[color=blue]Your question is ridiculous because you are asking for someone to give an opinion or position on something that lies outside of what is revealed.[/color][/quote]
NO this is how you first answered. You claim it is a ridiculous question. This is how you answered my question, not just to me but to all reading the thread.
Now you claim other answers. This is why the LDS and many other religions fail and why so many leave the churches.
[color=blue]Your question is ridiculous because you are asking for someone to give an opinion or position on something that lies outside of what is revealed.[/color][/quote]
NO this is how you first answered. You claim it is a ridiculous question. This is how you answered my question, not just to me but to all reading the thread.
Now you claim other answers. This is why the LDS and many other religions fail and why so many leave the churches.
Itâs right there in black and white. And you wouldnât accept that as an answer.
And Iâm not a preacher. Iâm talking about beliefs on a discussion forum.[/quote]
[quote][color=red]The Big Bang is not included in LDS doctrine[/color]. Assuming modern science is correct and there was a Big Bang, [color=red]according to LDS doctrine God was somewhere during the Big Bang[/color]. Actually, itâs quite possible that the term âsomewhereâ may not actually be accurate since that concept may not have existed.
[color=blue]Any attempt to say specifically where or how it is possible would not be part of doctrine and would be pure speculation.[/color][/quote]
So on the one hand it is pure speculation, ( not withstanding that Mormans can belive anything they want to outside of doctrine) but on the other hand what you believe. SO first you say that the Big Bang is not part of LDS Doctrine⌠Then you say according to LDS Doctrine God was somewhere during the Big BAng.
Erh maybe thats why you lead others to confusion. We are not talking about your own beliefs here we are talking about what you wrote.
What you believe is only relevant because weâre talking hypothetically.
There was another thread altogether where I asked you where was your god before the big bang and you replied you didnât know. You know that thread where⌠the crucifiction of jesus⌠was a waste a wood was mentioned. Iâve lost the link and too lazy to search.
Every time you write you are preachingâŚ
By the way⌠when you are posting are you posting under the beliefs from reading the Bible or the Book of Mormon?
If by more than one God you mean thereâs the Father (God), Son (God), and Holy Ghost (God), then that is correct. But, like the Trinitarians, we refer to them as one God. Instead of The Trinity, we call it the Godhead. We believe the Bible refers to them as One. While LDS donât think they are of âone substanceâ, we do believe they are the same.
Itâs a difference of interpretation and explaining the Bibleâs statement that there is only one God and yet calling both Jesus God and the Father God.
No, thatâs a different question. You cannot at this time add in the â/godâ because itâs an important distinction. We believe in one God. We believe there are many gods, but for us there is one God: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That they are distinct personages, each that can be called God, makes this a very tricky subject.
Itâs relevant. âGodâ can refer to âHeavenly Fatherâ, and that is often the default assumption when the term âGodâ is used. In each sense of God, we believe there is only one God. Iâll get to the Abraham quote in a minute.
The capitalization is important because when you start talking about lower case âgodsâ we are dealing with another subject. It goes to definition. You cannot change the definition of the original question.
No. Iâm not saying that. The Book of Abraham uses Gods (plural) in a way that is different from the rest of canon. Thatâs true. I do not know the official position of the Church on this matter, so the following is my personal opinion only, I do not mean to try and tell you what is officially doctrine on this.
My reading of Abraham is that âGodsâ refers specifically to the pre-mortal Jesus and God the Father. I would assume the use of the plural âsâ is because the Holy Spirit was not mentioned there. God+God=Gods in the translation. We are still left with Jesus as God and God the Father as God, but they are still one God.
The basis for this assumption on my part are the references in Moses 2 to the Father and Christ doing the creating of heaven and earth. These would be two revelations to two prophets of the same events. So, while there would be differences in the recording and emphasis, the same events would still take place.
But, thatâs just my view of it, not an official Church position.
I donât see what you want me to address on this. Iâve read some (two) of the FARMS papers on the subject and I canât really comment intelligently on whether there is merit to their arguments, or if you were to say there is no merit I couldnât say anything in response to that. Iâm not qualified here.
Essentially, research into Ancient Near Eastern texts could mean that Joseph Smithâs understanding of the -im ending on Elohim was totally correct, and that youâre wrong. But, thatâs all speculation at this point since there is nothing to prove it. So, why bring it up? And when you mentioned it first, what should I respond?
Itâs not a fallacy of equivocation. Mormons do not believe in only one god,[/quote]
Thatâs the fallacy. We arenât discussing gods. We are discussing God. You cannot pull a switch like that. God and god are not the same.
Yes, it does. When people refer to God with a capital âGâ, most people believe it refers to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while âgodâ with a lowercase would mean any other god. Like Zeus would be a god. Thor and ĺĺ°ĺ Ź would be gods. Capital âGâ refers to the Supreme Being, while lower case âgâ would not have to be supreme and all powerful.
Non sequitur. Just because something is right does not mean it is demonstrable. In this case I cannot demonstrate that my interpretation of a text must be the only possible correct one.
No, itâs not a matter of grammar. We agree on the grammar. Itâs a matter of pragmatics. Implicature and entailment. Does the meaning of the verse entail that God acted alone? Does it even imply it?
I say that the preceding verse in Genesis implies (but does not entail) that the party to whom God was speaking participated in the act of creation. You say it does not on the basis of it being a Hebrew literary device. You say scriptures you gave as footnotes imply that God was talking to an angelic host. I agree that they entail there was an angelic host, but do not accept the implication.
From what I see, neither of us can prove our viewpoint correct, only argue in favor of it.
But I havenât done anything of the kind.[/quote]
Yes, thatâs what you are still trying to do right now. You are trying to twist the words and meanings so that you can say Mormons believe in more than one God (capital âGâ).
Yes, I saw that thread, and I posted my opinion of what happened there. Instead of listening to what they actually said, applied their âyesâ answers to what you thought they meant instead of what they actually said.
And the members there thanked me, too. Not only that, but they agreed with me.
But, so far as verse 27 of Genesis is concerned thereâs no disagreement. We both read the grammar the same way. As for other matters, like that of the meaning of the -im ending, Iâve read conflicting reports and am not qualified to discern how much weight to give it.
Fortigurn, youâre definitely intelligent, and you have a lot fewer misunderstandings about Mormon theology than many others. But in the case of âwhat do Mormons believeâ about God, you still are not giving a correct answer.
You can easily amend your answer to make your points and be factually correct. You can say âSome Mormons believe there are Gods before God, and that agrees with the writings of a number of early Mormon prophets, including Joseph Smith, the church founder.â To be more fair, you could then add, âThatâs not what the church officially teaches now, but they do teach that man can become like God and become gods themselves.â
If you said it like that, Iâd not say you were wrong. But Iâd give the other side of the argument to balance the viewpoint.
[url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/christian-guy-totally-owns-mormons-video/45471/1 of video involving man arguing with two Mormon youths has been split to here.[/url]
[url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/my-belief-is-better-than-yours-ot-fr-r-mormons-xians/45478/1 of whether proselytizing is naughty has been split to here.[/url]
Yes the original question was whether or not Mormons are Christians, but I already answered yes to that, and weâve moved on to more interesting topics.
We now have three good solid discussions going on the following topics:
Who created in Genesis 1
Defining LDS doctrine
Internet and Chapel Mormons
Iâm going to compress these three into one post.
Who Created In Genesis 1
Special pleading: Youâve charged me with reading the text on the basis of my theology, but youâve failed to identify what special pleading Iâm engaged in. On the contrary, Iâve already demonstrated that I was taught within my faith community a view which understood âelohimâ to be plural here (as it is understood within the LDS community), and I only changed my view later on the basis of authoritative grammatical analysis. You on the other hand have made a special appeal by saying âBut thatâs what Joseph said it meansâ. Your theology actually requires that you disagree with the Hebrew grammar, mine doesnât.
The grammar: As Iâve already pointed out, youâve already acknowledged tacitly that what I say concerning the grammar is correct. You did this in two ways.
Firstly you departed from the common LDS interpretation by claiming that Jesus created man as the agent of God, rather than that two persons created man. I already knew this wasnât the LDS interpretation, but it took you a little time to discover this. Such a tactic is symptomatic of ad hoc apologetics. Itâs clear you came up with this idea on the fly in response to the difficulties presented by the grammar.
Whatâs most important here is that you gave an interpretation which attempted to harmonise LDS doctrine with the authoritative grammatical analysis of the Hebrew Genesis text, thus demonstrating that you recognised that the grammatical analysis was accurate, and that only one person is referred to here.
Secondly you appealed to the text of the Book of Moses (chapter 2), which is an only slightly edited copy of KJV Genesis 1, but which uses unambiguous singular pronouns and verbs throughout. This means that verse 27 reads âAnd I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I themâ. Note that this of course excludes Christ from being the creator, and indeed excludes anyone else from being the creator also.
Whatâs most important here is that you presented this text because it harmonises LDS doctrine with the authoritative grammatical analysis of the Hebrew Genesis text, thus demonstrating that you recognised that the grammatical analysis was accurate, and that only one person is referred to here. You even made the point of saying yourself that this text agrees with the grammar of the Hebrew Genesis text.
So when the dust has settled, you have acknowledged that you know full well the authoritative grammatical analysis of the Hebrew Genesis text is accurate. Verse 27 refers to one person as the creator, and only one person. The word âelohimâ is not a plural noun, and it certainly does not have a plural referent anywhere in Genesis 1, both of which are contrary to Smithâs claims.
Strangely, you claimed that grammatical context is not relevant here. But grammatical context is always relevant. Without grammatical context, words in a sentence cannot be parsed and the sentence remains meaningless. I donât have to make any assumptions about the grammar, because there is no dispute over the rules of Hebrew grammar in this case. Nor do I have to make any assumptions concerning the subject of âusâ and âourâ, since the literary context of this form of address is well recognized due to its explicit use elsewhere, and is an undisputed reference to the heavenly court.
As I said earlier, the footnote I provided on Psalm 8:5 says âThe psalmist does appear to allude to Gen 1:26â27, where mankind is created in the image of God and his angelic assembly (note âlet us make man in our imageâ in Gen 1:26)â, and the other footnotes I provided 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 (âsee 1 Kgs 22:19â22; Job 1:6â12; 2:1â6; Isa 6:1â8â). These are recognized and documented facts. These are not assumptions. Thereâs a scholarly consensus on this matter.
Conflicting records: As with all ad hoc apologetics, this only leads to more difficulties. In your case you have unwittingly demonstrated a contradiction between the creation records of the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. In Moses (one of Smithâs earlier works), the Father is the creator, He creates alone, and He was the sole creator of man. This is in agreement with what Smith was teaching at the time. However, in Abraham (one of Smithâs later works), the âgodsâ are the creators, and all the pronouns and verbs are plural, indicating multiple gods as creators. This is in agreement with what Smith was teaching at the time, part of his new polytheist theology.
Your response to this conflict has been:
They are different accounts: If granted, how does this harmonise the contradiction?
They were written in different languages: Untrue given that they share an identical Vorlage, but even if granted, how does this harmonise the contradiction?
But not only have you demonstrated a conflict between these two creation records, youâve also contradicted LDS theology, which indisputably teaches that âgodsâ (plural), were actively and collaboratively involved in creation. This rules out totally the suggestion that one God (Heavenly Father), created all things by proxy through Jesus Christ as His agent.
Defining LDS Doctrine
To date youâve really proved my original argument on this matter beyond doubt. I said that it was difficult to determine LDS doctrine due to the level of disagreement even among LDS members as to what constitutes LDS doctrine, and so we have seen. Iâll list here the notable issues in this part of our discussion.
When âdoctrineâ doesnât mean âdoctrineâ: Presented with a number of statements which clearly identify Lorenzo Snowâs statement ââ as doctrine, you tried to claim that they donât. You attempted to reinterpret the following statements:
âAs man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may beâ (no mention of Jesus)
âthrough this process God himself attained perfectionâ (no mention of Jesus)
âThe doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a Godâ (no mention of Jesus)
âGod himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavensâ (no mention of Jesus)
According to you, these statements are not saying that âAs man now is, God once wasâ, âthrough this process God himself attained perfectionâ, or âThe doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a Godâ is doctrine. This was patently absurd, so I went to another LDS forum to see what other LDS members would say. The responses I received were very telling. They consistently contradicted what you had told me:
âThe doctrine that God once lived as we do nowâ
âEternal Progressionâ [this was clarified as including the Eternal Progression of Heavenly Father]
âAs man is G-d once wasâ
âThis is the way our Heavenly Father became Godâ
âThe doctrine for us, is that we can progress to become like our Heavenly Father, just like Heavenly Father progressed to where he is atâ
âThe Doctrine is just what has already been quotedâ
âIt refers to several clear and plain doctrines in the restored gospel: eternal progression, exaltation, God as our Father, etcâ
No one said that the doctrine being taught here was simply that man can become like God. They all said it was that God was once man and became God.
You attempted to reinterpret these statements. You claimed that only two people said this was doctrine, but we can see thatâs not true. You also misrepresented Xâs statement. Hereâs how you presented it:
This gives the impression that she wasnât sure if it was doctrine, and that sheâs suggesting that someone who is of a better Scriptural understanding can answer instead. But hereâs what she wrote:
As we can see, not only does she say that itâs doctrine, she says itâs in the Standard Works. You misrepresented what she wrote completely.
The other LDS members didnât simply say âItâs a revelation but not a doctrine, and our Church doesnât teach itâ. On the contrary, they said it is a revelation, it is a doctrine, and the LDS Church does teach it:
âThe church does believe this is revelation, yesâ
âYesâ
âYes, and there are plenty of scriptures to support it as shown belowâ
âIt is pure revelationâ
âYes, we are taught that God was once a man, like us. Its all in the Doctrine and covenants I believeâ
âYesâ
âYes, it is taughtâ
âI have seen and heard many of our (LDS) leaders repeat this statement. To me that qualifies it as doctrine. Iâm sure Iâm wrong in so many ways, but if multiple prophets have repeated it, it must be rightâ
âIt is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church todayâ
âThe second part does get more attention âAs God now is, Man may becomeâ So this part is âtaughtâ moreâ
âEither the whole saying by Lorenzo Snow is Doctrine or the whole thing isnât!â
So your claims that it isnât doctrine and isnât taught by the LDS Church were consistently contradicted. Thereâs no disagreement over the fact that various interpretations of this doctrine are not canonical, are not official LDS Church doctrine, and may even be rejected outright by the LDS Church, but that doesnât change the fact that the teaching itself is a revelation, is a doctrine, and is taught as such by the LDS Church.
When other LDS members disagree: In that thread a discussion of how to determine LDS doctrine followed. Different LDS members had different ideas of how this was to be achieved, which was of course my original claim to you. Very tellingly, no other LDS members in that thread gave the method you had suggested (quoting D&C).
One member cited the same non-canonical newsletter article which you had cited, but acknowledged (when I pointed it out), that the very definition it contained meant that the article itself was not official, and that the statement therefore wasnât authoritative.
In fact, I helpfully demonstrated to that particular LDS member that they had misread the article, and that it included a broader source of doctrine than both he and you had thought. Not only was my point acknowledged to be true, but I was thanked for clearing this up. He told me that after having read the statement for months, he had never realised that it said what I pointed out.
Itâs a little ironic when a non-LDS member helps an LDS member to interpret their own churchâs declarations. But this was not the first time my comments received support from LDS members in that thread. In fact none of the members disagreed with any of my points, and when I made my summary of their comments the summary was agreed with (one LDS member thanking me for my post)
[quote]The Following User Says Thank You to Fortigurn For This Useful Post: Vanhin (06-25-2008)[/quote]
You are the only one in that thread who disagreed with my summary, yet you didnât oppose it in that thread, you only disagreed with it here.
I disputed your appeal to D&Câs description of quorums (which you represented as defining the only sources of official LDS doctrine), and demonstrated that not only did it say nothing about doctrine, but the entire section was about anther subject entirely. Not a single LDS member in the thread expressed any agreement with your interpretation of this section of D&C, and several of the LDS members in the thread thanked me for my post:
[quote]The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fortigurn For This Useful Post: HiJolly (06-25-2008), MrNirom (06-28-2008), Vanhin (06-25-2008)[/quote]
I noted with interest that you were considerably more restrained in your comments in front of other LDS members than you have been here. Faced with the fact that no one was disagreeing with my summary of what they wrote, with the fact that others had a different idea about how to define LDS doctrine, and with the fact that people were both agreeing with what I wrote and thanking me for it, you were not in an ideal position to articulate your disagreement since it would have required pubicly disagreeing on official doctrine with several active LDS members (ironically proving the point Iâve been making all along).
Defining doctrine: One of the LDS members in that thread made an extremely valuable contribution to the discussion. In fact it was a contribution which stated explicitly exactly what I had already said, that the LDS Church frequently teaches as truth doctrines which have not been formally canonized or declared by the Presidency or quorums as âofficialâ, yet which are to be accepted and believed by LDS members as standard LDS doctrine.
Here is the relevant section from the Ensign article which was quoted (my emphasis):
[quote]Gerald N. Lund, âI Have a Question,â Ensign, Feb. 1982, 39â40
Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System. To my knowledge there has been no âofficialâ pronouncement by the First Presidency declaring that President Snowâs couplet is to be accepted as doctrine. But that is not a valid criteria for determining whether or not it is doctrine.
Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church
teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines
but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement. This particular doctrine has been taught not only by Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the Church, but also by others of the Brethren before and since that time.[/quote]
This certainly ruins your argument that the only official LDS doctrine is found within the Standard Works and official declarations of the quorums. Again, should I listen to an inactive lapsed member of the LDS Church (and that is not a âlow blowâ, that is simply a relevant factual description based on how you have described yourself), or should I listen to the Ensign article? At the very least it seems you donât keep up with whatâs coming out of Utah.
On the other hand, you clearly keep up with whatâs coming out of FARMS and FAIR, proving again that Internet Mormons such as yourself are far removed from Utah, and take their directions from another source entirely, thus contributing to the emergence of the âeliteâ religion of the minority of LDS members which remains within the sphere of apologetics and is not taught by the Church itself.
At the end of the day, youâre basically telling me that the LDS Church invites its own members to decide for themselves whatâs doctrine and what isnât. Apparently even if something was taught by Smith himself the Church may not be able to decide if itâs true or not, inspired or not, doctrine or not:
Given that LDS members are repeatedly put in the position of having to decide for themselves what LDS doctrine is or isnât, and whether or not itâs true, itâs hardly surprising that they do exactly that, and that an extremely wide range of beliefs and disagreements over doctrine results, with Mormons themselves often unable to tell non-Mormons what is and what isnât âofficial LDS doctrineâ:
The net result is that many LDS members donât know what to believe, and end up believing what they choose to, recognizing that other LDS are going to hold completely different views. They are unable to tell non-LDS members exactly what the âofficialâ church view is supposed to be:
[quote]* âIncidently, I am in the habit, when asked âWhat do Mormons believe about X?â of saying âSome Mormons believe _____, while others believe ______.â I do this with almost every topic, to one extent or another.â
âIt seems the only honest response to this kind of questions is âI have little idea what other Mormons believe. My guess is they think all kinds of things. But I believe thisâŚâ
âWhen the little kids come home from school or primary with any number of fuzzy ideas, we explain that some families believe one thing, others another. Some act one way, others another. We tell them that is okay, but in our family we believe thisâŚâ
âJohn H. makes a key point: in the past the common and the scholarly perpectives on Mormon history and doctrine have been effectively compartmentalized. That is now breaking downâillustrated nicely by the LDS.org links to FARMS and DNA articles. What does this portend for the future?â
âEven if someone is more innocently asking what Mormons believe, an informed Mormon should both say what most Mormons socially believe and what the actual position of the church isâ
âHmmâŚI donât know any Mormons so well informed that they could honestly say what most Mormons socially believeâ
âA cursory review of the history in the Mauss books and comments on this site, moreover, might suggest that the âactual position of the churchâ is quite often difficult to discernâ
âIf I compare what Joseph seemed to believe about Book of Mormon geography with the FARMS notion of limited geography, I see a pretty big gapâ
âIn short, I think the divide between âeliteâ and âcommonâ in the church could become a real problem, but it does not have toâ
âSome people feel that âCommon Religionâ / âChapel Mormonismâ exists merely because many members are ill-informed. But if you read the scriptures and listen to the prophetsâ voice, then it becomes clear that God is a member of the âCommon Religionâ and is a Chapel Mormon. See why the distinction bodes ill?â
âIâd question the idea that the scriptures are the purview of âchapel mormonsâ when it seems like âinternet mormonsâ are the ones reading, studying and discussing themâ
âIâm just struck by the impression that, if I read a FARMS review, it seems to be speaking an entirely different language than that I hear from most church membersâ[/quote]
Now thatâs just a sample of the 155 comments. Itâs clear that this phenomenon is recognized by many LDS members. Thereâs another LDS article about it here, and here an LDS describes himself as âan early 30ish suburbanite Internet Mormon who dabbles in chapel Mormonismâthinking of getting even more active-by-the-wayâ.
I will keep returning to the point I made originally, which is that the LDS Church has historically (and does currently), presented teachings which it expects LDS members to believe, whether it explicitly terms them âofficial LDS doctrineâ or not. This includes teachings on LDS history and the geography in the Book of Mormon. Let the Ensign say it for me:
[quote]Gerald N. Lund, âI Have a Question,â Ensign, Feb. 1982, 39â40; Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System.
âTherefore, the Church teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncementâ.[/quote]
This is why so many LDS members end up confused over what constitutes LDS Church doctrine.
Internet and Chapel Mormons
We come now to one of the most important issues in the discussion. Previously you attempted to dismiss the very concept of Internet and Chapel Mormons, but presented with overwhelming evidence that this concept is widely acknowledged within the LDS Church you have now acknoweldged it also. Letâs run through the issues weâve touched on.
Who is an Internet Mormon: As I have already identified, one of the ironies in this discussion is that you are an Internet Mormon. As such, you characterize many lay members of the LDS Church as uninformed and lacking in knowledge of information which is familiar to you. But the reason why they are lacking in such knowledge is that they are Chapel Mormons. Theyâre not exposed to the same kind of material and historical information as you are, because it is not presented to them in their congregation, nor by official LDS materials made available to them.
I agree that Internet Mormons are in the minority. But I firmly disagree that missionaries constitute Internet Mormons. They typically constitute Chapel Mormons. I asked why certain doctrines are so easily found in material used to teach LDS members, such as Ensign and Sunday School manuals, and you said âBecause youâre using a search engineâ. That didnât address what I asked. I didnât ask why theey were so easily found on the Internet. I asked why they were found in material used to teach LDS members, such as Ensign and Sunday School manuals, which are Church texts.
You keep trying to avoid the fact that these doctrines are found in standard Church texts used for teaching purposes. Theyâre easily found by average LDS members (specifically Chapel Mormons), not because itâs on the Internet, but because theyâre taught in standard Church teaching materials which are made widely and commonly available to LDS members in hardcopy.
RDO vs Dr Shades: You took issue with a number of the distinctions listed by âDr Shadesâ in his article on Internet/Chapel Mormonism. I wonât respond to most of what you wrote, since it frequently simply expresses your personal opinion without actually contesting the distinction. But I will comment on a few:
You say that as an Internet Mormon. Chapel Mormons typically do not believe these are gray areas.
I donât do any such thing, and I donât believe that article does either. It simply provides a rough and useful guide to demonstrable general trends in the LDS Church which hold true for two basic groups within the Church.
They are not misleading as defined in the article and used by LDS members themselves.
These terms are not intended to indicate anything about church attendance or superiority (note that âelite religionâ and âcommon religionâ are the preferred terms used by LDS apologists, such as FARM and FAIR). The difference is not simply âa matter of awareness and studyâ, the difference is a fundamental distinction in how the entire Church is viewed.
Thatâs the typical response of the Internet Mormon, who claims that they believe the ârealâ LDS doctrine, and the Chapel Mormons are simply uninformed hicks who are either novices or not real Mormons (you claimed Internet Mormons are âtrue believersâ). Of course Chapel Mormons typically believe that Internet Mormons are insufficiently familiar with the Standard Works, insufficiently reverent of the Prophets (both living and dead), and borderline apostate in their constant personal reinterpretation of traditional LDS Church teaching. You both view each other as the âplasticâ Mormons, whilst claiming to be the âtrue believersâ.
But I know for a fact that the Chapel Mormons are not what you describe. They constitute the vast majority of the LDS membership. One unfortunate feature of the Internet Mormon such as yourself is that you typically hold views which are mariginal or fringe within the Church, and which have usually only emerged very recently (over the last 30 years at best).
Examples are the LGT, the local flood theory, acknowledgement that Smith didnât translate anything, dismissal of alleged âeyewitnessâ testimony of the plates, acknowledgement of the DNA evidence which disproves traditional teaching on Book of Mormon geography, and other issues (already mentioned).
You describe Chapel Mormons as uninformed concerning the Standard Works and the Prophets, and yet other Internet Mormons acknoweldge that this is simply untrue:
You also wrote:
[quote=âRDOâ]Internet Mormons believe living prophets wonât 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. âChapel Mormonsâ generally donât think living prophets supersede scriptures, but rather that they will be in harmony. If thereâs a conflict then the problem would be in our interpretation, not in either scripture or prophesy.
The real difference between the two is that âinternet Mormonsâ recognize that there are times a prophet will speak without it being prophesy. âChapel Mormonsâ may not, but plenty do.[/quote]
In other words, IMs interpret living prophets according to Scripture, giving precedence to Scripture (Chapel Mormons do not). Thatâs essentially what was said (âInternet Mormons believe that the scriptures supersede the living prophetsâ).
I think you misread this one:
You wrote:
Youâre saying the same as the quote I provided:
âInternet 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 timesâ
âInternet Mormons believe that a prophetâs words may not apply to at least some of the people heâs addressingâ
âChapel Mormons tend to believe that a prophetâs words apply to everyone heâs addressingâ
âwhile âchapel Mormonsâ will almost always broadly and literally interpret every scriptureâ
No difference there. You also took issue with this one, but I think you misread it as well:
You said:
[quote=âRDOâ]That, I think, is flat out wrong. âInternet Mormonsâ 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 âapostate Mormonâ group.
Now, âinternet Mormonsâ 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. âChapel Mormonsâ may think that once a person is called as a prophet theyâve virtually become perfect already and might get âtranslatedâ any minute in a chariot of fire.[/quote]
Again, youâre not differing essentially with what was said. It says that Internet Mormons do not believe that a prophet is necessarily any better than his social average. As youâve acknoweldged, you believe a prophet can be angry, arrogant, boastful, etc, and still be a prophet. These are certainly not characteristics which place a prophet above the average person.
And we both know itâs possible to obtain a Temple Recommend even if you believe Joseph Smith was a con man, a liar, took advantage of gullible people, and dreamed up the polygamy doctrine in order to sleep with other manâs wives, as long as you still believe he was a prophet and God revealed the restored gospel to him (see the TR questions here).
The significance of Internet/Chapel Mormonism: Like standard Internet Mormons, you have attempted to play down the significance of Internet/Chapel Mormonism. But this issue is very significant. As the comments of hundreds of LDS members online demonstrate, this conflict between what members are taught in chapel and what they find taught online by other LDS members (Internet Mormons), or by FAIR/FARMS has caused huge challenges for the faith of many LDS members, and has even resulted in many leaving the LDS church.
Letâs take Book of Mormon geography as an example. Far from being an insignificant or peripheral issue, the question of Book of Mormon geography has been absolutely central to the LDS Church ever since the Book of Mormon was published. Over the last century the Church has issued many teachings on the subject through its General Authorities and literature, and hundreds of books have been written by LDS members. Millions have been spent on archaeological excavations and historical investigations, which continue to this day. A separate post on this follows.
You said this:
If thatâs the only essential part about Book of Mormon geography, then why has there been a heated debate within the LDS Church for over 20 years as to whether the HGT or LGT is accurate? If itâs not âessentialâ, then why the constant arguing and division over the issue? If itâs not âessentialâ, then why the change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon? If itâs not âessentialâ, then why the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on archaeology in North American and Mesoamerica attempting to find evidence for either theory?
The fact is that it is an essential issue, and is seen as an essential issue.
You also said this:
My emphasis. But thatâs not what I find in LDS writings. The FAIR article âWhat is âOfficialâ LDS Doctrine?â (quoted approvingly by you), says this:
So there you have it. This LDS source (freely available to LDS members and non-LDS members), claims that it is a matter of revelation (in the Book of Mormon), that North America was not the âland northwardâ nor South America âthe land southwardâ. Why would FAIR claim that the Book of Mormon includes revelation concerning its own geography which specifically excludes the traditional view of the Church, if that isnât true?
Another LDS source says that the Book of Mormon does reveal specifics concerning its North American geography:
Why would he have said this if it wasnât true? And who corrected him, if it isnât true? Itâs hardly surprising that LDS members believe this, after being taught by their leaders that it has been âdefinitedly establishedâ and is âknown positivelyâ.
Though this isnât directly related to Book of Mormon geography, the LDS Bible dictionary I quoted said this (emphasis mine):
[quote]Eden, Garden of
The home of our first parents, Adam and Eve (Gen. 2: 8 - 3: 24; Gen. 4: 16; cf. Isa. 51: 3; 2 Ne. 2: 19-25; Moses 3, 4; Abr. 5), designated as a garden, eastward in Eden. Latter-day revelation confirms the biblical account of the Garden of Eden, and adds the important information that it was located on what is now the North American continent.[/quote]
Now why would the LDS Church publish their Bible dictionary so widely and make it so freely available, if it contained errors? Why not edit it first? Why would the LDS Church release such a work to the world on its official Website and encourage people to read it, without first removing anything which was false?
How about the change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon? Sure, you can say itâs not inspired, but thatâs not the point. The fact is that it constitutes a departure from what the LDS Church has traditionally asked its members to believe. Not only that, but it demonstrates a massive victory for Sorenson and his fellow advocates of the LGT, after years of heated opposition from the Church. Now are LDS members expected to believe this new introduction or not? Does the LDS Church claim that this new introduction is the truth, or not?
What is happening currently is that many Chapel Mormons are being confronted with the LGT and other new geographical or archaeological theories, and are being confused or disquieted as a result. This is not what was taught to them in chapel, or in standard LDS material. They were taught the HGT which places key events in North America, not Mesoamerica. As FARMS notes, this is most likely the majority LDS view, as a result of the historic teaching of LDS leaders:
[quote=âMichael R Ash, âWhere Did Book of Mormon Events Take Place?â, 2004, FAIRâ]'Since the days of Joseph Smith most Saints believed that the Book of Mormon took place across the entire expanse of North and South America. This theoryâreferred to as the Hemispheric Geography Theory (HGT) posits that North America is the âland northward,â that South America is the âland southward,â and that present-day Panama is the ânarrow neckâ of land.
This is a natural interpretation of Book of Mormon geography based on a cursory reading and superficial understanding to the Book of Mormon text. It is likely that Joseph Smith, his contemporaries, and most Saintsâperhaps even most Saints todayâhave unquestioningly accepted this as an accurate model for Book of Mormon geography. Related to this view is the common belief among LDS that Book of Mormon people were the founding inhabitants of all native peoples of both North and South America.'[/quote]
If, as you claim, Book of Mormon geography is a peripheral and unimportant issue, then why did the LDS Church continually appeal to North American artefacts as evidence proving the Book of Mormon true? And why did the LDS Church continually teach non-LDS members that so many events in the Book of Mormon were situated in North America? And why did the LDS Church pour thousands of dollars into archaeological expeditions of North America in an attempt to verify this teaching? And why did the LDS Church publish hundreds of articles arguing that so many events in the Book of Mormon were situated in North America?
If you say âWell the Church was speculatingâ, then why didnât the Church say âWeâre only speculatingâ? If you say âWell the Church was wrongâ, then why should I believe them about anything? This is a colossal demonstration of their unreliability, whichever way you look at it. Now youâre saying that they just donât know either when or where these events took place, when previously they were so certain. Even the Living Prophets were certain.
You claimed that this is a peripheral issue over which no Mormon should be concerned, but the fact is that LDS members have been taught for over 100 years by their own Church that this is not merely a peripheral issue, that it is an extremely important issue, and that it is a matter of validating or falsifying the Book of Mormon itself. No wonder they take it seriously.
Similar issues which have confronted Chapel Mormons include:
The idea that key eyewitnesses of the âtranslationâ process of the Book of Mormon are unreliable
The idea that the âtranslationâ process of the Book of Mormon was in fact not actually a process of translation at all
The idea that the Genesis flood was local, not global (a change necessitated by the LGT, and thus not an insignificant issue)
The fact that Joseph Smithâs âHistory of the Churchâ was not written by Joseph Smith, and was actually redacted heavily over the years in response to changing LDS beliefs and requirements
These are issues over which LDS members have become confused and troubled, and which have even prompted some to leave. Surely you can understand Chapel Mormons being upset that they were taught for years that Joseph Smithâs âHistory of the Churchâ was written by Smith, and is a reliable and accurate record, only to discover that this isnât true? Surely you can understand Chapel Mormons being confused by the increasing support for the LGT when they were consistently taught the HGT for years by the Church? Surely you can understand Chapel Mormons becoming troubled that the LGT requires the flood to have been local, when the LDS Church has for years taught that it was global?
If Noahâs flood was local (as the LGT requires), then the LDS Church is misleading its own members with teaching materials such as these. Thereâs nothing in either of these texts to qualify the statements made, and nothing telling the reader that this might in fact be completely false.
Understanding LDS members: You have claimed that your previous experiences as an active member within the LDS Church provide you with a superior understanding of LDS members to myself, and that I cannot come to reasonably accurate conclusions regarding what LDS members believe and feel without such experience. I have demonstrated this to be false, since I can on the Internet encounter and interact with potentially far more LDS members than you have in real life. I am also able to read hundreds of relevant Websites.
In support of just one of my conclusions regarding LDS members, I was able to cite half a dozen LDS Websites, including one which had over 150 comments from more than 100 members. The comments in that one page alone overwhelmingly contradicted what you were trying to tell me about Chapel/Internet Mormonism. Thereâs pages of this stuff out there.
Far from being an insignificant or peripheral issue, the question of Book of Mormon geography has been absolutely central to the LDS Church ever since the Book of Mormon was published. Over the last century the Church has issued many teachings on the subject through its General Authorities and literature, and hundreds of books have been written by LDS members. Millions of dollars have been spent on archaeological excavations and historical investigations, which continue to this day.
A review of some early Church sources will show just how important the issue of Book of Mormon geography was from the earliest days of the Church, as it was appealed to repeatedly in order to validate the Book of Mormon as an accurate historical record:
[quote=âJoseph Smith 1976, 2:79-80â]âDuring our travels [in Illinois] we visited several of the mounds which had been thrown up by the ancient inhabitants of this countryâNephites, Lamanites, etc., and this morning I went up on a high mound, near the riverâŚâ
ââŚdiscovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs the stone point of a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death.â
âHis name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains. The curse was taken from Zelph, or, at least, in partâone of his thigh bones was broken by a stone flung from a sling, while in battle, years before his death. He was killed in battle by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites.â[/quote]
[quote=âMessenger & Advocate, Oliver Cowdrey, July 1835â]âŚhere [in Palmyra, New York] between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed.
By turning to the 529th and 530th pages of the book of Mormon you will read Mormonâs account of the last great struggle of his people, as they were encamped round this hill CumorahâŚâ
âThis hill, by the Jaredites, was called Ramah: by it, or around it, pitched the famous army of Coriantumr their tents. Coriantumr was the last king of the JareditesâŚâ
âIn this same spot, in full view from the top of this same hill, one may gaze with astonishment upon the ground which was twice covered with the dead and dying of our fellowmen.â[/quote]
[quote=âMessenger & Advocate, WW Phelps, November 1835â]âCumorah, the artificial hill of north America, is well calculated to stand in this generation, as a monument of marvelous works and wonders. Around that mount died millions of the JareditesâŚâ
âThere, too, fell the NephitesâŚâ[/quote]
[quote=âOrson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 1964, 12:341-42â]âThey [the Jaredites] landed to the south of this, just below the Gulf of California, on our western coast. They inhabited North AmericaâŚâ
âAfter the destruction of the Jaredites, the Lord brought two other colonies to people this land. One colony landed a few hundred miles north of the Isthmus on the western coast; the other landed on the coast of Chili, upwards of two thousand miles south of them. The latter were called the Nephites and LamanitesâŚâ
âNephi and the righteous separated themselves from the Lamanites and traveled eighteen hundred miles north until they came to the head waters of what we term the Amazon river. There Nephi located his little colony in the country supposed to be EcuadorâŚâ
ââŚthe Nephites fled again some twenty daysâ journey to the northward and united themselves with the people of ZarahemlaâŚ'[/quote]
[quote=âOrson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 1964, 14:325-26â]â[the Nephites] came still further northward, emigrating from the head waters of what we now term the river Amazon, upon the western coast, or not far from the western coast, until they came on the waters of the river which we call the Magdalena. On this river, not a great distance from the mouth thereof, in what is now termed the United States of Columbia, they built their great capital city. They also discovered another nation that already possessed that country called the people of ZarahemlaâŚâ
âThe Nephites and the people of Zarahemla united together and formed a great and powerful nation, occupying the lands south of the Isthmus for many hundreds of miles, and also from the Pacific on the west to the Atlantic on the east, spreading all through the country. The Lamanites about this time also occupied South America, the middle or southern portion of itâŚâ[/quote]
Of course it is very clear from these quotes not only that Book of Mormon geography was a central issue in the LDS Church from the earliest date, but that it was considered a vital source of evidence for the veracity of the Book of Mormon.
However, although there was widespread agreement that the events of the Book of Mormon took place largely in North America, Book of Mormon advocates found it difficult to agree precisely where specific events took place. Such was the importance of this question, and such was the damage to membersâ faith caused by confusion on the issue, that President George Cannon finally attempted to suppress further presentations of Book of Mormon geography:
[quote=âGeorge Q. Cannon, First Presidency, 1890â]âThere is a tendency, strongly manifested at the present time among some of the brethren, to study the geography of the Book of Mormon. We have heard of numerous lectures, illustrated by suggestive maps, being derived on this subject during the present winter, generally under the auspices of the Improvement Societies and Sunday Schools.â
âNo two original investigators agreeâŚâ
âWhen, as is the case, one student places a certain city at the Isthmus of Panama, a second in Venezuela, and a third in Guiana or northern Brazil, it is obvious that suggestive maps prepared by these brethren would confuse instead of enlightenâŚâ
âFor these reasons we have strong objections to the introduction of maps and their circulation among our people which profess to give the location of the Nephite cities and settlements.â[/quote]
Despite this statement, Book of Mormon geography continued to dominate the LDS Church, and official materials continued to uphold the traditional North American view. From 1879 to 1920, the Book of Mormon was accompanied Prattâs notes, including the statements âthe land of Nephi is supposed to have been in or near Ecuador, South Americaâ, and âthe land of Zarahemla is supposed to have been north of the head waters of the river Magdalena, its northern boundary being a few days journey south of the Isthmusâ.
Today the subject of Book of Mormon geography remains as central to the Churchâs authenticity as ever, though on the subject of specific geography the tide has turned quite dramatically. The âLimited Geography Theoryâ started to receive serious support in about the 1970s, and is now the most popular theory of Book of Mormon geography among Internet Mormons and scholastic LDS apologists.
However, even FAIR and FARMS apologists make no secret of the fact that the LGT is a new theory which represents a substantial departure from what the LDS Church originally believed and taught:
In fact, the LGT first started to emerge seriously during the 1950s. But it failed to gain serious support, such was the opposition with which it was met by the LDS Church leadership. Here are the words of President Joseph Fielding Smith, in which he not only condemns the LGT as factually inaccurate, but as a complete contradiction of what the LDS Church had taught for over 100 years:
[quote=âApostle Joseph Fielding Smith, First Presidency,1954â]âWithin recent years there has arisen among certain students of the Book of Mormon a theory to the effect that within the period covered by the Book of Mormon, the Nephites and Lamanites were confined almost entirely within the borders of the territory comprising Central America and the Southern portions of MexicoâŚâ
'This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years.
Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located as the Church has held during this past century, but that in very deed such is the caseâŚ'[/quote]
It is clear from this evidence (and more could be provided), that:
Far from being an insignificant or peripheral issue, the question of Book of Mormon geography has been absolutely central to the LDS Church ever since the Book of Mormon was published
Historically the LDS Church has appealed repeatedly to Book of Mormon geography in order to validate the Book of Mormon as a genuine historical record, and to confirm specific truth claims of the LDS Church itself
Over the last century the Church has issued many teachings on the subject through its General Authorities and literature, and hundreds of books have been written by LDS members
The majority of LDS Church material over the last 100 years has supported the traditional HGT, with the events taking place largely in North America
These facts are contested or obscured only by fringe Internet Mormons.
This post will be much briefer, youâll be happy to know.
One God: The original poster who asked if Mormons believe there is only one God is not a Mormon, so it is illegitimate of you to claim that the term âGodâ in the question has to be understood in the Mormon sense. That is not the sense intended by the original poster. That is not the âdefault assumptionâ of non-Mormons when they say âGodâ.
In any case, you have now acknowledged that Mormons do in fact believe that there is more than one âcapital Gâ God:
Yes, you refer to theme as âone Godâ, but you donât believe that they are one being, you understand their unity as one of purpose not ontology (âthe Godheadâ). So you donât believe in only one âcapital Gâ God, you believe there are three âcapital Gâ Gods. As I have demonstrated, you also believe that there are other, âlower case gâ gods (as if that makes a difference). So all the talk about fallacies of equivocation is irrelevant.
This makes the following statement highly ironic:
Whoâs twisting here?
Did Smith twist here?
Pratt the Twister?
No, none of these are âtwistingâ words and meanings âso that you can say Mormons believe in more than one God (capital âGâ)â. All of these are explicit statements to that very effect.
So you donât believe there is only one âcapital Gâ God, and you donât believe that there is one âlower case gâ god. You believe there are three âcapital Gâ Gods (Father, son, Holy Spirit), and other âlower case gâ gods. Of course LDS Scriptures such as I cited donât even make this distinction (this is a case of ad hoc Internet Mormon apologetics), but itâs useful to demonstrate from your own words that the LDS Church believes there is more than one âGodâ and more than one âgodâ.
Jesus as God: The Bible does say that there is only one God. But the Bble does not call both Jesus and the Father God. Jesus is referred to as THEOS in less than half a dozen texts, and always in contexts in which THEOS does not mean âGodâ (please understand that the semantic domain of the Greek word THEOS is not restricted to âGodâ). This is acknowledged even within standard trinitarian scholarship.
Grammar: If we agree on the grammar, thatâs certainly news to me. Youâve been claiming that Iâm wrong to insist that âelohimâ is grammatically singular in this place. You would have to admit that Smith was wrong to claim it was plural, and to interpret it as plural:
Iâve already offered you the Internet Mormon escape clause âHe was speaking as a man, not a prophetâ).
Youâve also insisted that the grammar doesnât indicate that only one person created, whereas it does (the singular noun/verb agreement proves it). So Iâm not sure exactly what you agree with. Could you make it clear?
Itâs not a matter of both of us having different views and neither being able to prove theirâs is correct. Iâm able to prove mine is correct because not only is the grammar on my side but the proximate literary evidence is also on my side. The liteary device in Genesis 1 which is used when God addresses the heavenly court has been recognized for years. Thatâs why thereâs a scholarly consensus on this. You might as well try to argue for a flat earth.
The Book of Abraham: This seems to have thrown you for a loop, since youâre not only engaging in ad hoc apologetics but at least youâre acknowledging it. You claim that âThe Book of Abraham uses Gods (plural) in a way that is different from the rest of canonâ, but I see no evidence for this. Smith and others certainly didnât see it that way, since they also referred to âcapital Gâ Gods, and didnât see this as any different from the rest of the canon. Nor did they believe these multiple âcapital Gâ Gods were simply the Father, son, and Holy Spirit:
Your personal idea that the Book of Abraham uses âGodsâ plural in a way that is different from the rest of the canon, and your own personal ideas about what this may mean, are actually irrelevant. Remember, you are the one who warned me about accepting explanations of doctrine from individual LDS members rather than from the official channels.
ANE polytheism: What I want you to address is the fact that LDS scholars appeal to ANE polytheism in order to defend the LDS belief in gods, plural, who are not the Father, son, or Holy Spirit. Sometimes these gods are capitalized in apologist writings, sometimes they are not. But the point remains. These scholars are appealing to these writings to support a doctrine youâre trying to tell me doesnât exist.
Elohim: No, there is no amount of research into ANE texts which could ever mean that Smithâs understanding of the âimâ suffix in âelohimâ is totally correct and that the relevant academic authorities (not me, thanks very much), are wrong. This is partly due to the fact that the âimâ suffix in âelohimâ developed very late whilist the vast majority of ANE texts were written centuries prior to the word (you have to move to the early Classical era in order to start finding relevant texts), and partly due to the fact that the meaning of the âimâ suffix in âelohimâ has for over a century been fully documented from all relevant lexical sources. There is no scholarly disagreement over its grammatical meaning, and there is no speculation. The facts are the facts.
By the way, certain LDS scholars have acknowledged that Smithâs understanding of âelohimâ was inaccurate. You donât have to keep trying to defend something which has already been conceded.
LDS net: You omitted to mention the fact that the members there thanked me for a post which you claimed (on Forumosa, not there), was wrong. They didnât agree with you, they agreed with me. I didnât just listen to what they said, I quoted them accurately in my summary, and they agreed with my summary of what they had said. They even thanked me for it. Yet you said (on Forumosa, not there), that my summary was wrong. Clearly they didnât agree with you.
They thanked you for your post, but it wasnât a post which contradicted my summary or anything I had said.
On the contrary, I have given the correct answer, which is this:
There is considerable disagreement within the LDS community as to exactly what it is that the LDS Church officially believes, and how this is to be determined
Many LDS members find themselves incapable of explaining to non-members exactly what official LDS Church beliefs are, and acknowledge that they cannot themselves speak for âWhat Mormons believeâ given the confusion which exists on the subject
I have also observed accurately that:
It is official LDS belief (and taught as such), that as man is, God once was, and that as God is, man may become
It is official LDS belief (and taught as such), that there is more than one God; that there is a plurality of Gods or gods
If I saw any evidence for this, I would certainly say it. Why do you keep cutting the Young/Snow statement in half and leaving out the part you donât like?
Heâs referring to Genesis 1:27, and there is in fact disagreement between us as to the referent of the grammar. I believe it refers to one person (singular noun/singular verb agreement), he believes it refers to more than one (though earlier he actually argued that it refers to one person, and even cited LDS Scripture saying it refers to one person).
Heâs referring to Genesis 1:27, and there is in fact disagreement between us as to the referent of the grammar. I believe it refers to one person (singular noun/singular verb agreement), he believes it refers to more than one (though earlier he actually argued that it refers to one person, and even cited LDS Scripture saying it refers to one person).[/quote]
Well maybe RDO could do us thye common courtesy and quote the verse from his Bible and the name of the Bible. King James or other. After all we would like to see.
I could quote the whole verse but will wait for RDOâs version.
Can you show me a passage from the bible where God is spelt with a small g?[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]
SO please go ahead and scan in the relevant pages from the bible and post them on this thread
Of course we can all play games with words. Can you is not would you or do so.
Not that it matters. If we all beive in Jesus we are christians and all have the same god or gods if you wish and we all get to go to heaven⌠RDO has said so beforeâŚ
so nothing to worry about if the scriptures are poorly written, the prophets in error, or we become elapsed members of one church or another.
Oh yeahâŚ
Can you show me a passage from the bible where God is spelt with a small g?[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]
RDO, you are looking for a world of hurt here. You know there is absolutely no point in appealing to capitalization in any English Bible, since it has absolutely no relevance to the original languages, which were not written using capitals.
Oh yeahâŚ
Can you show me a passage from the bible where God is spelt with a small g?[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]
RDO, you are looking for a world of hurt here. You know there is absolutely no point in appealing to capitalization in any English Bible, since it has absolutely no relevance to the original languages, which were not written using capitals.[/quote]
However, RDI has implied in other posts that there is a clear difference. God GOD godâŚ
Yes the original question was whether or not Mormons are Christians, but I already answered yes to that, and weâve moved on to more interesting topics.
We now have three good solid discussions going on the following topics:
Who created in Genesis 1
Defining LDS doctrine
Internet and Chapel Mormons
Iâm going to compress these three into one post.[/quote]
Alright. So, weâre now doing a âWhat (Controversial Things) Do Mormons Believeâ thread, rather than âAre they Christiansâ. Youâll have to pardon my resistance to changing the topic. Iâm sort of stubborn about staying on the original topic and tend to try and relate tangents back to the original.
[quote]Who Created In Genesis 1
Special pleading: Youâve charged me with reading the text on the basis of my theology[/quote]
More like I say you have an opinion and you canât see that thereâs another way to viewing the text other than what agrees with how you have already come to view it. Iâm not saying that you base your belief on faith in what some teacher told you, but rather you base it in your confidence in that you understand what it means and there can be no other meaning.
Where have I done that? The only time I have done that was to say that Joseph Smith agreed with the way you were reading the grammar. There are times where I will say that Joseph Smith received revelation that a particular passage was corrupted, but in this case his inspired version agrees with the original grammar.
I donât have to appeal to Joseph Smith or prophesy to deal with this. I accept the text as is, and have said so from the beginning. You told me that I didnât agree with it. You told me that Joseph Smith didnât agree with it. Iâve responded by saying that, no, we thatâs how we read the grammar, too.
There you go again. It does not. I have no problem with the Hebrew grammar or how it is rendered into English. You and I do not disagree over the grammar of that passage.
Not just tacitly, explicitly, from the very start. I told you that I agreed that the grammar of the verse in question was âGod (singular) made man in mine (singular possessive) own image.â
Right. From the start. Yet you keep saying I say the verse has to be read as plural.
That was never a question.
That is correct. However, it does not exclude there being anyone else. It just does not refer to them. Which is why I gave the English sentence, âI went to church on Sunday,â as a sentence for comparison. In this sentence it is clear that it refers to one and only one person. However, it does not exclude anyone else from doing the same thing.
Our disagreement is not over grammar. It is over a matter of pragmatics.
No, itâs not a plural according to the grammar, but it is an inflectionally plural form. Why is it a plural form? Now hereâs a point where I canât talk about it intelligently, but Mormon scholars who also know ancient Hebrew have. So, here Iâm just going to say thereâs an academic disagreement I canât participate unless I learn an ancient language.
Itâs always relevant to something. But it canât always be used to answer a question. Grammatical context of Genesis 1:26 is not helpful in determining the antecedent of âusâ.
No, itâs disputed. Your words are just a pretty way to say, âthe way I read it, it means heavenly courtâ. You cannot look at Genesis and get that. The footnotes you referred to donât help you. It just says that the author of the footnotes thinks it refers to the angelic assembly. Thatâs no better than you saying that. Itâs your and his assumption.
Well, I hate to argue about scriptures, but you keep quoting and re-quoting as if that makes a difference. Well, letâs look at your argument. You just claimed that in the following verses God says âusâ when saying do something and then only one does it. Actually, none of these verses work for that purpose.
1 Kings 22:19-22-- God doesnât say âusâ. God asks for a volunteer spirit. Irrelevant.
Job 1:6-12-- God and Satan converse. God does not say âusâ. Irrelevant.
Job 2:1-6-- Isaiah sees God in a vision. God does not say âusâ. Irrelevant.
Now, earlier you were using these verses to establish that there is an angelic court. I have no problem with that. But, these verses do not establish that thereâs an angelic court at the beginning of Creation. Still, I have no problem with that, because there are other verses (later on in Job, God makes reference to their being an angelic host at creation) that should serve and I do believe that there was an angelic court then.
However, to say that God was referring to an angelic court in Genesis 1:26 is not supported by the text or by the scriptural references you just gave. All you have is commentary by a person who shares your point of view. You are making an assumption.
The recognized and documented facts is that: 1- The Bible says there exists an angelic host in heaven. That is documented. But, that God was speaking to an angelic host there is an assumption.
Gee, a scholarly consensus. Meaning a lot people are making the same assumption. Are Mormon scholars included in the consensus? And what is the consensus based on? Not the Bible.
Not conflicting.
No, I havenât. 1 record said God made man and the world. The other said Jesus and God the Father made man and the world. There is no conflict between these two statements. You read them as if they entail exclusivity, but that is a misreading and misunderstanding of pragmatics in English.
Your insistence that there is a contradiction is based on an error in analysis of meaning of simple statements.
Joseph Smith was the same translator for both books, as well as the Book of Mormon. He was familiar with the writing style of the Bible and used that when translating. That nicely explains the similarities in style.
I mentioned about different languages because you incorrectly claimed Joseph Smith was translating the word Elohim from the Book of Abraham. That was supposed to be translated from Egyptian, not Hebrew.
Sorry, you are once again mis-stating LDS beliefs. The official LDS doctrine is that Jesus Christ is the creator of the earth under the direction of the Father, to whom all glory is given. Canonical references specify God, and in the case of the Book of Abraham, Gods (meaning Jesus Christ and the Father according to my interpretation).
That other gods were directed to assist is not canonical, but would not be in conflict with established LDS doctrine.
[quote]Defining LDS Doctrine
To date youâve really proved my original argument on this matter beyond doubt. I said that it was difficult to determine LDS doctrine due to the level of disagreement even among LDS members as to what constitutes LDS doctrine[/quote]
Only among those who havenât learned better. There are plenty of Mormons who donât know the standard for what constitutes doctrine. But speak to a stake president, Area Authority, or General Authority and youâll get the same answer.
Back to this again. Lorenzo Snowâs statement is not official. Period.
You quoted sources that used the word âdoctrineâ, in reference to that and to the King Follet Discourse. In most cases, the âdoctrineâ being referred to is not that God was once man, but that man can become like God and even become gods. That is doctrine, and in almost every source you cited, that was what the quote was given in reference to.
Those quotes are not official doctrine. They refer in part to things that are within doctrine.
I saw that. And they consistently agreed with me, not you. Most posters made it clear that when it came to how God got to be God, it was speculation, and that the doctrine referred to in the quotes you were using referred to the idea of exaltation and eternal progression of man. That is official doctrine, while the other part is not.
Anyone can read that thread for themselves and come to their own conclusion.
Oh?
Anyone can look and see. When it comes to how God got to be God, we only know that he understands mortality and experienced it somehow. How and in what way is a total gray area and not taught in church.
I didnât misrepresent her at all. I pointed out that she admitted to a lack of familiarity with the scriptures. She thought it was in the Standard Works. But can you find it there?
[quote]The other LDS members didnât simply say âItâs a revelation but not a doctrine, and our Church doesnât teach itâ. On the contrary, they said it is a revelation, it is a doctrine, and the LDS Church does teach it:
âThe church does believe this is revelation, yesâ
âYesâ
âYes, and there are plenty of scriptures to support it as shown belowâ
âIt is pure revelationâ[/quote]
[quote=âPapilioMemnonâ]
Fortigurn:I have a few questions: * What doctrine is being referred to here? Exaltation - The potential man has to become as Heavenly Father & Jesus Christ.
Fortigurn: * Is this a revelation?
Yes, and there are plenty of scriptures to support it as shown below.[/quote]
His âYesâ answers were about Exaltation.
[quote=âutcowboyâ]* âI have seen and heard many of our (LDS) leaders repeat this statement. To me that qualifies it as doctrine. Iâm sure Iâm wrong in so many ways, but if multiple prophets have repeated it, it must be rightâ
âEither the whole saying by Lorenzo Snow is Doctrine or the whole thing isnât!â[/quote]
And thatâs the second person. Who said, âIâm sure Iâm wrong in so many ways.â And he is.
The quote by Lorenzo Snow is not itself doctrine. It does, however, refer to some things that are doctrine.
[quote=âHiJollyâ]Just a few thoughts on this. Doctrines of the Church are found in only 3 sources, per official church statemnent on lds.org:
1-- The four standard works of scripture
2-- The official proclamations and declarations of the First Presidency of the Church
3-- The 13 Articles of Faith
So President Snowâs revelation is not doctrine of the Church, as of the afore-mentioned statement on doctrine of 2007.
I believe it is true, of course, but IIRC there is no doctrinal support for the idea of God once being as man is at some point, anywhere. Therefore, this portion of the âcoupletâ is not currently taught in the Church, other than an occasional reference to Pres. Snowâs statement.
This is validated by Pres. Hinckleyâs statment âI donât know that we teach thatââŚ[/quote]
You later corrected him on the bolded part. He was wrong because statements by the entire Quorum of the Twelve would also be official, as would the combined voice of all the Quorums of the Seventy. But they must be spoken unanimously. Otherwise, his statement was accurate.
No, it was consistently supported. Your claim that it was official doctrine was somewhat inconsistently contradicted, but it was still contradicted by a majority of posters. Those who agreed with you tended to be less sure of themselves.
Thanks for the first part, thatâs most of what I want to agree on. However, youâre still wrong on the second half.
It is not revelation for the whole Church. It was revelation for Lorenzo Snow before he even joined the Church, to say nothing of becoming a prophet. It is not as a statement official doctrine, though it refers to things that are official doctrine. It is not taught as such by the LDS Church. And the statements by other LDS members back that up.
Multiple forum members said that it was the Standard Works + Official Proclamations made by the First Presidency (but that should also include the Quorum of the 12, and the full Seventy). They donât usually go to D&C on the matter of authority because they already accept the authority. You specifically asked for something from canon, so I gave you the D&C section.
Not canonical, no. Official, yes. Binding as scripture, no. A really good guide, yes.
No, not me. I was well aware that the First Presidency is not the only source of official proclamations.
They were not trying to argue. Just answer. And they thanked me for my post. SoâŚ
Itâs a matter of courtesy.
So? Itâs still the canonical reference to the authority in the Church. The real authority comes from God, but itâs stated in the canon there in D&C.
Heh, they were unaware of the background of the discussion. Nitpicking and quarreling is not welcomed on that forum. I avoided that there. Here, it is common practice to argue and confront, and not to do so would make you look weak. There, being confrontational and argumentative would get a very different reception.
[quote]Gerald N. Lund, âI have a Question,â Ensign, Feb. 1982, 39â40
Gerald N. Lund, Teacher Support Consultant for the Church Education System.
To my knowledge there has been no âofficialâ pronouncement by the First Presidency declaring that President Snowâs couplet is to be accepted as doctrine. [/quote]
So, that covers whether or not it is official. It is not.
Unfortunately, Elder Lund was not a General Authority in 1982. He was a consultant. Heâs a General Authority now, though. I have to wonder if his position on this statement has changed.
[quote]Generally, the First Presidency issues official doctrinal declarations when there is a general misunderstanding of the doctrine on the part of many people. Therefore, the Church
teaches many principles which are accepted as doctrines
but which the First Presidency has seen no need to declare in an official pronouncement.[/quote]
Especially when itâs already included in canon.
This certainly ruins your argument that the only official LDS doctrine is found within the Standard Works and official declarations of the quorums.[/quote]
Not really. Elder Lundâs statement does not say that this is official doctrine. It just says it should not be lightly dismissed. We canât say itâs not doctrine, but neither can we say it is. We canât say it isnât true just because itâs not an âofficial doctrineâ.
I read this back in the 1980âs. But I admit I had forgotten about it.
Geez. Thatâs ridiculous. First, I only read FARMS or FAIR when Iâm interested in a particular topic. I donât go through their papers one by one. Second, I read all the Conference reports.
Your idea of Mormonism is so skewed, itâs not worth responding to.
When it isnât coming from the First Presidency, Quorum of the 12, or canon, then they should ask God to tell them.
Yes. Joseph Smith made a number of errors. He was even chastised for it in Doctrine and Covenants. However, if he were to declare that he received a revelation from God and that these were the words of God, then it would be a different matter.
The same is true of the prophet today. If the prophet says âI was told by God in a vision XXXXâ, then that would pretty much be the end of the discussion. The First Presidency would issue a joint statement on it and that would be official doctrine.
Not on essential matters. On things less vital, the Church (and God) gives much less focus.
In most cases, thatâs because there is no official doctrine on the matter. All the angst over it is unnecessary.
The bolded part is wrong. Sorry.
Internet and Chapel Mormons
Geez. This is the least important issue of all. Itâs a case of people not doing their reading and putting too much emphasis on things that donât matter.
I havenât avoided it. Iâve dealt with it, thoroughly. You just ignored my response.
Itâs very rough, and not very useful.
They are not misleading as defined in the article and used by LDS members themselves.[/quote]
Those are not Mormon terms. Theyâre terms applied to Mormons by an outsider.
They ARE misleading because âinternet Mormonsâ are quite often the most active members in the Church, while âchapel Mormonsâ are more likely not to actually have attended long or are that active.
Because of awareness and study.
Bull. Chapel Mormons usually arenât even aware of the discussion. This âdistinctionâ is totally artificial and doesnât reflect reality.
Really? How do you know that? Seriously, Iâm sure I know a lot more church members than you. And my groupings is definitely more accurate than the âchapelâ âinternetâ idea, which does nothing to really understand the groups.
I reject the terms chapel Mormon and internet Mormon because they are screwed up terms that are pretty much worthless for identifying what people believe.
And then you change the words.
Donât try and interpret my words. You mangle them.
No, I said they will think living prophets wonât contradict scripture because both are from God, and God isnât going to contradict himself. However, a living prophet acting in official capacity can give new revelation-- such as doing away with an old practice or starting a new one.
No, I said the quote was backwards. I donât agree with it because of that.
No, I disagreed with it.
Yes, I was. I said that prophets are going to be people of high moral quality, of necessity. They wonât be perfect, but will be very Christ-like.
The whole concept is flawed, and your concept of LDS society is flawed. Iâm a long term member. And, no, Iâm not actually a lapsed member, just inactive recently because of some trouble.
Not very scientific. Come back when you have real data.
No. Thereâs no point.
The problem comes down to people caring about details and not understanding the doctrine. Not because there isnât a clear definition of what the official doctrine is, but because people get caught up in their own thoughts and forget to turn to God.
Oh yeahâŚ
Can you show me a passage from the bible where God is spelt with a small g?[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]
RDO, you are looking for a world of hurt here. You know there is absolutely no point in appealing to capitalization in any English Bible, since it has absolutely no relevance to the original languages, which were not written using capitals.[/quote]
Iâm not looking for a world of hurt. I was responding to the question.
However, the fact that the English versions of the Bible donât reflect the original text doesnât mean itâs entirely irrelevant. It does reveal how English speakers think of the issue of capitalization in reference to the term God.
Oh yeahâŚ
Can you show me a passage from the bible where God is spelt with a small g?[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]
RDO, you are looking for a world of hurt here. You know there is absolutely no point in appealing to capitalization in any English Bible, since it has absolutely no relevance to the original languages, which were not written using capitals.[/quote]
Iâm not looking for a world of hurt. I was responding to the question.
However, the fact that the English versions of the Bible donât reflect the original text doesnât mean itâs entirely irrelevant. It does reveal how English speakers think of the issue of capitalization in reference to the term God.[/quote]
Only that nouns of persons or places are spelt with capital letters and nothing more.
There is no difference whether you spell god God GOD or any other way to me and many others that I know of.
You are just being pedantic for the sake of being so.
Oh yeahâŚ
Can you show me a passage from the bible where God is spelt with a small g?[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]
RDO, you are looking for a world of hurt here. You know there is absolutely no point in appealing to capitalization in any English Bible, since it has absolutely no relevance to the original languages, which were not written using capitals.[/quote]
Iâm not looking for a world of hurt. I was responding to the question.[/quote]
Iâm talking about the fact that youâre happily following a complete red herring, and if you think youâre going to be able to make any kind of theological point out of it, youâre wasting your time.
It does in the context of the issue under discussion.
That is not relevant to the topic under discussion.
That is correct. However, it does not exclude there being anyone else. It just does not refer to them.
And itâs that simple.[/quote]
That is your interpretation. Very liberal. If there is only one creator why would there be mention of another? The text does not need to exclude anyone else as there isnât anybody esle.
The text precludes there being others as
It does not refer to them as you put it as there is no them.
Thatâs just your imagination introducing entities which are not mentioned. It is your belief only. imho
[quote]So [color=blue]God[/color] created human beings, making them to be like [color=blue]himself[/color] [color=blue]He[/color] created them male and female, blessed them and said, " have many children, so that your descendents will live all over the earth and bring it under their control. [color=blue]I [/color] am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals. [color=blue]I[/color] have provided all kinds of grain and fruit for you to eat: [/quote][/quote]
Nowhere does it say we or they. There are no others. You have introduced them where no text does, on your own accord.