tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post7595562972912529156..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: Looking for substantive alternatives to Newman’s ‘Theory of Development’.David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger158125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-70739102731167246442008-07-27T16:31:00.000-07:002008-07-27T16:31:00.000-07:00What is your definition and understanding of what ...What is your definition and understanding of what "formal sufficiency" is?<BR/><BR/>I am looking for the dictionary definition of this; rather than <BR/>the results of that definition;<BR/><BR/>ie<BR/><BR/>materials contents sufficient, but<BR/><BR/>not perspicuous; and so needs an interpreter.<BR/><BR/>Evangelical Protestants agree that pastors/elders are to work hard at interpreting the Scriptures properly. <BR/><BR/>So, "formal sufficiency" does not mean, "the book is in front of us and will just jump up and slap us and make it clear." -- NO.<BR/><BR/>It means that when approached with a humble heart and attention to exegesis and context and language, etc. it will be clear on the main things and most things. But there are some things that obviously are mysteries.<BR/><BR/>Protestants seem to spend more time in Bible study and wrestling with the text; whereas the RCC has just "spoken from Mt. Sinai" kind of authority. 'whatever we say" -- William Webster's fine chapter in volume 2 of "Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith".<BR/><BR/>see other articles<BR/><BR/>http://www.christiantruth.com/Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-18431905500053335192008-07-27T15:12:00.000-07:002008-07-27T15:12:00.000-07:00Tom:Is this a good web-site on LDS doctrine? It h...<I>Tom:<BR/>Is this a good web-site on LDS doctrine? It has helped me understand a little better what you have been saying.<BR/><BR/>http://ldsdoctrine.blogspot.com/<BR/><BR/>Thanks for a good last post. You clarified some things and it was very good. We still disagree, of course. The word "cult" is not meant in a pjorative sense, but the formal understanding of any religion or group or that denies the Trinity and Deity of Christ and salvation by grace alone; the understanding that historic Trinitarian Christianity holds - Trinitarian Monotheism, ex nihilo creation, the eternal Deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. </I><BR/><BR/>I am not saying I “want ‘neutrality’ without judgment on the LDS.” Nor am I saying that I want “neutrality” without judgment on Protestant Christianity. Instead, I am saying that LDS theology is superior to Protestant theology.<BR/><BR/><I> Good. You clarified a lot there from my last post. Ok. But, of course, I am saying that Evangelical Biblical Christianity is superior to LDS theology.</I><BR/><BR/>All that being said, I do not believe that scripture is “formally sufficient.”<BR/><BR/><I> What is your definition and understanding of what "formal sufficiency" is?</I>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-6203461315719271062008-07-25T15:05:00.000-07:002008-07-25T15:05:00.000-07:00Ken,I do not think I really accused you of being n...Ken,<BR/>I do not think I really accused you of being not nice by making your claims. Instead, I said your words were empty polemics. They contribute nothing to who is correct in their understanding of Christianity.<BR/>In addition to this you specifically said that I “admitted that LDS is a cult, and a heresy, a false religion, because of what it believes.”<BR/>Strictly speaking this is totally inaccurate. Instead I acknowledged that LDS believe differently than developed Christianity. Where I to think such words added anything to our discussion I would gladly apply them to your theology (with the exception of “cult” because not only is it an empty word for our discussion it has significant pejorative baggage). I would suggest that it would have been more correct for you to acknowledge that as a product of my expounding upon the theology that I hold, you have concluded that I am a heretic. This would still contribute nothing to the strength of either of our positions, but it would be far more accurate.<BR/><BR/>You still seem to misunderstand me. While I am surely more ecumenical in my theology with respect to how God deals with folks who are wrong (like I think you are), I am not saying I “want ‘neutrality’ without judgment on the LDS.” Nor am I saying that I want “neutrality” without judgment on Protestant Christianity. Instead, I am saying that LDS theology is superior to Protestant theology. As the Bible is better understood outside of 2000 years of developed theology, LDS views are increasingly being embraced by scholars who attempt to uncover not a systematic theology, but an original understanding. This IMO is remarkable in light of the fact that Joseph Smith is quite an unlikely HUMAN source of such insights back in the 1800’s. So while judging people is inappropriate and while I would choose not to use terms that contribute little to mutual understanding (especially in a way that puts those terms in the mouth of my dialogue partner), I judge your theology negatively and thus I reject it. <BR/><BR/>I have offered a number of bits toward why I believe God the Father has a body is the best read of the Bible. I have offered one and perhaps more bits toward why I believe deification is one of the central messages of the New Testament. I have offered a few bits toward the rejection of creation ex nihilo as a Biblical doctrine.<BR/><BR/>All that being said, I do not believe that scripture is “formally sufficient.” I think the witness of history supports this, but let me not argue for this now. Instead, because I do not think your opinion vs. my opinion of scripture is going to solve this debate, I point to places where scholars who started much closer to your position than mine are finding that the Bible supports mine. When you say that the Bible teaches “metaphysical monotheism” (which BTW, I have not seen you say, but I assume you believe this) or xyz, I reply that increasingly non-theologians who study the Bible with the purpose of uncovering what it meant within the culture it was written are agreeing with me.<BR/><BR/>I agree that hamburgers would be good. I suspect we will not agree on lots of other stuff though. I do feel like you let me define what I believed and that has been very good. Thanks! <BR/>Yours in heresy!<BR/>Charity, TOmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-28633911936602003142008-07-25T11:41:00.000-07:002008-07-25T11:41:00.000-07:00Tom wrote:I have no issues with them saying, “LDS ...Tom wrote:<BR/>I have no issues with them saying, “LDS believe differently than I / We believe.” This I readily admit.<BR/><BR/><I> Tom, <BR/><BR/>I just summarize, without going point by point and copying more of what you wrote. I appreciate you; and I like you and if you lived close by, I would have no problem sitting down with you and having a hamburger with you and discussion things more. Nowadays, when Evangelicals call something sin or false doctrine or a false religion, everyone else thinks we are being “mean” or “uncharitable”. <BR/><BR/>You did a good job of explaining everything and how you think I have crossed the line from a dialog and discussion and basically, you are saying that I am too judgmental and "mean" on the doctrines of LDS. (by my using terms like “cult”, “heresy” and “false religion”. ) You think LDS claims are equal with other claims on Christianity, the early church fathers, etc. Those terms are not meant as personal attacks, but they are moral judgments (I admit) that Mormonism/LDS is wrong and a false religion. Don’t you believe Hinduism and Islam and Buddhism are wrong and false religions? Your church sents lots of missionaries out, right? You are basically saying, “you can say your views/theology is different, but don’t say “cult”, “heresy” or “false religion” or “polytheism”, that is just too mean and judgmental.”<BR/><BR/>I say no to the claims that LDS seeks to make from the Bible and ECF; LDS just has no claim on the bible or the ECF at all. <BR/><BR/>You are an intelligent person, have lots of knowledge; and very cordial in your presentation. <BR/><BR/>The only problem with all that you are saying is that you want "neutrality" without judgment on the LDS as a heresy, a cult, a false religion.<BR/><BR/>If LDS believes in many gods, and that God the Father has a body, and all men evolve into gods; then it is a false religion; and we are being dishonest to call it anything other than that. Your description of Kingship Monotheism and the other term Monolitry and Communal Monotheism seem to be fancy made up terms, IMO for Henotheism, which the Bible condemms as another form of “polytheism”, paganism, and made man religion. When the Bible speaks in those terms that <B><I>some take</I></B> as “henotheism” (one supreme God over other gods); it is only acknowledging that the nations think there are other gods, in their minds, their worship practices, and the idols they make. The Bible acknowledges that other religions, idols exist. Psalm 96:6 “All the gods of the nations are idols; but the Lord made the heavens.” The same for I Corinthians 8:4-6, Paul is just acknowledging that the pagans, the Gentiles worship other gods and have idols and have false ideas of who the only true God is.<BR/><BR/>We are called to use our minds; and that means making judgments. We are not to judge hypocritically, as in Matthew 7:1-6; but we are called to discernment. John 7:24, I Cor. chapters 1-2; Galatians, etc. To call Mormonism/ LDS a “cult”, and a “false religion” and a “heresy” is not being “mean”, it is being truthful and making a right judgment. <BR/><BR/> You have a different "god" than the Almighty creator of all things out of nothing -eternal- Sovereign -Holy God who hates sin. Who is pure Spirit and not flesh and not man. God has personality and emotion, but not body parts or material.<BR/><BR/>Where do you get the idea that some matter is eternal? (seems to be the implication of denying creation ex nihilo) <BR/><BR/>The passages about humans being created in God's image, and the other anthropomorphisms about God are obviously metaphorical language.<BR/><BR/>You had no hermeneutical principle to distinguish between the “anthropomorphisms” for God and the “personifications” (using animal characteristics for describing God – under the shadow of His wings, roaring like a lion, etc.) Just saying, “the whole Bible” is not a good answer. You have not dealt with any of the verses I offered.<BR/><BR/>Also, if God the Father’s body was some kind of a “flesh and bone body” and Jesus became the image of that; (what it seems you are saying); why did the OT command the Jews not to make any images? (Why were they not allowed to make an upright, normal looking man as a statue?) John 4:23-24 and the verses below show us how to harmonize all the material and “use the whole bible” in a hermeneutically responsible way. <BR/><BR/><BR/>On Spirit and God being invisible, and on creation ex nihilo, you did not deal specifically with Hebrews 11:3, or Colossians 1:15 or I Timothy 1:17.<BR/><BR/>Neither can your view rightly be harmonized with John 1:18 or I Timothy 6:16.<BR/><BR/>So, it is I who have interpreted the metaphorical language of God having eyes, and nostrils and ears and hands and walking in the cool of the day rightly as metaphorical, because I take the descriptions of the image of God in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 4 seriously and they inform us what the “image of God” means. I also have stuck to the context of Psalm 82 about the "gods" who will die like men; and I used the verses around 2 Peter 1:4 to properly interpret "partakers of the divine nature". (the character qualities listed in verses 5-11 and the moral separation from sinful corruption and lusts. There is nothing in any of these contexts that lead us to interpret them as physical. In Genesis in the creation context, God is clearly differentiating between the animals and humans. What makes humans different on the inside? The soul, the spiritual capacity for communion with God, moral principles of right and wrong, conscience, consciousness, reason, language, etc. Taking all of these verses together; it seems I am the one who taking the “whole Bible” and allowing the NT to interpret the OT metaphors of God have eyes and ears and hands and walking, etc.<BR/><BR/>You have a different Jesus than the Jesus of the NT. <BR/><BR/>How did the Son of God come into existence? (in the past before the incarnation; when He was a "spirit-brother" of Lucifer)<BR/><BR/>You reject Monotheism and the Trinity (one God in substance and three in person) and the full eternal Deity of Christ. <BR/><BR/>"Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." John 8:24<BR/><BR/>When Paul preached the gospel, or John the Baptist, or Jesus, they did not say,"ok, pagans, (or hypocrites, or Gentiles or Jews who don't accept His Messianic claims) you and your pantheon of gods is a different theology than ours; and let's leave it at that". <BR/><BR/>He called them to repentance and a turning away from those false gods, idols and false doctrines.<BR/><BR/>Acts 17:29-31<BR/>Mark 1:15<BR/>Acts 2:37-46<BR/>Luke 24:44-47<BR/>Acts 3:19<BR/>I Thess. 1:9<BR/><BR/>The same goes for you; the Spirit of God, speaking through the Scriptures, calls you to repent of the false religion of Mormonism/LDS. </I>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-36721190389035848892008-07-22T17:54:00.000-07:002008-07-22T17:54:00.000-07:00Ken,#1. The Bible as a whole lends considerable s...Ken,<BR/>#1. The Bible as a whole lends considerable support to the view that God is in fact embodied like human’s are. We are created in his image. Christ came to reveal the Father to us. He who has seen Christ has seen the Father. Interpreting the Bible as a whole it makes no sense to believe that God the Father is a chicken, but it is the most clear read of the text to believe that God the Father is embodied. The strength of this seems quite obvious to me. So my interpretive framework is to take the Bible as a whole and try to determine what makes the most sense.<BR/><BR/>#2. Biblical Scholars disagree that this is the clear read of the Bible as do I. At best it is a good read of the Bible. At worst it is a very difficult read of the Bible to align with the witness of Genesis and an Isaiah passage that suggests that it makes no sense to suggest that God created the chaos (this unmentioned pre-Genesis creation of the chaos is the only way to make God the philosophically sophisticated absolute creator of all things, but it is at odds with how Jews would speak since they would never suggest God created chaos).<BR/><BR/>#3. I expected that you would believe that God the Son who possesses a body of flesh and bones is not limited. Now can you acknowledge that if this can be true for God the Son it is no way a logical problem for it to ALSO be true for God the Father. I do not see how an omnipotent being who possesses a body is less omnipotent than an omnipotent being who does not possess a body. In fact, some folks almost sound like they define omnipotence as all power compossible with not having a body. I would merely suggest that I place no such restrictions on omnipotence as these folks do, and that these folks have a mighty unusual concept of omnipotence.<BR/><BR/>#4. I have been very involved in deification discussions. Christianity is moving away from you because the Bible teaches that men can become gods.<BR/>Briefly on your first scripture, since Christ is in the image of His Father, is He also merely an image? To me there are two solid ways of reading the New Testament. <BR/>- Christ is the supreme manifestation of divine man, but He is not fully divine like God the Father. Men can become what Christ is.<BR/>- Christ is fully divine like God the Father and men can become what Christ is.<BR/><BR/>I think good arguments can be made for either view both within the New Testament and within the Early Church. I think arguments for the view that Christ is fully divine, but we are not to really be conformed to His image are very difficult to make.<BR/><BR/>Ken said:<BR/>Basically, you have admitted that LDS is a cult, and a heresy, a false religion, because of what it believes; <BR/><BR/>TOm:<BR/>I presume you mean that I have admitted that LDS theology is not DEVELOPED HISTORICAL Christianity. The terms you choose to express this position (especially after reading what Rory has written) further demonstrate the emptiness of words like “cult.” And the similarly polemically charged nature of your other two terms. I am quite convinced that the majority of our doctrinal differences are a product of you embracing developed theology while I embrace what the Bible most clearly teaches. <BR/><BR/>Ken said:<BR/>so James White and the late Walter Martin and Bill McKeever, Richard Abanes, Ravi Zacharias and the Tanners are not wrong. (F. Beckwith, Greg Koukle, Watchman Fellowship and H. Hannegraaf also)<BR/><BR/>TOm:<BR/>The issues I have with the folks you mention is there varying degrees of lack of charity. Their misrepresentation of my faith ALWAYS in the most salacious of directions. Their selective quoting. And some other things that in the worst manifestations seem to be deliberately dishonest in an “end justifies means” respect and in the best is merely misinformed.<BR/>I have no issues with them saying, “LDS believe differently than I / We believe.” This I readily admit. But if they are going to try to define LDS theology I think they should either define it in a form least assailable by their arguments or in a middle of the road fashion. Instead most of them most (or all) the time define LDS theology in its easiest to discredit form. <BR/>In practice our points of contact are more numerous than our differences, but the differences are real and quite evident to those who study theology below the surface of common practices.<BR/><BR/>If you thought I was going to say that we believe exactly as you do, then you were certainly mistaken. In my judgment our interpretation of the Bible, history, and all the data available is SUPERIOR to yours. This is why I am a LDS and not a conservative Protestant. I hope you believe that your view is superior to mine. I will say however that your responses are a little long on “cult!,” “heresy!,” and “goofy!” and a little short on both understanding of Mormonism and reasons to reject Mormonism.<BR/><BR/>Ken said:<BR/>I pray that God will open your eyes to see the truth of the Triune God, and the gospel of Jesus Christ alone.<BR/><BR/>TOm:<BR/>I always appreciate prayers. I truly do. And if God communicates to me with radical clarity that I should become a conservative Protestant, I will definitely do so. If this were to happen, I would immediately be in a position significantly less comfortable than I am today because reason would direct me away from Protestantism and yet God would tell me to be a Protestant.<BR/><BR/>Charity, TOmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-82049346738723664282008-07-22T13:45:00.000-07:002008-07-22T13:45:00.000-07:00I should have distinguished between the Father and...I should have distinguished between the Father and Jesus in these passages:<BR/><BR/>Matthew 23:37 (Jesus) <BR/>but Psalm 91:1-4 that seem to teach that God the Father is a mother hen or chicken or bird?<BR/><BR/>Is God also a lion? Joel 3:16; Hosea 11:10<BR/><BR/>Jesus - Rev. 5:5<BR/><BR/>a literal "lamb" ?<BR/>Rev. 5:6; John 1:29Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-56452039223428350822008-07-22T08:39:00.000-07:002008-07-22T08:39:00.000-07:00Tom,Thanks for a very thorough response.1. So, wh...Tom,<BR/>Thanks for a very thorough response.<BR/><BR/>1. So, what hermeneutical principle do you use to distinguish between <BR/>these 2 examples:<BR/><BR/>"the eyes of the Lord move to and fro throughout the earth" 2 Chronicles 16:9<BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/>"the hand of the Lord is not so short that it cannot save." Isaiah 59:1 <BR/><BR/>(2 examples of where LDS take God the Father as having a body, etc.)<BR/><BR/>vs.<BR/><BR/><BR/>in light of Psalm 91:1-4 and Matthew 23:37 that seem to teach that God the Father is a mother hen or chicken or bird?<BR/><BR/>Is God also a lion?<BR/>a literal "lamb" ? <BR/><BR/>Was Jesus a literal vine - John 15:1 ?<BR/><BR/>What hermeneutic principle helps you interpret those things consistently and distinguishes the two kinds of metaphor ? (although you don't believe that they are metaphor, at least some of them.)<BR/><BR/>Is God the Father a literal mother also?<BR/>Isaiah 49:15-16<BR/><BR/><BR/>2. God did indeed create all things ex nihilo - out of nothing - Hebrews 11:3 and Romans 4:17<BR/><BR/>God is invisible, I Timothy 1:17 "invisible, immortal, the only wise God." <BR/><BR/>Colossians 1:15<BR/><BR/>3. Jesus resurrection, glorified body is not limited now. It was before the resurrection, but not now. Beyond that it is just a mystery than we cannot fully grasp.<BR/><BR/>4. We do not become gods; believers in Christ are being conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29); which clearly understood as a moral, spiritual, ethical image of holiness and righteousnesses and truth (Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:9-16) not some physical image with planets and multiple wives to have babies and procreate and fill up and populate planets.<BR/><BR/> 2 Peter 1:4, with the surrounding context of the lists of character qualities and escaping the corruption and lusts of deceit is clear. (verses 5-11) The image of God is a moral, spiritual, internal, character image, experienced in our minds, wills, conscience, consciousness, emotions, etc. That was clear in Genesis and the issue of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.<BR/><BR/>Psalm 82 is clearly about the unjust rulers and judges who were oppressing the poor and not judging according to righteousness and justice. One should interpret in the context. Political leaders and judges "think" they are "gods"; but they will die like men. (They actually are not gods; and prove of that is because they die and sinned by judging unjustly.<BR/><BR/>Psalm 96:5-6 and I Cor. 8:4-6 proves this. Augustine, Ambrose, and the 4 ecumenical councils got it right on this issue.<BR/><BR/>Basically, you have admitted that LDS is a cult, and a heresy, a false religion, because of what it believes; so James White and the late Walter Martin and Bill McKeever, Richard Abanes, Ravi Zacharias and the Tanners are not wrong. (F. Beckwith, Greg Koukle, Watchman Fellowship and H. Hannegraaf also)<BR/><BR/>I am glad you are not offended by me calling Mormonism "goofy" and "weird". It is the doctrine that is truly strange. I pray that God will open your eyes to see the truth of the Triune God, and the gospel of Jesus Christ alone.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-9843033863325962172008-07-22T06:18:00.000-07:002008-07-22T06:18:00.000-07:00Rory, First, thanks for answering Ken’s question t...Rory, <BR/>First, thanks for answering Ken’s question to you. It was very hard not to answer the question Ken offered. I had high hopes that I was somewhere near as clear as I had thought I was. <BR/>To be thought weird and goofy for my views does not concern me overly much. Those who think such things being confident enough in their judgments of these things (things they claim to have difficulty understanding) to boldly declare my religion is the “goofiest thing they ever heard,” is something that I would hope to temper a little with my comments. This hope is not a product of a need not to be goofy, but I hope of a desire to accurately portray the landscape. We will see. <BR/><BR/>Ken,<BR/>Now, I think you understand my position. The next thing that might be desirable would be for you to recognize that seeing Christianity differently than you do is a VERY common ailment. Perhaps it should not illicit the reaction, “Goofiest thing I have ever heard.” To be honest when I came to understand what Calvinist really believe I could hardly imagine that anyone could view God like that. (BTW, it was Rory who said something like, “Does a dog hate the fact that he is a dog instead of a human?” that began to get me towards understanding what it is to believe that certain humans are just non-elect).<BR/><BR/>You asked:<BR/>You did not answer the question, "When did the Father ever take on a body of flesh and bones?"<BR/><BR/>TOm:<BR/>The simplest answer is that I do not know.<BR/>LDS scripture explains that in the beginning God the Father was the supreme eternal intelligence, more intelligent than they ALL (this seems likely to be than ALL others cumulatively rather than individually). At this point, it seems clear that God the Father did not have a body. The Bible speaks of creating man in God’s image. The Bible speaks of God’s face, back, and …. I do not believe it is clear if these passages refer to the Spirit Body of Christ or to God the Father, but I would suggest that God the Father was embodied during the bulk of the Old Testament if not the totality of the Old Testament. <BR/> <BR/><BR/>Patrick Holding is a critic of the CoJCoLDS. He IMO has taken the similarity (homoousian perhaps in his mind) of God the Father and God the Son to its logical conclusion and declared that while Christ did become incarnate so that He might be Immanuel (God with us), He returned to the heavenly realm and returned to the same state as the Father. Therefore, Patrick theorizes that God the Son is not embodied any longer because to be embodied is to exist in a radically different way than God the Father. This difference between God the Father and God the Son’s mode of existence seems different than what the scriptures declare is truth. I can see his point!!! Of course, Joseph Smith made the same point in the KFD.<BR/><BR/>I am well aware that the whole Mormon system is considered heresy. If you believed the Bible, you would be a LDS but instead you embrace 4 councils of developed theology and reject the authority that developed this theology. {grin!}<BR/><BR/>Where does the Bible say that God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones. It actually does not anywhere. God is Spirit and we must worship God in spirit and truth but LDS recognize that divinity is spiritual without denying that God the Father and God the Son have a body of flesh and bones.<BR/>Clement of Alexandria and Origin went to great lengths to explain that the passages in the Old Testament that most clearly spoke of God’s body were to be taken figuratively. Other passages in the Old Testament that spoke of God changing his mind or experiencing emotion were to be taken figuratively. Augustine refused to become a Christian because Christians believed God has a body and he as a pagan seemed to think that was the goofiest thing he ever heard. It was St. Ambrose who explained that only simplistic Christian thought such things. I am content with being a simplistic Christian who believes what the Bible says. What I do not understand is how can one who rejects the authority present in the four fellows I just mentioned and the first four councils can believe that the Bible absolutely precludes that God the Father is embodied. No Christian can believe that an embodied God is ridiculous because they must embrace such a truth about Christ. It would seem that when you find the idea that God the Father is embodied ridiculous, you really just mean that you have become so comfortable with what you have been taught you cannot believe others might see things differently (or even teach things differently).<BR/><BR/>Ken said:<BR/>Only God the Son became incarnate and entered into time and space and flesh. God the Father is above time and space and has no limitations to planets, etc.<BR/><BR/>TOm:<BR/>That the Bible does not teach that God the Father became incarnate at xyz time is certainly true. This is also not elucidated in LDS scriptures either. That being said, an embodied God of the Old Testament is the most clear read of the text. Few Biblical scholars believe that ancient Jews did not conceive of God as possessing a body and passions.<BR/><BR/>From the above statement (and your previous acknowledgement that Christ still has a body of flesh and bones) it would seem that you believe God the Son is limited radically by His body. I think you are mistaken. Instead, I suggest that God the Father and God the Son both possess a body of flesh and bones, but NEITHER is limited by it as you seem to suggest the Son is. That is a pretty weak Christ you worship!!! Perhaps you misspoke. Unlike James White I will welcome your correction.<BR/><BR/>Ken said:<BR/>He is the creator of all things.<BR/><BR/>TOm:<BR/>I usually just say, “yes, God is the creator of all things, but the question is did He create ex nihilo.” Based on past experience with you reading what I write, I best provide a great deal more of this. Pls do not reproduce part of what I say below and declare I acknowledge both that “God created all things” and that “God created from things that God did not create.”<BR/><BR/>Most biblical scholars now recognize that the Bible does not teach creation ex nihilo. While a philosophically strict meaning of “all things” would preclude some eternal chaos or non-existence from which to create all things, biblical scholars (almost all being non-LDS) now recognize that the Hebrew (and Greek) thought from before and during the New Testament would not make such a distinction. In fact there are examples of creation of all things from eternal matter. In its totality it would seem that the Bible is an example of just this creation of all things from pre-existing chaos. John 1:3 may be an acknowledgement of just this type of creation.<BR/><BR/>Outside of John 1:3 there is the Genesis account that most biblical scholars agree does not speak of creation from nothing but rather creation from chaos. And of course outside of these there are other things in support of my view AND more simple examples of “creation of ALL things.” These “more simple examples” either indicate the author had a different understanding of creation than John 1:3 or Genesis offer or that the author was just speaking in a common way and yet not witnessing to creation ex nihilo.<BR/>I think Gerard May presents himself well when he shows that before the middle of the 2nd century (in the Bible and outside the Bible) there were non-creation ex nihilo adherents and ambiguous statements that within the surrounding culture could go either way. May thinks the development of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is a good thing. I think it is another development that one can embrace confidently if one embraces a development theory that is rigorous. But sola scriptura does not give one enough to condemn those who reject creation ex nihilo (it also does not give one enough to demand creation ex materia, but I think this is a stronger position).<BR/><BR/>Ken said:<BR/> Henoism is also false doctrine and whatever other "plurality of gods" you may think (wrongly) that Psalm 82, John 10:33-34; 2 Peter 1:4, and Irenaeus may seem to indicate for you as prooftexts.<BR/> <BR/>TOm:<BR/>You seem to take the 3 simplest deification scriptures and claim that these are the source of my Henotheism discussion. My monotheism is not built necessarily at all on henotheism but certainly not mostly on henotheism. <BR/><BR/>It is ever so clear to me that Protestantism is LOOSING mightily the deification battle be the battlefield scripture alone or scripture and ECF.<BR/><BR/>A battle that still rages (but I think non-LDS Christianity is loosing) concerns the type of monotheism the Old Testament advocates. Non-LDS Christianity embraces a metaphysical monotheism. God is metaphysically unique and there is only one manifestation of the substance God. This IMO has very little support from the Bible. It is a philosophical theory placed over the Biblical text in hopes of explaining what is there. This philosophical theory is by no means the only available way of aligning the Biblical witness, and it is virtually certain than ancient Jews and New Testament Jews did not have metaphysical monotheism on their mind as they read or wrote the Bible.<BR/><BR/>I believe that the Old Testament has components of two types of monotheism. Kingship Monotheism which might state that there is ONE supreme God, but there are others who are properly called gods. And Monolitry Monotheism which might state there is one God for us and we will have no other gods before Him, but this does not necessarily preclude the existence of other gods. There are also hints of some type of Communal Monotheism within the Old Testament where the supreme God has a chief regent who is properly called God.<BR/><BR/>To the above, I add New Testament Communal Monotheism which I would suggest is the most clear monotheism of the New Testament. This is basically the Social Trinity monotheism. There are separate and distinct persons who are God, but they form one divine community and are so perfectly united they are properly called one God.<BR/><BR/>My view as a LDS is a combination of Kingship Monotheism and Communal Monotheism (with deification thrown in as long as we recognize that the deified are lifted up by the Trinity). I suggest that there is One God the Father who is supreme and is the fount of divinity. In combination with this truth, there is One God who is a divine community consisting eternally of God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Into this community of love we are invited so that we might partake of the divine nature.<BR/><BR/>So, the three basic deification scriptures that you mention are only a part of the deification picture contained within the Bible (primarily the New Testament). And they are actually a small part of the monotheism I believe is the best read of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Let me ask you this:<BR/>Have you moved from the critics position of 10+ years ago, “There is no truth whatsoever to the statement, ‘humans can become gods’?” to the view that will dominate LDS and non-LDS discussions 10 years from now, “There is truth in the statement ‘humans can become gods,’ but LDS have a wrong understanding of this?”<BR/><BR/>Again, that was pretty long!<BR/>Charity, TOmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-40571361859160765112008-07-21T19:10:00.000-07:002008-07-21T19:10:00.000-07:00When did God the Father take on a body? Where is ...When did God the Father take on a body? Where is that in Scripture?<BR/><BR/>Goofiest thing I have ever heard!Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-74307246862396539462008-07-21T18:14:00.000-07:002008-07-21T18:14:00.000-07:00Hi Ken,Tom is saying that there was a time before ...Hi Ken,<BR/><BR/>Tom is saying that there was a time before God the Father became incarnate. Like the Son, His deity preceded His incarnation. <BR/><BR/>Of course, there is no place for such belief in my Catholic faith, or your Protestant faith. But...if Mormonism were to be true, and I deny that it is, it would be more likely than not to differ with us on issues such as "the incarnation of God the Father.<BR/><BR/>So yes, I think I understand Tom, in saying that there was a time when the Father was without a body, but now is not that time. No. No body, in the past. Yes. A body, in the present.<BR/><BR/>RoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-920778823416765792008-07-21T17:03:00.000-07:002008-07-21T17:03:00.000-07:00Rory or Dave:Can you wrap your brain around Tom's ...Rory or Dave:<BR/>Can you wrap your brain around Tom's <BR/>"no" (God the Father did not have a body of flesh and bones) and "yes" (God the Father does have a body of flesh and bones)<BR/><BR/>Is Tom on Kolob, Mars or 3 Nehi ? (I am joking)Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-5129542042983669952008-07-21T16:08:00.000-07:002008-07-21T16:08:00.000-07:00Ken,Mormons don't have any reason to gain the appr...Ken,<BR/><BR/>Mormons don't have any reason to gain the approbation of those who they believe to be in error. Can't you look at it from the LDS perspective? If it is true, that means that we are false. Simple. If we are true, they are false. Simple. Therefore, they cannot be concerned if we find them to teach false doctrine. Of course! We are in disagreement. You proceed as thought they have some obligation to agree with us in order to validate their case.<BR/><BR/>RoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-50238056585674502512008-07-21T14:54:00.000-07:002008-07-21T14:54:00.000-07:00Tom,Don't you see now that if you claim God the Fa...Tom,<BR/>Don't you see now that if you claim God the Father had a body and bones and flesh; then the whole Mormon system is considered heresy and false doctrine and a cult?<BR/><BR/>It is not personal; just doctrinal.<BR/><BR/>Only God the Son became incarnate and entered into time and space and flesh. God the Father is above time and space and has no limitations to planets, etc. He is the creator of all things. Henoism is also false doctrine and whatever other "plurality of gods" you may think (wrongly) that Psalm 82, John 10:33-34; 2 Peter 1:4, and Irenaeus may seem to indicate for you as prooftexts.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-36297675930195498302008-07-21T14:39:00.000-07:002008-07-21T14:39:00.000-07:00who is Patrick Holding?who is Patrick Holding?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-65420033652239653592008-07-21T14:38:00.000-07:002008-07-21T14:38:00.000-07:00Of course God the Son, Jesus has a body of flesh a...Of course God the Son, Jesus has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39, John 20:27-28)<BR/><BR/>You did not answer the question, "When did the Father ever take on a body of flesh and bones?"<BR/><BR/>You did not clarify at all; it is still as clear as mud; like we are on different planets.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-60932057363551720012008-07-21T13:50:00.000-07:002008-07-21T13:50:00.000-07:00Perhaps this will help:Ken’s question to TOm:5. Di...Perhaps this will help:<BR/><BR/>Ken’s question to TOm:<BR/>5. Did God (… the Father …) have a flesh and bone body before He became God?<BR/><BR/>TOm’s question to Ken:<BR/>Did God (the <B>SON</B>) have a flesh and bone body before He became God?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Ken quotes D&C (and TOm has claimed he embraces it as truth):<BR/>Doctrine and Covenants 130:22:<BR/>The Father has a body of flesh and bones …<BR/><BR/>TOm asks:<BR/>Ken, does God the Son have a body of flesh and bones?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you like Patrick Holding have unmoored from Catholicism and many generations of Protestant reformers by rejecting that God the Son has a body of flesh and bones. If this is the case, it might explain why all the confusion. If not perhaps the above questions will clarify my position.<BR/><BR/>Of course when you ask “When did the Father take on a body of flesh and bones?” It would seem that you do understand.<BR/><BR/>Joseph Smith does not say John 5:19. <BR/>He says:<BR/>God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.<BR/>…<BR/>I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. <BR/>Charity, TOmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-30937610090036243612008-07-21T13:15:00.000-07:002008-07-21T13:15:00.000-07:00I hope this clarifies my position and clearly demo...I hope this clarifies my position and clearly demonstrates why the answer to your question was, “No,” and yet God the Father does possess a body of flesh and bones today as the D&C affirms and the Old Testament teaches.<BR/><BR/><I> it is about as clear as mud. Sorry, I just cannot grasp what you are talking about. <BR/><BR/>IMO, you have written "no" and "yes". You seemed to have said, "no He did not have a body of flesh and bones"; and "yes, He did have a body of flesh and bones". One of the most incredible pieces of illogic I have ever tried to grasp.<BR/><BR/>(no offense; I just cannot get your argumentation or world view or concept of reality.)<BR/><BR/>When did the Father take on a body of flesh and bones ? This just takes down the whole LDS church in one chop. (no offense). <BR/><BR/>I will have to read your post later; I read it twice and got a headache. <BR/><BR/>Does Joseph Smith quote and specifically reference John 5:19 in the KFD? If he does, that is one of the goofiest things I have ever heard. Or is that just a prooftext that Mormons have found and then read the KFD back into it? <BR/><BR/>(like what RCC does with Luke 1:28 and IC and Rev. 12 and BA of Mary; centuries later.)<BR/><BR/>It just does not seem to be part of reality and this world. It is so incredible; as I said, "it takes my breath away". </I>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-2614390730513908722008-07-21T11:52:00.000-07:002008-07-21T11:52:00.000-07:00Ken,Perhaps I am a little close to this question a...Ken,<BR/>Perhaps I am a little close to this question and merely thought I was quite clear. Let’s see.<BR/><BR/>You asked:<BR/>5. Did God (the God of this world - Elohim or Jehovah or the Father - you tell me how to sort it all out. In Bible and orthodoxy they are the same) have a flesh and bone body before He became God?<BR/><BR/>The answer to this question from my perspective is, “No!”<BR/><BR/>I believe that before Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, He was God the Son. He did not have a body of flesh and bones and yet he was divine. He then became man through some form of kenotic emptying. Christ who was rich actually became poor. This does not mean that Christ became merely a man because He unlike all other men never sinned. He also was uniquely the one who could carry out the infinite atonement because of His earthly divinity (the BOM is clear on this). So Christ’s incarnation involved an emptying, but also a retention of divinity. It also involved getting a body of flesh and bone (and blood).<BR/><BR/>So if your question had been about Christ all Christians would answer, “No.” And if the D&C said that Christ had a body of flesh and bones, virtually all Christians would answer, “Yes.”<BR/><BR/>I maintain that the most clear read of the King Follett Discourse is that John 5:19 is invoked by Joseph Smith to suggest that God the Father became incarnate just like Christ did. Thus when I compare the answers to your questions for God the Son and suggest that the same answers apply to God the Father it is because I believe that some time before God the Son kenoticly emptied Himself and became man with flesh and bones (and blood), God the Father did the same. Now, the comparison can be taken too far. I do not believe God the Father was born of the Virgin Mary who was betrothed to a carpenter named Joseph, but I do believe the KFD teaches us that God the Father was God before He became man. I do believe He did not have a body of flesh and bone until after His incarnation, and yet today (and it would seem from the Bible during the Old Testament times), He had a body of flesh and bones. None of this changed the fact that divinity is something possessed in the Spiritual parts of our existence because LDS clearly believe that Christ was divine before He was incarnate and the Holy Ghost is divine today without a body. So while men who sin and embrace the atonement may require our earthly life to become divine, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit did not.<BR/><BR/>I hope this clarifies my position and clearly demonstrates why the answer to your question was, “No,” and yet God the Father does possess a body of flesh and bones today as the D&C affirms and the Old Testament teaches. Combined with the view that divinity resides in the Spiritual nature of God, I think the above view makes better sense of the Old and New Testament than does the conventional Christian view with God being immaterial (and impassible, …). <BR/><BR/>Now, I maintain that LDS monotheism is not metaphysical monotheism. While God the Father is the fount of divinity and supreme, God the Son is a metaphysically distinct person who is homoousain with God the Father as the majority of folks a Nicea conceived the definition of homoousain. The truth that God the Father and God the Son are homoousian is not what explains how God the Father is fount of divinity and God the Son is fully divine. Instead, it is their unity as One God that explains how Christ possesses the divine attributes.<BR/><BR/>So as a LDS I deny the neo-modalist construct of the Trinity. I believe that this construct is either modalist, tri-theistic, or mystery (read less charitably as bald contradiction). I along with many Protestants and some Catholic theologians am a Social Trinitarian. One may suggest this is polytheism, but this accusation from an Augustinian Trinitarian contains very little force especially compared to the accusation from an absolute monotheist (modern Jew or Moslem) to an Augustinian Trinitarian of polytheism.<BR/><BR/>Next, comes the question of deification of men. I maintain that we are in the middle of a sea change of views on what the New Testament has actually taught. One decade ago the standard mantra among critics of Mormonism was that there is not truth to the idea that “men become gods.” Today the more informed critics instead say, “the way LDS say men become gods is non-Biblical.” The New Testament and the Early Church taught/teach that men can become gods just as Christ is God. Our divinity will be a product of communion with God the Father (like Christ’s divinity) and the mediation of Christ (and the Holy Ghost) unlike Christ’s and the Holy Ghost’s divinity. I also generally believe that the communion between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is backwards eternal whereas ours will begin in time and proceed for an eternity. Within the loving communion that is One God, these distinctions will be real, but far from the most important aspects of our lives.<BR/><BR/>So, again I do not believe the limited deification embraced by most non-LDS theologians such that we do not become truly what Christ is, is a good read of the Bible or the ECF. That being said, those who adopt this non-Biblical view together with metaphysical monotheism have some room to call LDS polytheists.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I suggest that as Biblical scholarship moves forward LDS views are increasingly vindicated. The monotheism of the Old Testament was not metaphysical monotheism. There were components of Kingship Monotheism and components of Monolity (which a henotheism). Kingship Monotheism seems to be a big part of the BOA. Minor hints of Christ in the Old Testament can be well aligned with the above two theories and the knowledge that He who is sent is a perfect representative of the sender. I believe the New Testament very much supports this communal monotheism.<BR/><BR/>So, where one draws the line between monotheist and polytheist will certainly make this accusation available for some against others. There IMO is a huge theological space in which to draw this line between absolute monotheist like modern Jews and Moslems and Augustinian Trinitarians. There is a tiny space in which to draw this line between Augustinian Trinitarians and Social Trinitarians. Those who advocated strong deification within a Social Trinitarian structure may widen ever so slightly this small space, but again all Christians are far from absolute monotheists. Ultimately, the question for Bible acceptors is which is Biblical. Here, I think my view shines whether Moslems call me a polytheist or not.<BR/><BR/>Charity, TOmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-40738928047965648902008-07-21T11:07:00.000-07:002008-07-21T11:07:00.000-07:00Tom wrote:"After God the Father’s incarnation He p...Tom wrote:<BR/><BR/>"After God the Father’s incarnation He possesses a body of flesh and bones in the same way Christ after His incarnation and resurrection possesses a body of flesh and bones."<BR/><BR/><I> this is what takes my breathe away! So the Father became flesh?<BR/><BR/>the father "in the same way" as Jesus possesses a body of flesh and bones?? <BR/><BR/>Amazing, shocking doctrine! Again, when and where did this take place? What Scriptures communicate this?</I>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-69560128959926112682008-07-21T11:02:00.000-07:002008-07-21T11:02:00.000-07:00When and where did God the Father become incarnate...When and where did God the Father become incarnate?<BR/><BR/>Don't you see how I could be confused on this?<BR/><BR/>In one sentence, you say "no" and then later you say the Father became incarnate with flesh and bones also, just like Jesus?<BR/><BR/>What is this?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-17391050072738971502008-07-21T08:45:00.000-07:002008-07-21T08:45:00.000-07:00It is simply impossible to believe all the things ...It is simply impossible to believe all the things captured in the Journal of Discourses. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I> Is not that one of the LDSs official "Scriptures"?</I>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-60639894460694133392008-07-21T08:36:00.000-07:002008-07-21T08:36:00.000-07:00Tom,Sorry for confusing some of the lists, etc. an...Tom,<BR/>Sorry for confusing some of the lists, etc. and specifics. (Joseph Smith should not be on the list about Mary and sex; but the KFD does really seem to affirm polytheism and that a man became a God. <BR/><BR/>I was mixing up issues; partly because the whole Mormon religion seems so weird.<BR/><BR/> I read your thread; and it just seemed like an admission of most everything (and I appreciate your honesty in that) except that God had sex with Mary; which you deny and answered well, that only a few believe that; and which is affirmed by some in the past; and I understand what you are saying in that that is not official, etc.<BR/><BR/>It took my breath away, and I was tired, and I was, I admit, lazy to cull through your answers, so to begin with, I tried to find a few of the official statements again.<BR/><BR/>The big reason was I just did not have time to get to it until now; (see above on your "no", but then later, seemed to back track and contradict it.) -- I quickly cut and pasted and should not have.<BR/><BR/>I apologize for mixing Joseph Smith in the wrong list of an issue that he did not talk about. <BR/><BR/>So, now you can answer the above post and the apparent contradiction. <BR/><BR/>I mean no ill will.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-67158283222090421472008-07-21T08:18:00.000-07:002008-07-21T08:18:00.000-07:00TOm:First, Elohim as a title for God the Father an...TOm:<BR/>First, Elohim as a title for God the Father and Jehovah as a title for God the Son is a late introduction in LDS thought and certainly not official or theologically significant IMO. Before the 1900’s it was common to refer to God the Father as Jehovah. It is conventional now not to do this. Although in the pews I cannot remember anyone making a distinction.<BR/><BR/>Now, my answer to your question is: NO. <BR/><BR/><I> <B>[true, you answered clearly here, but, IMO, later down you contradicted it; so that is why, to me, your answer is confusing.]</B></I><BR/><BR/>God the Father an eternity ago was full divine and the fount of divinity. I believe this is quite clearly the teachings of our canonized scriptures. I also believe this is the view espoused in the King Follett Discourse despite the opinions otherwise both in and out of the church. The Sermon in the Grove is the only teaching of Joseph Smith that MAY have advocated that God the Father was not God before He became God. Ostler has (as is necessary because of the text as it has come to us) dealt extensively with the 3 (I think) sources of the Sermon in the Grove and I think his solution is plausible and in far better agreement with the KFD and other scriptures.<BR/><BR/><B>I believe that God the Father like God the Son emptied Himself of aspects of divinity so that He might become incarnate.</B> <BR/><BR/><I>[This seems contradictory to the clear, "no".]</I><BR/><BR/> He then took up that which He put down again. After God the Father’s incarnation He possesses a body of flesh and bones in the same way <BR/><BR/><I> <B> [ Here you contradict the earlier "no"; so your communication is "gobbly gook" and makes no sense!]</B> </I><BR/><BR/> Christ after His incarnation and resurrection possesses a body of flesh and bones.<BR/><BR/><B> <I> [A mass of contradiction. impossible to understand.]</I></B> Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-90121866237729397522008-07-21T08:06:00.000-07:002008-07-21T08:06:00.000-07:00http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2784J...http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2784<BR/><BR/>James White has a great presentation where he specifically deals with the criticisms of Reformed theology and Calvinism and the problem of the non-elect babies that Tom brought up. (mostly from Dr. Urgun Caner's sermon)<BR/><BR/>To get the full benefit, one needs to listen to the whole presentation and look at the verses that Dr. White exegetes. Put it on pause and look up the verses; slow down and look at the context of each one.<BR/><BR/>Also, see the Westminister Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession; they both clearly refute the idea that <BR/>"God is the author of sin". Search for them on line.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-30121746613661552732008-07-21T07:49:00.000-07:002008-07-21T07:49:00.000-07:00Ken,I am not sure responding to your responses mat...Ken,<BR/>I am not sure responding to your responses matters a whole lot. You replied to my fairly non-polemic responses with standard critic fair. Here I intended “standard fair” to mean the typical assortment of arguments, but “standard critic fair” can certainly mean a response that lacks objectivity and the same allowances one gives to ones own position (i.e. unfair). I think both apply to your response. It is not that you and James White have not created a list of reasons to not be a LDS based on actual quotes of LDS leaders. It is that you seem to stick to the list rather than try to understand how informed LDS deal with these lists. There is even a pretty solid example in your responses to suggest to me that you barely read what I wrote for you argue back at me with something I readily acknowledged.<BR/>Rory occasionally mentions that he is writing for the “lurkers.” My “fairly non-polemic response” was a product of my thoughts that there were perhaps not too many lurkers here. That is probably never a good assumption on the internet. My response here will be partially for the “lurkers” that might be present and partially in hopes that I may unmoor you from James White anti-Mormonism. This may be a very foolish goal.<BR/><BR/>On sexual relations between God and Mary:<BR/>The passage you offered in quotes to which I responded did not seem to appear in writings by LDS. I decided it best to find a couple of the most difficult examples of what I thought you were after. Perhaps this was a mistake.<BR/>Since I am a LDS, I have come in contact with thousands of LDS. I have been in three wards in my current location (though I have never moved out of the ward boundaries for the first ward, it has just split into two new wards). Previous to this while I was mostly at sea, I was also in three wards. I have found one person who seemed willing to embrace the view that you seem to suggest simply is the LDS view and numerous people who knowledgably reject it. The vast majority of folks would reject it having no knowledge of the passages that are so important to critics and so irrelevant to LDS.<BR/>Some recent studies indicate that LDS youth (and I think LDS adults) actually read their Bibles at a rate far above the rest of Christendom. Perhaps this is why we are so universal in our belief in the “virgin birth” rather than embracing statements made by past leaders (that still do not seem to deal directly with their other statements affirming the virgin birth). Based on the LDS.org link I offered you, it would seem that the official position of the church has come down upon the emphasis of the virginity of Mary rather than the other ideas so effective as weapons against the CoJCoLDS.<BR/>IMO this is a huge problem for both the damage this weapon (wielded from a Protestant POV) can do, and the honesty of those who wield the weapon. James White knows full well that few LDS believe that the Father had sexual relations with Mary, but he presents this as if it is what LDS should believe. He also likely knows that the church has emphasized the virgin birth to the exclusion of sexual relations in official publication, but he leaves this out. I think this is best labeled as dishonesty. Do you agree?<BR/><BR/>Ken said:<BR/>No, that is not one of them. But is he more important than Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph Felding Smith, Orson Pratt, E. Snow, Ezra Taft Benson, Bruce McKonkie? <BR/><BR/>TOm:<BR/>I think it is quite clear that Harold B. Lee is more important than Orson Pratt in that HBL was President of the Church (often called The Prophet) and Orson Pratt never was and in fact “The Seer” (which James White quotes without qualification) was specifically condemned by the three men who were the First Presidency.<BR/><BR/>Next, I know of absolutely zero places where Joseph Smith said anything that would suggest he believe that the virgin birth was not a virgin birth. What do you know that I do not? Please provide for me the statements to which you refer from Joseph Smith or retract him from the list.<BR/><BR/>AGAIN, Do you know of any statements by Joseph Smith that call into question the virgin birth? Was he just included for the force of it all?<BR/><BR/>HBL is the most recent president on your list other than President Benson. As I mentioned recent teachings are to be preferred to older teachings. (Ostler makes some exception for Joseph Smith to this rule. In my opinion there is reason for this, but I would suggest that doctrines like “Heavenly Mother” could be added to our scriptures at the direction of President Thomas Monson and at this point Joseph’s silence concerning heavenly mother would be of little concern). BTW, I just read through Benson’s words in Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 7. He claims that Mary was virgin before and after the conception of Christ. If he believes the much paired down quote offered by White is in conflict with this statement he gives no indication. I believe ETB (perhaps unlike BY) did not have sexual intercourse in his mind.<BR/><BR/>Now, I have never denied that I think it likely that past LDS leaders had in mind sexual relations between the Father and Mary when they said some of the things they said. What I strongly affirm is that this is not a prevalent view in the CoJCoLDS. It is not something that we talk about. Our theology has matured. Beyond this, every utterance of the President of the Church is not recorded like in previous years. I believe the leaders of the church have recognized what our critics do with statements that may have been less considered. It is simply impossible to believe all the things captured in the Journal of Discourses. Most LDS do not worry about such things and have no idea there is so much captured that is occasionally strange. <BR/>Those who are aware of these things have a choice to make. Do they deal with these things and remain a member of the church or do they choose to leave (leaving is usually a multifaceted decision and I personally believe very few folks leave SOLELY because of the problems critics utilize to begin the destruction of faith or break the damn for those with a number of concerns already. It is my experience and opinion that virtually all of the most informed folks on these issues make the choice to stay. They are not near so damning in the overall picture as they seem to be in the writings of James White.<BR/><BR/>I have no thoughts that you might choose to be a LDS. I do have thoughts that you might leave behind James White as a guide especially when he is criticizing the beliefs of other. (I have high hopes for <B>The Potter’s Freedom</B> though I have yet to find time to read it). At best White is an uncharitable critic. At worst he is an unchristian deceiver walking hand in hand with the Father of Lies. Francis Beckwith knows this only too well. I saw (on a blog) James White attack him. It seemed that Beckwith suggesting that James White had misunderstood what Beckwith claimed was no match for White repeating his uncharitable read of Beckwith’s words. To speak with White (which I have done, our conversation did not demonstrate the point I am about to make for it was almost totally, “You as a LDS believe this,” “No, I do not.”) is to discover that every word must be carefully chosen for it will be twisted. Christ never fell victim to the Pharisees or Satan when such tactics were attempted upon him, but neither Beckwith nor I are as sharp as the Son of God. <BR/><BR/>Concerning God the Father’s body of flesh and bones:<BR/>Ken, you asked a question which I answered very clearly, “No.” I then explained why I said, “No,” and yet still affirm that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (just like God the Son has a body of flesh and bones). You then conclude your non-response with: <BR/>From "Doctrine and Covenants"; so that is official doctrine, not just a statement from a leader like Brigham Young<BR/><BR/>TOm:<BR/>I most certainly affirmed precisely what was in the D&C. I could have answered your question “No” and offered no clarification. I should have done this since you did not deal with what I said, but quoted White back to me.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I am not particularly concerned with what you and White think Joseph Smith meant in the KFD. I am also comfortable with what previous leaders have made of these concepts and the frank admission by President Hinckley that we do not know much about how God the Father was once a man like us. To me, our scriptures clearly teach that there is a supreme God and that He is God the Father. This IMO is the conclusion one would draw from the BOM and the BOA without the Bible. The Old Testament further strengthens this view especially in light of modern Biblical scholarship. The “Kingship” monotheism within the BOA is far more prevalent in the Old Testament than the “Metaphysical Monotheism” demanded by non-LDS Christianity. <BR/><BR/>White began his debate with Greg Stafford by effectively saying, even if I lose this debate with Stafford, he is not a really JW so I still win by showing that JWs are wrong. IMO approaches that are many times more charitable and even more honest easily damn Protestantism, Mormonism, and Catholicism. The problem is that those who employ these better approaches seldom turn such things back upon their own paradigm. If they did (or if White did) it would be IMO ever so clear that such approaches remove room for faith in any form of Christianity (with the possible exception of Chris’s liberal Christianity).<BR/>David is better at engaging other religions on their own terms than anyone I have ever met. He is Catholic. I seek to follow his example and recognize that there are plenty of reasons to not be Catholic, to not be Protestant, and to not be a LDS; but needing to make a choice I should find the most consistent read of the data with the least problems. In my less informed (than David) opinion that answer is the CoJCoLDS. I suggest that to engage religion as White does and as you seem to be wont to do is to NEVER KNOW which position is strongest in any type of intellectually rigorous way. I may be as wrong as a human can be, but I will attempt to use a good methodology. <BR/>I think it is fine to embrace non-intellectually rigorous means for assessing truth. I think God can guide us in ways outside of our intellect, but IMO it makes for empty arguments and virtually undefendable positions.<BR/> <BR/>I think I will close here. Don’t be like James White!<BR/>Charity, TOmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com