I’m sorry, but you haven’t provided any evidence for your claim regarding how official doctrine is determined. All you did was quote from a newsletter, which is not a canonical work nor an official source.[/quote]
I also quoted from a canonical work, D&C 107. That expressly states the authority of the quorums to make binding decisions and that statements made without unanimous consent do not enjoy the same status.
The news bulletin is an official source, but does not determine doctrine.
The FARMS article contains multiple quotes from General Authorities. These statements do not determine doctrine, but they are reliable sources for knowing what doctrine is.
No need to say, “but if the GA’s are reliable sources, then why doesn’t it mean it is doctrine when they say God was a man is doctrine?” We just went over that earlier, and my answer is the same here as there: They aren’t. They’re saying man can become as God is doctrine. The noted exceptions are the Brigham Young quotes and the King Follet discourse, and those two must be dealt with separately.
It doesn’t, as I’ve already just explained.
No it’s not. The quote from President Snow is oft-repeated, but in connection with the doctrine of man achieving godhood under God. And the President Snow quote is not canonical and is not binding on the church. You must demonstrate where it is canonized to prove yourself right, nothing else will serve.
Not in the LDS Church. Scripture in that sense refers to any true sacred writings. Not all scripture is canonical.[/quote][quote]This says otherwise:[/quote][quote]Scriptures
When holy men of God write or speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, their words “shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (D&C 68:4). The official, canonized scriptures of the Church, often called the standard works, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.[/quote][quote]Can you provide a statement from the Standard Works that not all Scripture is canonical, or that non-canonical Scripture does not contain official LDS teaching?[/quote]
Read the quote you just made. The only official canonized scriptures are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. I already gave you D&C 107. That is the source for the authority of canon.
It doesn’t teach that quote as being doctrinal?
‘The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this church.’
Cog dis +1.[/quote]
You seem to have trouble understanding this. The quote from Brigham Young is not taught as being official doctrine. That he is quoted as saying that is the doctrine is not taught as being official doctrine. Church members are invited to read about that and pray if it is true or not.
Shoot, I was one of the Sunday School teachers in my ward when this was being taught in the local ward. I might have even taught this lesson. It is not taught as being official doctrine, but should be read and prayed about.
But this teaching from Smith in the King Follet discourse was confirmed by revelation, which is an official source.[/quote]
What do you mean “confirmed by revelation”? Not everything a person receives by revelation is church doctrine. It has to be canonized, otherwise it is not official doctrine.
I don’t have time to continue this now. Gotta run.
Question begging.[/quote]
Not exactly. My point is that official doctrines of the church are taught unambiguously and without equivocation. If you ask any longterm member if God the Father (of our spirits) and Jesus are one and the same, they can answer you right away: “no”, they are distinct persons, but that they are united in purpose.
If you ask them a question less central to the faith, they can still give you an unambiguous answer. Like, if you ask, “did the plates of brass that Nephi obtained from Laban contain the writings of prophets, or were they secular writings?” If they have studied the doctrine then they can answer again without any hesitation or room for doubt.
That’s because these are official doctrines. The second is not a core doctrine, but it is still official doctrine that all Latter-Day Saints will believe in. These are the things clearly and plainly taught in Sunday School, Priesthood, Sacrament, and even Primary.
When there is equivocation and unsurety as to whether it is official or not, this is strong evidence that it is not actually official.
I wasn’t making a deductive argument, but an inductive one.
I’m not the one calling it official doctrine. LDS writings and LDS members do that.[/quote]
Yes you are. You are saying it is official doctrine because you think LDS writings and members are calling it doctrine.
However, in doing so you are making at least two logical fallacies: fallacious appeal to authority and in some cases an error in determining the antecedent of what “doctrine” is being referred to.
Once again, I’ll go ahead and say that in the case of the Brigham Young quote it is not the case that you have missed the antecedent, he actually was saying such was doctrine, but his words do not count for canon since they were not sustained by the Church and there is dispute as to whether this is official doctrine or not. Which makes it a false appeal to authority.
What official source? Who has taught it? It is not taught officially as doctrine. In the Sunday School manual about Brigham Young teachers make a point of explaining that members need to pray and study to know what is true or not. In other instances the quotes are used to illustrate the doctrine that man is a literal child of God and can become like God which are doctrines, and are the doctrines which are being referred to when the word “doctrine” is being used.
Now you’re begging the question. You are arguing that it is official doctrine because it is taught and people believe it because they were taught it as official doctrine.
A member on that thread has said as I did earlier that it referred to Jesus Christ (although I still think I was wrong that this is a majority view interpretation), that the doctrine being referred to was that man can become like God. Just as I’ve been saying. As to the part about where God comes from, it was specifically called speculation by another member on that thread.
The very next poster referred you to a quote contained the FARMS article I linked to earlier stating that not everything said by a General Authority is doctrine.
They are agreeing with me.
Aphrodite was the one who said it referred to that God lived as as we do now (but she didn’t specify if she thought that meant Christ or the Father). Yet tellingly, at the end of her post she said “some of the more scripturally minded people here can point in the direction of those scriptures if you wish Im sure!”
So from that I wouldn’t take her as great example.
The other posters there “Flyonthewall”, “Misshalfway”, “PapilioMemnon”, “Traveler”, and “tubaloth” all either explicitly say it’s about eternal progression (us becoming like God), and then “Vanhin” refers you to the quote about how not everything being spoken necessarily constitutes doctrine.
No, not a whole lot. From the posts there after the first poster seems what I’m saying is very much like other LDS you can find on the internet.
[quote]Finally:
[quote]This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).
Chapter 47: Exaltation,” Gospel Principles, 301[/quote]
That’s very clear to me.[/quote] Gospel Principles is not canonical, either.
Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church, did teach that to be true. However, this is not a doctrine received by the Church into canon. It is possible that Joseph was lead to believe this based on a misreading of the Bible rather than a revelation from God and got it wrong. It is also possible that this inspired and correct.
As I said before, many people in the Church believe it. But it’s not official doctrine. It was not canonized. It is not officially taught. You can criticize the early Church leaders for that, and through them criticize the Church today. But whether or not to believe this utterance and related utterances was inspired or not is up to the individual member.
Here you go again. As far as that it occurred in the Americas (and earlier in the text back in Jerusalem). Nothing else about it has been revealed. Yet you were talking about the Hill Cumorah.
I’m calling you on a red herring fallacy.
That’s not in the Book of Mormon. And the LDS Bible Dictionary isn’t considered doctrinal, either. It’s a concordance. Very useful, but specific entries have been questioned as to their accuracy.
This one, though, is not really controversial. But, then, this isn’t about the Book of Mormon geography. We’re talking about the book of Doctrine and Covenants, which does mention a few places-- but not places in the Book of Mormon, but rather in the Bible.
Now you’re really grasping at straws.
The only essential part about Book of Mormon geography is if it occurred in the Americas or not. There is no debate among the LDS about that. The debate you were talking about earlier, and to which I was referring, was about the location of specific events and places mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The location of specific places and events in the Book of Mormon are not revealed to us in reference to any modern geography.
This Bible Dictionary reference is irrelevant to that since it is talking about the Doctrine and Covenants and the Bible.
In the past you were always intellectually honest. Don’t give me reason to start doubting that by continuing to pick at this statement of mine which I already fully clarified.
Heh! This’ll be where RDO brushes him off with “well, you weren’t listening to them properly. I’m the authority here. Me! Me! ME! If your point of view differs from mine, it stands to reason you just haven’t understood or weren’t listening closely enough.”
I didn’t say they did. What they do is demonstrate that God addressing His heavenly host as ‘us’ is found elsewhere in Scripture. Maybe you didn’t read the entire footnote. Passages are cited demonstrating that God speaks to His angelic host:
What’s unclear about that?
I gave you a reference to another passage of Scripture (and another footnote), which said that the angelic host was present at creation. Please read them again, especially the footnote on Psalm 8:5 (which cites other passages also).
It’s an interpretation which relies on a correct understanding of the grammar (whereas Joseph Smith’s was wrong), and relevant cotexts which confirm the interpretation.
Unfortunately there’s nothing in the text or co-texts which says that it’s the Father talking to the son. Even trinitarian academics have given up on that one.
Because the LDS interpretation is that gods plural spoke in verse 26, and gods plural created in verse 27.
But verse 27 does not say that others took part in creation. It says only one person created. That contradicts what you believe.
That’s not actually correct. Please read them again, especially the footnote on Psalm 8:5 (which cites other passages also).
No it isn’t. It’s stating that given the original context this is the natural reading. Any other reading does not have contextual support.
Oh but I can, and have. I’ve provided Scripture demonstrating that the angelic host was there at creation, and that the angelic host is the group addressed by God as ‘us’.
So you say. But according to the prophet, he was told this is what it meant. If that is true (and I understand your hearty skepticism on the matter), then whatever misunderstanding Joseph Smith may have been about the grammar would have been.[/quote]
This means the prophet was wrong. He claimed the ‘im’ ending on ‘elohim’ indicates that the word means ‘gods’ plural. Not only did he not understand that the ‘im’ ending on ‘elohim’ is only morphologically plural (not grammatically plural), he was entirely wrong to claim that this meant Genesis 1’s use of ‘elohim’ really means ‘gods’ plural not ‘God’ singular.
But you’re going to turn around and say that’s what it does mean. You’re going to tell me in a minute that Jesus did the creating as the agent of the Father, instead of the two of them creating.
[quote]26 And the Gods took [a]counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and [b]form man in our [c]image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So the [a]Gods went down to organize man in their own [b]image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.[/quote]
The ‘gods’ appear all the way through chapter 4, with plural verbs. Not only is that the opposite of what Genesis 1:27 says, it’s the opposite of what you said.
[quote]26 And the Gods took [a]counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and [b]form man in our [c]image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So the [a]Gods went down to organize man in their own [b]image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.[/quote]
[quote]26 And the Gods took [a]counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and [b]form man in our [c]image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So the [a]Gods went down to organize man in their own [b]image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.[/quote]
That’s the opposite of what you said.
No that’s not how it’s written. You’re ignoring the Israelite context, in which God addressing others with the term ‘us’ does not mean that those others necessarily have to participate. The singular verb in verse 27 tells us that they didn’t participate. Simple.
Alright. You can see it that way. Or you can see it another way.[/quote]
No I can’t see it another way. It’s a grammatical fact.
[quote]I’m sure Hebrews also sometimes invited people to do something and then they all did it together.
Rich man to workers: Ok, let’s build my mansion.
And so the rich man built his mansion.[/quote]
Examples please from proximate Hebrew literature.
It excludes them from the grammar of that verse. It doesn’t say that God didn’t use angels as his tools.[/quote]
It does exclude them from being His tools. It says that only God created. God, singular.
But you say that’s not ‘exactly what it means’.
It does. That’s the function of the singular pronoun. The singular pronoun indicates one person. This is called grammar. You can look it up.
[quote]26 And the Gods took [a]counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and [b]form man in our [c]image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So the [a]Gods went down to organize man in their own [b]image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.[/quote]
By the way RDO:
As I have pointed out, I’ve had personal experience with LDS missionaries, both in Australia and here in Taiwan. In Australia my first contact with them was in around 1990. They taught the traditional North American geography for the Book of Mormon. One of my friends ended up converting. Throughout the 1980s my mother had repeated visits from LDS missionaries, to the extent that she ended up with three copies of the Book of Mormon (two different editions), one of which she marked up cover to cover just to be thorough (though she didn’t convert). These missionaries also taught the traditional North American geography for the Book of Mormon.
Later in Australia (around 2003), I and another friend had the experience of LDS missionaries come around and present their standard preaching material to us. As I said, they came one day a week, week by week, over a number of weeks. These missionaries also taught the traditional North American geography for the Book of Mormon. The material they presented had been issued to them. They didn’t make it up. The cards, the maps, were all standard missionary issue, and they taught the traditional North American geography for the Book of Mormon.
Now the real irony with your comment above is that you are the Internet Mormon. I’ve highlighted a few key sections here:
[quote]* Chapel Mormons will typically try and bend the facts to fit the prophets, while Internet Mormons are far more comfortable bending the prophets to fit the facts.
When the apologists contradict the prophets, Internet Mormons almost always go with the apologists, while Chapel Mormons almost always go with the prophets.
Internet Mormons believe that the words “Lamanite” and “Native American” refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups. Chapel Mormons believe that the words “Lamanite” and “Native American” are interchangeable.
Internet Mormons believe that Noah’s flood was a localized event, covering only a certain area. Chapel Mormons usually believe that Noah’s flood was a global event, covering the entire world.
Internet Mormons believe the Lehite colony landed in a New World filled with Asiatic inhabitants. Chapel Mormons believe the Lehite colony landed in a New World devoid of inhabitants save, perhaps, for at least one remaining Jaredite.
When discussing prophetic utterances, Internet Mormons often say “it was only his opinion.” Chapel Mormons almost never say “it was only his opinion,” believing that a prophet’s words and God’s words are essentially one and the same.
Internet Mormons believe that FARMS is correct and that the Hill Cumorah was located somewhere in Mesoamerica. Chapel Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was correct and that the Hill Cumorah was located in Western New York and was the same hill from which he retrieved the Golden Plates.
Internet Mormons believe that the only real and binding doctrine in Mormonism is that found between the covers of the four Standard Works–all else is mere conjecture. Chapel Mormons believe that real and binding doctrine is that which is accepted and believed by the majority of the Saints (in practice, this means that they accept the overwhelming majority of what they learn in church and in the church’s official publications in addition to the four Standard Works).
Internet Mormons tend to want to “filter” a prophet’s words through both his likely cultural influences and his limited sphere of knowledge. Chapel Mormons tend to take a prophet’s words at face value.
Internet Mormons believe that the scriptures supersede the living prophets. Chapel Mormons believe that the living prophets supersede the scriptures.
Internet Mormons believe that a prophet’s words may not apply to at least some of the people he’s addressing. Chapel Mormons tend to believe that a prophet’s words apply to everyone he’s addressing.
Chapel Mormons believe that a prophet is a foreordained man of the highest moral caliber. Internet Mormons believe that a prophet is not necessarily any better than his societal average.[/quote]
The missionaries I’ve met have always been ‘Chapel Mormons’, without fail.
I didn’t say they did.[/quote]
I didn’t say you said they did. I just pointed out that they didn’t. That verse in Genesis does not explicitly say who God is talking to. The verses you pointed out do not say that it was an angelic host.
As I said, you are assuming it is an angelic host because that fits your belief. And that’s alright, you go right on ahead and keep doing that. You can believe God said “let’s make man” and then nobody lifted a finger but God. I can believe that when God said it, He really meant it and He was talking to someone else that He actually wanted to take part in the creation of man.
Sure, I get that. But that’s elsewhere, not there. You’re still making assumptions.
Geez, man. Didn’t you read my response to you there? I specifically noted that’s what the passages demonstrated this and so it is a reasonable assumption to make that Genesis also says that. I’m not saying your interpretation is illogical. But I am still saying it’s an assumption.
Nothing. It’s perfectly clear why someone without modern day revelation would make a wrong assumption like that. You don’t any better because you don’t have the light of the restored gospel to fill in the gaps. You do the best you can with what you’ve got.
Whatever. I already said I believe there was an angelic host there. I’m willing to stipulate to that. You still need to show through the Bible (not commentaries) God said He was talking to an angelic host. I don’t want you to show me why you make your assumption. I already understand the reasons you make that assumption.
I’ll read them again when I come to them in my own study of the scriptures. I love reading the scriptures, but I don’t care about your interpretation of them.
LDS interpretation is what’s the point here, and it’s just as valid as yours. Please don’t go talking about how the grammar is wrong for it, it’s not and I already explained how. I don’t care to go through this exercise again.
It’s an assumption based on a lack of modern day revelation.
Joseph Smith’s understanding of the grammar was limited, to be sure, but the verses you are talking about are not a problem. If you read Moses 2:26-27 you’ll see it matches the grammar. The place where you might be right about the prophet misunderstanding would be in his saying that Elohim is a plural (which it is) and applying it to the rest of scripture.
As far as Genesis 1:26-1:27, his interpretation matches the grammar of the original. 1:27 is read in the singular and the subject speaker of 1:26 is singular talking to another.
Because they can’t prove it. Joseph Smith claimed revelation. You’ll have to show how it’s absolutely impossible.
No it’s not. Moses 2:26-27. God singular speaks in 26, God singular creates in 27. The LDS belief how God accomplished that in 27 differs from orthodox belief, but the grammatical understanding matches.
That’s not actually correct.[/quote]
Yes it is. Please read them again.
Contextual? Context would be in the Book of Genesis. If earlier in verse 15 or something it reads, “And then God turned to the heavenly host and said…” then you’d have context. What you’re talking about is not the context of the same writing.
You mean, the context of the entire Bible? Sorry, but you don’t get to call that context in the same sense of finding an antecedent. You are making an assumption.
Unfortunately, I’m not a student of Hebrew. I did read an excellent counter-argument on this from a FARMs source, but I can’t find it and don’t have the time. Anyway, discussion of this sort is outside my ability to comment on directly.
Yeah, true. Cause it was revealed to Joseph Smith and it’s in Moses 2.
[quote][quote]26 And the Gods took [a]counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and [b]form man in our [c]image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So the [a]Gods went down to organize man in their own [b]image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.[/quote]
That’s the opposite of what you said.[/quote]
No it’s not.
But that’s not what LDS teaching says. Book of Abraham 4:[/quote]
Moses 2.
Just the grammar aspects are grammar facts.
[quote]I’m sure Hebrews also sometimes invited people to do something and then they all did it together.
Rich man to workers: Ok, let’s build my mansion.
And so the rich man built his mansion.[/quote]
Examples please from proximate Hebrew literature.[/quote]
You’ve got to be kidding. I’m trying to appeal to common sense.
Are you claiming that Hebrews would never write like that? You’re saying the only way to interpret that in any situation is that a person invited others to do something and then did it themselves alone? That when Hebrews write or talk, they always mean that they will do it themselves?
Unbelievable. Ok. Give me a source saying that it’s impossible for a Hebrew to invite someone to do something and then have people actually help them do it.
That’s an exclusionary reading and your interpretation of what it means. Nothing more.
But you say that’s not ‘exactly what it means’.[/quote]
You deleted the rest of the context before the word “so”. Go back and read it again.
Well gee golly. Look what I just learned. Singular means one. So, if I say, I went to church, it means only I went to church. Nobody else did or could have.
Wrong. If I say “I went to church” that sentence does not exclude the possibility that others also went to church.
Come on, man. Get serious.
Really?[/quote]
Really. Yes. Moses 2.
[quote]By the way RDO:
As I have pointed out, I’ve had personal experience with LDS missionaries, both in Australia and here in Taiwan. In Australia my first contact with them was in around 1990. They taught the traditional North American geography for the Book of Mormon. One of my friends ended up converting. Throughout the 1980s my mother had repeated visits from LDS missionaries, to the extent that she ended up with three copies of the Book of Mormon (two different editions), one of which she marked up cover to cover just to be thorough (though she didn’t convert). These missionaries also taught the traditional North American geography for the Book of Mormon.[/quote]
Sorry, but “North American geography” is not official doctrine. Missionaries from the 1980s and 1990s should have been using the standard discussions and not deviating from it, which do not say “North” America-- just the Americas. If they did they were getting into speculation.
That Joseph Smith found hill Cumorah in New York State is a matter of doctrine, but that it’s the same Cumorah from the battle in the Book of Mormon is not.
That events in the Book of Mormon occurred in North America is not doctrine. The only thing that is doctrine is that Joseph Smith found the plates in Hill Cumorah in New York.
Can you quote exactly what the missionaries said? Word for word, please. You definitely misunderstood me enough times, so I don’t want you paraphrasing them.
I know. I’ve done a lot of outside reading. However, you use the term negatively. It can be either good or bad, depending on if the person places their learning and theories above revelation or not.
I take my understanding from official doctrine. Things that are not official doctrine I pray to God about.
Lovely. What an excellent example of a false dilemma. This completely ignores the concept of canon or that prophets can have private views.
“entirely separate” is misleading. As for the rest of it, it’s no surprise.
I’ll have to deal with the rest of this later. Gotta go. But basically, it’s a false dichotomy
Internet Mormons believe that the words “Lamanite” and “Native American” refer to two entirely separate cultural and linguistic groups. Chapel Mormons believe that the words “Lamanite” and “Native American” are interchangeable.
Internet Mormons believe that Noah’s flood was a localized event, covering only a certain area. Chapel Mormons usually believe that Noah’s flood was a global event, covering the entire world.
Internet Mormons believe the Lehite colony landed in a New World filled with Asiatic inhabitants. Chapel Mormons believe the Lehite colony landed in a New World devoid of inhabitants save, perhaps, for at least one remaining Jaredite.[/quote]
All of these are examples of gray areas. And trying to lump all “internet Mormons” into one group is an error. Well read Mormons are likely to recognize that these are gray areas, but do not necessarily believe any specific thing.
I’m personally unsure on all of the above points. None of it is strictly doctrinal, so I have only my own personal opinion (and that of scholars) to go on.
I think you’ll find that’s not really true among either group. The “internet Mormon” group would be more likely to be aware of utterances outside of canon and understand what canon is. In the case of a few specific quotations “internet Mormons” may say this, but in general they give very great weight to the words of prophet-- even when it is not canonical.
When I was in Primary (classes for ages 5-12) I also thought the prophet was always right, in all things he said. Some Mormons never move beyond that. But most do, even chapel Mormons. They just think anything recorded and repeated in church is true.
Another gray area. Like many other so-called “internet Mormons”, I’m undecided about this.
Missing the critical piece about modern revelation through proper channels.
That doesn’t scan. Maybe you can say that “chapel Mormons” believe anything they hear in church without considering the source overmuch.
That one I think is pretty accurate. “Chapel Mormons” don’t consider that prophets are men and think the Bible/Book of Mormon is little different from a press release from God quoted word for word.
Internet Mormons believe living prophets won’t disagree with canonical scripture when they are prophesying. If a prophet speaks in official capacity then it will add to what is revealed and help our overall understanding. “Chapel Mormons” generally don’t think living prophets supersede scriptures, but rather that they will be in harmony. If there’s a conflict then the problem would be in our interpretation, not in either scripture or prophesy.
The real difference between the two is that “internet Mormons” recognize that there are times a prophet will speak without it being prophesy. “Chapel Mormons” may not, but plenty do.
I think this quote is backwards. I’d say “internet Mormons” might believe the scope of a prophetic statement may be limited to those he is addressing, and not necessarily applies to all people everywhere in all times, while “chapel Mormons” will almost always broadly and literally interpret every scripture.
That, I think, is flat out wrong. “Internet Mormons” would consider a prophet to necessarily be of the highest moral character. The ones who think that prophets and apostles sleep around or whatever are probably over in the “apostate Mormon” group.
Now, “internet Mormons” probably recognize that even prophets and apostles are human and capable of being angry, arrogant, boastful, or having a bad day-- though still they would be among the best of the best in terms of integrity and righteousness. “Chapel Mormons” may think that once a person is called as a prophet they’ve virtually become perfect already and might get “translated” any minute in a chariot of fire.
[color=blue]Of course, the terms “internet Mormon” and “chapel Mormon” are themselves misleading. So are “elite religion” and “common religion”, terms often used by “elite religion” Mormons. The difference between the two is mostly a matter of awareness and study- not church attendance or superiority.[/color]
What you are calling “chapel Mormons” are mostly Mormons who don’t know the doctrine well, or at least are unfamiliar with readings outside the standard works. Maybe they’re “social Mormons” who grew up in church and attend out of habit, but for whom gospel study is not a serious pursuit. (I knew several missionaries like this. They only started to learn the doctrine seriously after starting their missions.) Or maybe they’re new members who just have not yet had the time to know all the doctrine, much less the stuff outside the core teachings. Or maybe they are devoted Mormons who just don’t bother to read anything outside of the Ensign and church talks. They just don’t find it necessary. I’d group these as “social Mormons”, “new members”, and “no-frills Mormons”. Oh, and Primary children.
With the advent of the internet you get a lot more Mormons with a lot of information taken out of context whose knowledge of the whole doctrine has not matured through long hours of study and prayer. They often have a very poor understanding of doctrine and what constitutes doctrine. They may believe quotes from the internet are doctrinal. I think these need a separate grouping, or perhaps these should be the “true” “internet Mormons”. Perhaps these can also be called the “weekend warrior” type as well.
While those often being called “internet Mormons” now often go to church, pray, read their scriptures, pay their tithing, and are true believers. You will see them in chapels more than just on Sunday. The ones who know the standard works backwards and forwards, are familiar with the history, and have come to gain their testimony through a lot of study and prayer know the doctrine and the difference between what is canon and what is speculation. Virtually all the General Authorities will fit this description. Some may even be scholars. Perhaps you could group these as “well read Mormons” and “Mormon scholars”.
I’d rate myself a “well read Mormon”.
[color=olive]
This message brought to you by the R. Daneel Olivaw Society for Helping Forumosans Understand Mormons.
[/color]
The Big Bang is not included in LDS doctrine. Assuming modern science is correct and there was a Big Bang, according to LDS doctrine God was somewhere during the Big Bang. Actually, it’s quite possible that the term “somewhere” may not actually be accurate since that concept may not have existed.
Any attempt to say specifically where or how it is possible would not be part of doctrine and would be pure speculation.
You’ve boxed yourself right in here. This is what we have so far:
Elohim: The word ‘elohim’ has an ending which is morphologically plural but grammatically non-numeric. This is a grammatical fact which is not altered by ‘revelation’. Joseph Smith was simply wrong when he claimed this is a plural word meaning ‘gods’. He was repeating a common lexical error of his day (this is where you need to admit that he made a mistake and retreat by saying that he was speaking ‘as a man’ and not by revelation). In fact Smith’s repeated lexical errors can often be identified as originating from one 19th century Hebrew lexical source in particular, namely Joshua Seixas’s ‘Manual Hebrew Grammar for the Use of Beginners’ (1834). Such a tool in the hands of the unlearned is destined for misuse.
Book of Moses: The creation narrative in the Book of Moses is of interest for several reasons:
The first of these is that it has a demonstrably English Vorlage (specifically, the KJV English Bible). This of course is powerful evidence that it is not a revelation to Smith of any kind (it’s simply a copy/paste from the KJV English Bible, with a few amendments).
The second is that it agrees with me that the God in verse 26 is singular, and the God in verse 27 is singular, and that this is one and the same God.
The third is that it therefore agrees with what I am saying about the use of the word ‘elohim’ throughout this chapter (it refers throughout to one God who is one person, not to multiple gods), and what standard grammatical authorities say concerning the Hebrew grammar in Genesis 1.
The fourth is that it completely contradicts the creation account in the Book of Abraham (on which, I note, you chose not to comment), which interprets ‘elohim’ as a reference to multiple gods creating, and which reads the singular verb in verse 27 as a plural verb (which it is not).
Of course the Book of Abraham likewise has a demonstrably English Vorlage (the KJV English Bible once more), and naturally this is powerful evidence that it is not a revelation to Smith of any kind (it’s simply a copy/paste from the KJV English Bible, with a few amendments). In the case of the Book of Abraham, the singular nouns, pronouns and verbs were all changed to plurals, though in verse x the singular verb was accidentally retained (’’), which is a mistake helping to identify the true origin of the text (the KJV English Bible, slightly rephrased).
One creator or more than one: It is clear from LDS Church writings (including Smith’s own lectures and written works), that the Genesis creation account is understood to have been the work of more than one god (namely, ‘elohim’, interpreted by the LDS Church as ‘gods’), which contradicts the account in the Book of Moses, and disregards the Hebrew grammar of the original text.
Previously you tried to tell me that the LDS understanding of Genesis 1:26-27 is that Jesus created all things as the agent of God, interpreting the ‘us’ as Heavenly Father and Jesus conversing, and the singular verb in verse 27 as a reference to Jesus as the creative agent of Heavenly Father. This is an acknowledgement that the modern understanding of the grammar is correct, and that Smith’s understanding of the grammar was incorrect. It is also an acknowledgment that the rendering of the grammar in the Book of Abraham is also incorrect.
Of course I have seen no evidence that the LDS Church teaches that verses 26-27 are to be understood in this way. Quite to the contrary, this interpretation is excluded by the creation account in the Book of Abraham. The irony is that you want to argue that both the account in the Book of Moses and the account in the Book of Abraham are correct, despite the fact that they render the grammar in two completely different ways.
Grammar: You need to make up your mind about the grammar. If you really don’t believe that the grammar refers to one person, then you need to drop your appeal to the Book of Moses and the ‘Jesus created as the agent of God’ idea (an idea which of course is contradicted by the Book of Moses itself, which identifies Heavenly Father as the creator in verses 26-27.
But if you believe that the grammar does refer to one person, then you need to explain why the Book of Abraham insists that it refers to more than one person, and you need to explain why leaders of the Church (starting with Joseph Smith), have consistently taught that the grammar refers to more than one person.
To date you haven’t provided any evidence that the grammar shouldn’t be read as I have stated, and you have in fact appealed to the Book of Moses, which also reads the grammar as I have stated. When you say ‘Well Smith interpreted it by revelation’, that’s called special pleading. It’s also question begging when you can’t provide that his revelation was actually correct (and you can’t provide any evidence that the interpretation I’ve provided is incorrect). And it’s no good waving your hands and talking about FAIR or FARMS articles you may have read on the subject, because they’re not authoritative sources on the subject.
I have several Hebrew lexicons here, including HALOT, which is the current standard work. Do you really think I’m going to find anything in there which supports your case? I think we both know I won’t.
Footnotes: Please do read the footnotes I provided. They do actually make reference to the fact that the angels were present at creation. I already said ‘Please read them again, especially the footnote on Psalm 8:5 (which cites other passages also)’. The footnote on Psalm 8:5 says ‘The psalmist does appear to allude to Gen 1:26–27, where mankind is created in the image of God and his angelic assembly (note “let us make man in our image” in Gen 1:26)’.
They also make reference to the fact that the literary form us + plural verb/singular noun + singular verb is used elsewhere in Scripture when God addresses His heavenly court without all being involved in the action described by the verb (‘see 1 Kgs 22:19–22; Job 1:6–12; 2:1–6; Isa 6:1–8’).
Context: Context is not simply about the surrounding verses. Grammatical and literary context must also be taken into account. That means we must establish how the grammatical forms of the passage are to be understood, and for that we turn to other Hebrew passages which use the same grammatical forms. That also means we must establish how the literary forms of the passage are to be understood, and for that we turn to other Hebrew passages which use the same literary forms.
So it’s no good saying I can’t appeal to later Bible books. I can appeal to any passages in any books which use the same grammatical and literary forms. It doesn’t matter that they appear later in the Bible itself. That means nothing since the creation narrative and many of the other books in the Bible are linguistically, chronologically and geographically proximate, meaning they were written in the same language, around the same time, in the same location.
I’ll use a well known example from the New Testament to make my point. In Revelation 17 we find a famous reference to a city on seven hills. This is the only use of this phrase in the entire Bible. How are we to understand it? By context. This does not mean the surrounding verses, since the surrounding verses do not provide conclusive evidence for the identity of the city on seven hills. Nor can we find Biblical co-texts using the phrase.
But we can identify the meaning of the phrase using the broader context, which comprises texts which are linguistically, chronologically, and geographically proximate. So we look in 1st century BC to 2nd century AD texts and we find that the city on seven hills was used in Greek, Roman, and Jewish literature as an exclusive reference to Rome.
It’s used in this way in the Jewish Sybilline Oracles (Book II, lines 15-20, Book V, lines 210-220; 225-235), which were written in Greek. It’s used by the Roman poets Virgil, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid, Silius Italicus, Statius, Martial, Claudian, Prudentius, and the emperor Vespasian, who wrote in Latin. Throughout the entire chronological and geographical scope proximate to the Revelation, that’s how this phrase was used. So we know what the phrase means from context, and there’s no denying it.
Likewise, when we come to examine the literary form us + plural verb/singular noun + singular verb, we must consider its usage in literature which is linguistically, chronologically and geographically proximate. Since the core creation narrative (including the section under discussion), was written no earlier than the 12th century BC, and no later than the 7th century BC, literature from this era is relevant. I am therefore not only able but obliged to turn to other Hebrew literature which uses this literary form, in order to determine its meaning.
Of course we both know what we find when I do. We find a meaning with which the Book of Moses is in agreement, but which the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith flatly contradict.
A few irrelevant arguments: First a false analogy you presented. When you say ‘I went to church’, of course I agree that it doesn’t mean no one else went. But the analogy is false because in this case it is the referent of the personal pronoun ‘I’ and the verb ‘went’ which is under view. So in the case of your example, you would agree with me that ‘I went’ means ‘I went’ and it doesn’t mean ‘other people went to church’, and it certainly doesn’t mean ‘other people went to church as my agents while I stayed home’.
Secondly a straw man you presented. I did not say ‘it’s impossible for a Hebrew to invite someone to do something and then have people actually help them do it’. What I asked for is proximate literary evidence that when a Hebrew wrote ‘Rich man to workers: Ok, let’s build my mansion. And so the rich man built his mansion’ what he really means is ‘The rich man and his workers built the mansion’. I haven’t found anything like that in the Hebrew literature available to me. It’s grammatically possible, I just haven’t found it. Of course this is irrelevant, as I will go on to explain.
To investigate this I looked at the closest literary forms in the Bible to what you wrote. Unfortunately none of them help you. I am using the KJV here because it’s very pedantic about translating the pronouns, so we can both see them in full view:
Genesis 11:4, 5: ‘let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth’, ‘the children of men builded’
Nehemiah 2:17: ‘Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach’
Nehemiah 2:18: ‘And they said, Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work’
Nehemiah 5:10, 12: ‘I pray you, let us leave off this usury’, ‘We will restore them, and will require nothing of them; so will we do as thou sayest’
Of course in Genesis 1:26-27 we don’t even have a parallel to your example. We don’t have anything equivalent to ‘Rich man to workers: Ok, let’s build my mansion. And so the rich man built his mansion’. What we have is ‘And elohim [singular] said [singular’, Let us [plural] make [plural]’, and then ‘So elohim [singular] made [singular]’, which is a literary form found elsewhere and demonstrably indicating that the action referred to in the singular actually means that elohim (singular), performed the action, not a group of persons. That’s why your analogy isn’t even relevant.
It’s ironic that you’re trying to claim that my understanding of this passage is being biased by my beliefs, given that I actually originally believed that ‘elohim’ was plural and a reference to the angels, but I no longer do after coming to an understanding of the grammar. It’s particularly ironic because within my faith community it is commonly (wrongly), believe that ‘elohim’ here is plural and that it is a reference to the angels. That’s what I was taught, and what I was raised believing. So I am actually going against what I was originally taught, having changed my mind on the basis of the grammar alone, not theological necessity.
You on the other hand demonstrate the very theological bias of which you accuse me, making an appeal to Joseph’s Smith’s alleged ‘revelation’ (special pleading and question begging), because your theology requires it.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]RDO,
You’ve boxed yourself right in here.[/quote]
Only from your perspective.
I read through the thread on LDS.net and I can see from your concluding post that you are only looking for things that confirm what you already think and ignore the rest. The other posters on the forum almost all said what I was saying (eternal progression, exaltation, man’s ability to become like God), and then they said that these (not the one you were thinking) were taught in the church.
Yet in your conclusion you applied the comments where they said “yes” to exaltation and eternal progress to what you wanted it to be as if all the posters had been saying that. Yes, one poster did say that was the doctrine referred to, but the rest said something else. Most of the posters considered what I was saying doctrine and what you were saying getting into speculation.
Most agreed the Lorenzo Snow quote was inspired, but not official doctrine. It referred to things in official doctrine, but part of it lied outside accepted canon and required speculation. Yet in your conclusion you ignored all such points.
You’re a smart guy and knowledgeable, but when you think you’re right you don’t see there’s any other way of looking at it. What you did on that thread is the same thing you’re doing with the whole rest of your post.
This thread was made to see if Mormons were Christians or not, and I participated. We got away from that on a tangent about if Mormon belief about the Godhead and creation were supportable through the Bible. From this point we clashed over a number of issues, something I really didn’t want to get into, but I’ve stuck it out.
Now you’re wanting to expand the discussion, and frankly, I’m not interested. I don’t think you’re open-minded about these topics and can see no benefit from explaining how Mormonism can be right.
You’ve got your interpretation of scriptures which you think can be the only way of seeing them. In some case, some interpretations are not viable, but I don’t think you can be objective enough to see all the possibilities. Perhaps you can be, but in this case I believe you are not.
Different accounts. The creation account in the Book of Abraham was irrelevant to the grammar of Genesis. Both are correct, but talk from different perspectives. There’s no point in explaining any further as that’s what it will come down to. This is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about.
Supposed to be different languages. So, wouldn’t be an interpretation of “Elohim”.
Moses 2. That’s a canonical source of evidence.
The grammatical context is of no benefit here. We’re dealing with an unspecified antecedent of a pronoun. At the end of the day you’re still making an assumption. But you can’t admit it.
Sure you can appeal to them. But they don’t say God was talking to an angelic host in Genesis either. Yet you seem hell-bent on declaring that must be the only possible thing “us” could refer to. Your assumption is the only thing you can accept. It’s pure dogmatism and closed-mindedness.
That still doesn’t mean you can find the missing antecedent. What you are doing is saying: well, there was an angelic host there, and God could have been talking to them. So, he must have been talking to them.
It’s making an assumption. And you do that a lot.
And it also doesn’t mean “nobody else went to church”, which is exactly what you are doing with the verse in Genesis.
Person does X. Does that mean anyone else does not do X? No.
God creates man. Does that say nobody else creates man? No.
You are saying that “person does X” means, “Person and only person does X”.
“God creates man.”
“God and only God creates man.”
Are they the same?
I don’t claim there is only one way to read it. I allow for multiple interpretations. I believe there are many rational ways to understand the same passage. If you say God was talking to a host of angels, I say, “Yeah, it could be.”
You are failing on a fundamental level to understand that two accounts of the same thing can differ from each other and still both be correct.
I skipped over a lot of your references because they are largely irrelevant.
Is it doctrine that the God of the Bible, Father of Jesus, is the eternally existing, non-created, Creator of the Universe- the term Universe to include all that exists, including Heaven, other planes of existence etc.?
[quote=“MikeN”]Trying to nail this as tightly as possible.
Is it doctrine that the God of the Bible, Father of Jesus, is the eternally existing, non-created, Creator of the Universe- the term Universe to include all that exists, including Heaven, other planes of existence etc.?[/quote]
The bolded parts aren’t covered by official doctrine. That God the Father was never created is something of a gray area. There is speculation on an eternal regression of gods, and some Mormons would say it’s likely that God was created by another God. But that’s not found in official doctrine and other Mormons will say that this belief is contradicted by official canon.
As for “other planes of existence” or other universes, that’s not part of official LDS teachings, either. I don’t remember reading anything that explicitly rules out other universes or planes of existence. That’s probably a question for Wizards of the Coast.
So, it’s not official LDS doctrine that nobody created God, but I think that’s the majority opinion and is easier to reconcile with official sources than the opposite position.
It’s not official doctrine that there aren’t other universes created by other beings. But anything we know of, and any future worlds, universes, etc. created by anyone from our Earth would all come under God’s authority and glory for their creation given to God.
The two bolded parts in your question are not known for sure.
There could be other universes created billions of years ago before our own big bang, and certainly we may not know anything of them. This does not preclude other intelligent life forms from being around much longer than God.
So that would mean that other beings were around before the LDS god. Of course maybe God sent his son to all the planets to get killed in horrible ways millions of times on millions of worlds. Sure would make one want to flinch from the reading the good book of … The millions of ways to die as the son of god… written by forumosas very Sandman I believe.
Sure does lead to interesting specualtion.
Maybe those being billions of years older than the big band created God and God has to give all his creative glory to them.
[quote=“Satellite TV”][quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]The Big Bang is not included in LDS doctrine.
Assuming modern science is correct and there was a Big Bang, according to LDS doctrine God was somewhere during the Big Bang.
Any attempt to say specifically where or how it is possible would not be part of doctrine and would be pure speculation.[/quote]
So which is it then… you can’t always go claimng two opposing answers and have people accept that you believe both are correct.
You make your LDS look like the pure speculators.
Take a stand on the issue and stop fence sitting. Strewth.[/quote]
There are lots of questions about Mormons I can tell you precisely what the official position is. The problem is when people ask questions for which there is no official answer. The only answer I can give then is that it’s unknown, or that there are some beliefs but that it’s not official.
If I ask you what the official Catholic doctrine is on what year Moses was born, or if it was Moses who wrote Genesis, then you’d have to answer in much the same way.
The LDS Church does not claim there was a Big Bang. Nor does it claim there was no Big Bang. So how can I tell you what the doctrine would be? Mormons can believe a wide range of things when there is no revealed answer.
In some cases there are statements made by Mormon leaders that would indicate one thing or another. However, these were not official statements and it is unclear if they were speaking from revelation or from their personal thoughts. In some cases these statements are often repeated and well received, but the implications are unclear. These can be called “Mormon beliefs”, but they aren’t really official and there are two minds about them. So, since there’s no official position, it can only be described.
The only honest way to answer is to give both sides and note where there is uncertainty and speculation. If you want me to give my own personal opinion on these “gray areas”, most of the time I’d say I am withholding judgment because I lack enough knowledge to say either way.
Earlier I posted a list of very basic beliefs. Those I said without any equivocation. There are many more details I can say without having to say some believe this others believe that. Those are official doctrines. But ask me something outside what is revealed then I have to say it’s unknown.
[quote=“Tattered Flesh”]
That said, fundamentally, Christianity is the belief that there is one and only one God and that Jesus is his son and also God. This belief is basically covered in the Nicene Creed and most churches (Catholic, Orthodox and most Protestant) recognize it. I’m not sure what “Christian” churches disagree with that statement.
It is my understanding that Mormons wish to amend this statement.[/quote]
Mormons believe there is one and only one God and that Jesus is his Son and is also God. Details and interpretation differ from the Nicene creed. The argument is over details about God and Jesus, not about worship of God and Jesus as God.
Mormon beliefs should be of interest to any agnostic because Mormons believe knowledge of God can be had by anyone through prayer and faith.
[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”] There are lots of questions about Mormons I can tell you precisely what the official position is.
[color=blue]The problem is when people ask questions for which there is no official answer. [/color]
So how can I tell you what the doctrine would be? Mormons can believe a wide range of things when there is no revealed answer.
[color=blue]In some cases there are statements made by Mormon leaders that would indicate one thing or another. However, these were not official statements and it is unclear if they were speaking from revelation or from their personal thoughts. [/color]
But ask me something outside what is revealed then I have to say it’s unknown
Savvy?[/quote]
What many of us seem to “savvy” is that the LDS have real problems addressing the basic questions asked of them.
You cannot say that what the leaders say are not official statements? What sort of religion has leaders that cannot answer basic questions? If the leaders of an organization waffle on these issues we call them politicians. Certainly seem to act like most politicians caught in a squeeze would you not say?
No revealed Answers… Your LDS leaders had better read some other religious scripts and borrow some answers then. After all, thay can always claim it is not official doctrine until somebody has a proven revelation.
Seems like LDS members have free range to believe anything they like when there is no revealed answer. :loco: imho
Maybe one day I will pray and believe myself into becoming a god.
Many have tried, none have succeeded. :no-no:
Seems to be too many of the unkowns to which the LDS can brush it off without answering. imho
He didn’t just meet them on the internet, he
