachings) within Brigham Young’s thought from which I do run. Virtually all LDS disagree with things Brigham Young taught and some LDS leaders have specifically called out where they thought he erred.

God’s prophets are led by the Holy Spirit, but as Joseph Smith said, “a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such.” (History of the Church 5:256)

Some of the things that Brigham Young taught can be traced from what appears to be revelation to man derived error. I believe that every interaction between God and man has a fallible man involved. While God could imprint truth directly into the mind and I think He does, a mans mind then builds upon said truth and such is not without potential for problems.
…

Thank you again, TOm. The reason why i asked is that i’m considering the true meaning of this passage:

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.”

(John 16:12-13)
It appears that you are saying that, even though the Holy Spirit guides people into all truth, they do not always follow; and at least some Mormon prophets, like Brigham Young, are no exception. Am i understanding you correctly?

 

[zerinus]

Yes, thank you, Zerinus. I realize my difficulty was, in part, based on the archaic English used by the King James version.

Would you say, then, that the New International Version is an accurate translation of the passage?

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

---

******
​

Here are some more translations I looked up:

English Standard Version (ESV):

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Contemporary English Version (CEV):

Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see.

New Century Version (NCV):

Faith means being sure of the things we hope for and knowing that something is real even if we do not see it.

American Standard Version (ASV):

Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT):

And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,

Darby Translation (DARBY):

Now faith is [the] substantiating of things hoped for, [the] conviction of things not seen.

New Life Version (NLV):

Now faith is being sure we will get what we hope for. It is being sure of what we cannot see.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB):

Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen.

New International Reader’s Version (NIRV):

Faith is being sure of what we hope for. It is being certain of what we do not see.

Wycliffe New Testament (WYC):

But faith is the substance of things that be to be hoped, and an argument of things not appearing. [Forsooth faith is the substance of things to be hoped, an argument, or certainty, of things not appearing.]

Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE):

If people believe God, then they know they have the things they hope to get. It is the proof of things we do not see.

New International Version - UK (NIVUK):

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Today’s New International Version (TNIV):

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

I think the best way to get the most acurate meaning is to look at all the translations, and take all their differences into account, and extract what is the most commont thought or idea that permeates all of them. To me the meaning is clear. I don’t know about you.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…

I think the best way to get the most acurate meaning is to look at all the translations, and take all their differences into account, and extract what is the most commont thought or idea that permeates all of them. To me the meaning is clear. I don’t know about you.

zerinus

Yes, i think this good advice. Reading the NIV certainly helped me understand the passage better than reading the KJ. I think, then, i’m getting closer to understanding the passage. It says to me that

Faith = being sure and certain
Do you think i’m close to comprehending what you mean by faith?

 

[mjf001]

I hope you do not mind my asking, Michael: Do you think, then, that my plan to read John 13 - 17, and prayerfully consider the truth of Jesus’ words in context is a good way to discover the truth?

It’s a good start. The more you read, the better. Having said that, you’re an intelligent person, do those verses paint a complete picture of what is being said? If so, then fine. My argument with Zerinus is he loves to quote one line of scripture and interpret that single line out of context to mean whatever he wants it to mean. I’ve seen him do it repeatedly over the last couple of years. I have a problem with that because when you start at the beginning of the text and read through to the end, quite often the text will have said something completely different from what Zerinus claims it said. My interest is truth. I don’t see how you can get truth from proof texting the way Zerinus attempts to.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, i think this good advice. Reading the NIV certainly helped me understand the passage better than reading the KJ. I think, then, i’m getting closer to understanding the passage. It says to me that

Faith = being sure and certain
Do you think i’m close to comprehending what you mean by faith?

Faith=being sure and certain of something that we do not see, or perceive with or senses to be true, or for which we do not have a valid "evidence" or "proof".

That is the meaning that I get from it.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Faith=being sure and certain of something that we do not see, or perceive with or senses to be true, or for which we do not have a valid "evidence" or "proof".That is the meaning that I get from it.

zerinus

Yes, i need to think that through, still. I’m getting to the truth by baby steps, here!

For now, i think you will also agree that

Trust = being sure and certainSo, i think it reasonable to say that

Faith = TrustDo you think the same?

 

[majick275]

Tom,
I disagree with your stance of KFD and offer the 1971 Ensign version as evidence:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1a79945bd384b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

I also offer the following curent LDS lesson manuals as further “proof” of the LDS doctrine requiring the eternal progression go both ways. (Elohimi was NOT the forst God and thus had a father, etc.):

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=88021b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=d4b5f48fa2d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7eab7befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=88021b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=bea7767978c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

keep in mind these are current manuals. in the past this was discussed far more often and in much greater detail.

Brigham young taught every earth has a redeemer and and a tempter. so who was the redeemer of the earth elohim lived on? you wish to claim fallibility with these supposed oracles of the lord and yet we do not see any corrections on this. nor does it make sense that men who were visited in the flesh by God and taught by him in person with direct answers to their questions and angelic visitations to ensure accurate teaching would err so greatly when addressing the church as a whole supposedly under tthe influence of the holy ghost. LDS teaching is that we can become exactly like elohim is now while still subject to him and glorifying him by adding our kingdoms to his, it is that we will have our own spirit children who will need physical bodies and a redeemer and a tempter and thus will worship and pray to us. who will be their redeemer? and if we can achieve this exalted state then why isn’t that how Elohim achieved his?

it unravels very quickly under scrutiny.

I also disagree that teh ECFs ever taught that we would achieve this sort of exaltation. they all taught monotheism and that our deification would be a sharing of Gods divinity. they did not teach eternal increase. you seem to twist words to extract from their statements that we would be no differnt from God yet you appear to leave out the context that tells us that even when in perfect communion with the creator we are still the creations.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, me too. I think you will also agree that

Trust = being sure and certain

So, i think it reasonable to say that

Faith = Trust

Do you think the same?

Yes, about the same. I would say faith is a little bit stronger than trust. I trust my sister; but I more than trust my God. I am certain that His promises will be fulfilled. I am so certain that I am willing to base all my actions on it. I am even willing to bet my life on it if I have to. I do not have the same confidence in my sister.

Joseph Smith taught that faith is also a principle of power, not just of actions.

zerinus

 

[mjf001]

Faith=being sure and certain of something that we do not see, or perceive with or senses to be true, or for which we do not have a valid "evidence" or "proof".

That is the meaning that I get from it.

zerinus

Here’s another definition of faith, from the book Catholicism for Dummies (quoting from The Catholic Catechism:
"Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed (section 150)

Faith is a personal act - the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith isn’t an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone (section 166)"

 

[zerinus]

Here’s another definition of faith, from the book Catholicism for Dummies (quoting from The Catholic Catechism:
"Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed (section 150)

Faith is a personal act - the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith isn’t an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone (section 166)"

Yes, obscure and meaningless as usual. I like the clarity and simplicity of the word of God better.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, about the same. I would say faith is a little bit stronger than trust. I trust my sister; but I more than trust my God. I am certain that His promises will be fulfilled. I am so certain that I am willing to base all my actions on it. I am even willing to bet my life on it if I have to. I do not have the same confidence in my sister.

Joseph Smith taught that faith is also a principle of power, not just of actions.

zerinus

Yes, my wife is the most trustworthy person i know, yet i do not completely tust her in every situation. I know that sometimes she will fail me (far fewer times than i might fail her, i trust) for she is not perfectly trustworthy. The only one i trust more than her is God. It might be more accurate to say

Faith = Trust to the degree that a person or thing or God is trustworthy

Don’t you think?

 

[zerinus]

Yes, my wife is the most trustworthy person i know, yet i do not completely tust her in every situation. I know that sometimes she will fail me (far fewer times than i might fail her, i trust) for she is not perfectly trustworthy. The only one i trust more than her is God. It might be more accurate to say

Faith = Trust to the degree that a person or thing or God is trustworthy

Don’t you think?

Okay, but let’s not beat about the bush. You asked for a definition of faith, and you got one. What next?

zerinus

 

[TOmNossor]

Here you go:

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html

Thank you. That is actually the Gospel Principles manual. I am pretty sure this is not the seminary curriculum, but having never attended seminary, perhaps I am wrong. I was aware that this manual said that. I have nothing profound to offer other than it is over 10 years old and I hope more caution is exercised in the next manual.

I find that last part especially interesting. It implies that Elohim sinned as a mortal. Otherwise it would have said that he knows our temptations, as if often said of Jesus, but not our sins.

I would not have taken that to be the implication. In fact, as I have pointed out there is to my knowledge no place were Joseph Smith suggested that Heavenly Father sinned.

Also, if Elohim can be said to have “succeeded” in becoming God, then there was a chance that he could have failed. That is, his becoming a god was not a foregone conclusion. That puts him in the same league with all the rest of us poor schmucks who may or may not succeed. That means that prior to his earthly “probation”, Elohim was not God.

Oh my. I believe that God the Father is a moral agent as is God the Son. I reject the notion that God by nature is unable to choose to sin.
I cannot say this properly without referencing Mother Teresa (God rest her soul). I chose her because she you and I can both recognize what a Godly woman she in fact was (and this is only more true now that we know of her “dark night of the soul.”).
When we KNOW God, we have faith in Him that He will do all He has promised, that He will never sin or fail. For those who KNOW God there is no need to postulate that he is ontologically incapable of sin. Those who know God recognize the likelihood of Him sinning is similar to the likelihood that President Hinckley, Pope John Paul II, and Mother Teresa get together to form a three person brothel. Such is just beyond consideration, but it is not impossible.
I of course said this over 2 years ago when all three were still alive.

So, unlike the Catholic who believes that God does not choose between sinning and not sinning because He is ontologically incapable of sinning, I believe that God can sin. He just never does and never will. This is part of being a moral agent and makes God more worship worthy.

This piece sounds as if it were adapted to the weakest of the saints. There is nothing in there about “continuation of the seeds” or your spirit children who you send down to a planet who have the same relationship to you as you do to your heavenly father or heavenly father moving up to a greater glory and you taking his place or anything else that a well-informed Catholic would consider blasphemous.

Some LDS prophets are more circumspect than others when deciding how much of LDS doctrine is for public consumption.

I am non-committal on the “continuation of seed” teachings. I do not see anything in them that is in opposition to our scriptures.

BTW, please point me to some Catholic scholars who are social trinitarians.

I will need to do this in the next post.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

BTW, please point me to some Catholic scholars who are social trinitarians.

I have not personally read these authors (the Catholic ones, I have read some of Plantinga, Pinnock, and Craig).

Karl Rahner according to Wikipedia is a Social Trinitarian, but upon further reflection this might be premature.

Here is a list of Social Trinitarians from an excellent article published in the Journal Faith and Philosophy by two LDS scholars.
http://ldsfocuschrist.blogspot.com/2007/07/reassessing-joseph-smiths-theology-in.html

In it they list the following Social Trinitarians:
Plantinga,[46] Richard Swinburne,[47] Joseph A. Bracken,[48] Jürgen Moltmann,[49] Leonardo Boff,[50] Clark Pinnock,[51] Thomas V. Morris,[52] John Richardson Illingworth,[53] Timothy Bartell,[54] William Hasker,[55] Wolfhart Pannenberg,[56] William Lane Craig,[57] and Stephen Davis.[58] The ST that these thinkers defend as both biblical and creedal parallels the model presented by Joseph Smith.

Boff is nothing but Catholic, but one might argue he is a poor representative of the Catholic faith. He is a former priest, but not because of his Trinitarian ideas.
Joseph A. Bracken is a Catholic Priest.
Bracken’s coauthor, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, I think is Catholic also.

Catherine Mowry LaCugna also has some strong Social Trinitarian aspects in her writings, but I am not sure if she would embrace or reject the term.

Charity, TOm

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Okay, but let’s not beat about the bush. You asked for a definition of faith, and you got one. What next?

zerinus

Very well. My task is to use the definition of faith upon which we agree to understand the passage you quoted:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

(1 Corinthians 2:14)
**
My thought is that the natural man does not have faith (or trust) in that which the spiritual man trusts. The question is, exactly what is it that the natural man does not trust? (I think Paul provides the answer in verse 2 of 1 Corinthians 2.)

 

[zerinus]

Very well. My task is to use the definition of faith upon which we agree to understand the passage you quoted:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

(1 Corinthians 2:14)
**
My thought is that the natural man does not have faith (or trust) in that which the spiritual man trusts. The question is, exactly what is it that the natural man does not trust? (I think Paul provides the answer in verse 2 of 1 Corinthians 2.)

Actually, that is not why you asked that question. Go back and retrace your posts. You are not being very honest with me or with yourself.

zerinus

 

[truthsilence]

Thank you again, TOm. The reason why i asked is that i’m considering the true meaning of this passage:

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.”

(John 16:12-13)
It appears that you are saying that, even though the Holy Spirit guides people into all truth, they do not always follow; and at least some Mormon prophets, like Brigham Young, are no exception. Am i understanding you correctly?

No one always follows all truth. But there must be protection over what a messenger from God or a minister of his Gospel can teach His children. There is an ultimate Eternal Truth about who God Is and it can’t keep changing, or we can be sure it is not he who is guiding you into all truth. If it keeps changing like the wind, it has to be coming from some other source.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Actually, that is not why you asked that question. Go back and retrace your posts. You are not being very honest with me or with yourself.

zerinus

From Post 478:

Quote:Originally Posted by zerinus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif That, I fear, is the real cause of the problem. Your methodology is wrong. You are trying to discover spiritual truths by the philosophical method, which cannot be. That can only be known and understood by revelation. You are ignoring the advice of Paul: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). That is where you are going wrong. You are trying to understand what is spiritual by the exercise of the natural mind, which is an impossibility.Some months ago I was doing some research to find material for a talk I was preparing to give in the Church. I came across these words of advice that Elder Boyd K. Packer (one of the Twelve Apostles) gave to the young people of the Church whom he was addressing. I think it is applicable to you:

There are two parts to your nature—your temporal body born of mortal parents, and your immortal spirit within. You are a son or daughter of God.Physically you can see with eyes and hear with ears and touch and feel and learn. Through your intellect, you learn most of what you know about the world in which we live.But if you learn by reason only, you will never understand the Spirit and how it works—regardless of how much you learn about other things.…​

Zerinus:

Are you saying that faith is the opposite of reason?

 

[truthsilence]

soc, thanks for your kind words earlier.