Are Mormons Christians?

[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”] . From the start. You are trying to say LDS says a singular is plural. I have shown beyond doubt that the LDS reading of Genesis 1:27 is singular.

The official belief of the LDS Church is that Jesus Christ is the Creator under the direction of the Father. That is and always has been the official position of the LDS Church.

[color=blue]Speculation exists that Christ likewise directed others to participate, but such would not be Gods as the Father and Son are (and are one).[/color] [/quote]

[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”] [color=blue]Verse 27 refers to one person as the creator, and only one person.

That is correct. However, it does not exclude there being anyone else. It just does not refer to them.

And it’s that simple. [/color][/quote]

[color=blue]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 isn’t anybody esle. [/color]

The text precludes there being others as

It does not refer to them as you put it as there is no them.

That’s just your imagination introducing entities which are not mentioned. It is your belief only. imho

[quote][color=blue]So God created human beings, making them to be like himself
He 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.
I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals.
I have provided all kinds of grain and fruit for you to eat: [/color][/quote]

Nowhere does it say we or they. There are no others. You have introduced them where no text does, on your own accord.

[/quote]

So what you are really saying is that there is only ONE GOD when God created the universe. then later on you SPECULATE that others may have been present because your interpreteation is that the author did not write specifically enough to preclude others? So is this what your believe individually or is this Mormon doctine?

[color=blue]PS Wasn’t Jesus really only begotten through from conception and birth through the vigin mary? the holy trinity not completed until christs death at the crucifiction and christs ascendency into heaven?[/color]

Sure it is.[/quote]
Why is it?[/quote]
Because we’re dealing with the meaning of the words. Orthodox Christians and Mormons both refer to God with a capital ‘G’ as meaning Deity, the Supreme Being, Trinity, or Godhead. Any other god, false or not, get the lower case ‘g’.

Do orthodox Christians believe in there being true gods other than God? No.
Do Mormons believe that? Yes.
Do orthodox Christians believe in there being more than one God/Supreme Being, with God meaning Father, Son, Holy Spirit? No.
Do Mormons believe that? Also no, but there is unofficial speculation.

Yes, but then then you tried pull a fast one and change the question to God & gods and say they meant the same thing.

I haven’t proved these?

  • That LDS Scripture refers to ‘Gods’ (capital ‘G’ gods)[/quote]
    That wasn’t a point of contention. It’s the interpretation that is under discussion.

No, you haven’t. You just proved you don’t understand LDS doctrine.

That was not something you had to prove and is not the point of the discussion.

You claim you proved that? Sorry, that’s mine. I proved it by stating the fact.

No, you haven’t proven that.

No, you just stated your opinion that you thought it was so essential. It’s not worth commenting on other to say it’s not something discussed in church meetings and only scholars say much about it.

You mean, the subject of geography? You haven’t shown a single authoritative source.

No, you don’t. You’ve said so many things that are not correct and when you have been corrected refused to listen. Instead of listening to the more knowledgeable Mormons you meet, you call the “Internet Mormons” and say they don’t know the real doctrine.

Hah! Amazing. I am intellectually honest and make it clear that on one point in the discussion I am speaking from my own interpretation as a way to harmonize a question, and you take that out of context as if to mean nothing I say is what is official.

Virtually everything I have discussed is what is contained in official doctrine. In cases where I am not giving official doctrine, I state it clearly.

That’s actually really pathetic that you would attempt to use that in that way.

About if “Gods” refers exclusively to the Father and Jesus? No, I’m not giving you an official position. On everything else, yes.

Actually, you quoted a number of them yourself.[/quote]

I didn’t quote a single Scripture which included the word ‘Jesus’, or said that only Jesus was involved, creating on behalf of the Father.

I don’t accept that as the full truth, because I know it’s not the full truth. That’s the ‘milk before meat’.

I’ve already made that clear. 26 and 27 are both correct. God created the universe. He invited others to participate in the creation of man. 27 does not refer to anyone else, but it does not exclude anyone else, either.[/quote]

You are not being clear. When you say that God invited others to participate, who actually created? Please choose:

  • others were involved— particularly a pre-mortal Jesus’

  • ‘LDS believe the Son carried it out’

  • Something else

This is completely untrue. The grammar of verse 27 excludes the involvement of any of the referents of ‘us’ in verse 26, other than ‘elohim’. Remember, you’re not actually arguing with me, you’re arguing with trained linguists and Hebrew authorities whom I have read. There’s a scholarly consensus on this which you (RDO, of no particular relevant training), are attempting to overthrow. Pardon my skepticism.

Yes you are. You did so repeatedly.[/quote]

Where? I’ve said explicitly that the grammar in BOA and BOMs differs, not that it’s the same.

That wasn’t a mistake. The Hebrew is part of the Vorlage of the BOA. I’ve offered evidence for this to which you haven’t even responded.

No RDO, not in this case. You yourself told me that the BOA is different to the rest of the canon in this regard. And I have already pointed out that the BOA is in agreement with Smith’s new revelation that the creation was not the work of one person, but of more than one. It is recognized even in LDS writings that BOMs and BOA are not saying the same. It is recognized that the BOA revelation provided additional information which was not understood in the BOM revelation. The doctrine changed.

Sorry RDO, I don’t want ad hoc apologetics. Private interpretations of individual Mormons simply will not do. You have told me this yourself repeatedly. What’s telling is that you don’t know the official Church doctrine on this issue, but you want me to believe your private interpretation.

You’ve given me no reason not to. When you told me that Mormons don’t believe in capital ‘G’ Gods, and I read for myself in the BOA that you do, I had no reason not to trust my own reading. I still don’t.

All the above bogus or slanted beyond help.[/quote]

That was a copout I didn’t expect from you. Either substantiate the claim, or admit you can’t.

In that case it should be perfectly simple to provide the evidence which debunks those specific claims, a mere copy/paste. Please do so.

No, I am saying that this is not the whole truth of what LDS believe. Not only do I know this from the LDS Scriptures, I know it because you said ‘others were involved— particularly a pre-mortal Jesus’.

But RDO, I have quoted from LDS sources (and not just the Scriptures). You told me yourself to go to Scripture. You also told me that you don’t know the official LDS position on this issue, and that what you’re telling me is just your private interpretation.

It’s your private interpretation. You told me before I can’t rely on these. Please provide official LDS doctrine.

I have. Not only that, but I quoted you saying it, ‘others were involved— particularly a pre-mortal Jesus’.

RDO, you didn’t even address my point.

Utterly false. Everything I have seen on that website is a perfect description of what Mormons believe and is taught. I’m a Mormon, so I should know. You have decided from reading anti-Mormon sources and listening to internet chat that you know what is taught.[/quote]

You’re not dealing with the issue RDO. I am not saying that what is on the Website is not what LDS believe. I am saying that it is not all they believe. It’s the ‘milk before the meat’. Remember, the LDS Website presents Smiths’ ‘History of the Church’ as if it was written by him, when we both know that only part of it was written by him. The visiting reader is not told this. We also know that it was heavily edited and redacted over the years, which is also not revealed to the reader. The visiting reader is not told of the various different accounts of Smith’s ‘First Vision’. They are not told that Smith ‘translated’ the plates by looking at a stone in a hat. They are shown images of the plates and the ‘translation’ process of the plates which even LDS scholars agree are misleading.

That’s all ‘milk before the meat’. Here’s Jeff Lindsay doing the same. Here’s an LDS magazine recommending the same. This LDS blog says that ‘Yes, it is true that Milk is given before Meat’. This LDS blog says the same, and explains why LDS members do this. Plenty more example can be provided.

You’re to believe all of what the Church teaches, not just a little part. You’re not to believe that a couple of pages on the LDS Website incorporate all of what the Church believes and teaches. The Church itself carefully identifies these as ‘basic’ doctrines. It’s the milk before the meat. You should believe that the LDS Website isn’t going to tell you all of the truth.

Your opinion, sorry.

Or, I could be aware of how anti-Mormons interpret that to be the case.[/quote]

No RDO, it’s not just ‘anti-Mormons’. It’s LDS scholars. Didn’t you read the Ensign article on this?

BOM usually refers to Book of Mormon. You’d know that if you were Mormon. We refer to the Book of Moses as just Moses.[/quote]

I didn’t write ‘BOM’, I wrote ‘BOMs’, to avoid confusion. You did it yourself later.

My ‘poor analysis’ is found in the writings of the prophets.

But it’s your interpretation, which you invented. You told me you don’t know the official position, so your view is irrelevant. Give me the official position, or don’t give me anything.

The majority of what you write is your words. You quote some Ensign articles and scriptures, but then you go off on what you think we think they mean. And you’re wrong.[/quote]

I didn’t just quote some Ensign articles and Scriptures (and remember, you rejected the Ensign article as false teaching!), and you need to prove that what I believe about the articles and Scriptures is wrong. Do you want me to quote the Ensign article which speaks of the gradual revelation about creation, from one God to a council of Gods, explaining why the BOMs and BOA give two conflicting accounts?

[quote=“Satellite TV”][quote]That is correct. However, it does not exclude there being anyone else. It just does not refer to them.

And it’s that simple.[/quote]
That is your interpretation. Very liberal.[/quote]
Actually, no. It’s fact. It’s a matter of linguistic meaning. The verse does not explicitly claim that there are no others involved. It does not refer to others, but it does not exclude their possibility either.

[quote]The text precludes there being others as

It does not refer to them as you put it as there is no them. [/quote]
Non sequitur. Not referring to someone does not exclude them.

I saw a lion at the zoo.

Does that sentence mean nobody else saw a lion? Does it mean the speaker saw a lion and only a lion? Does it mean the only place the speaker saw the lion was at the zoo?

No, none of these.

No, not my imagination. It’s a matter of revelation. But for those who do not accept the revelation, it’s possible to believe what Fortigurn believes, or that angels helped, that God was mumbling to himself, or that there was an invisible pink unicorn that God carries around everywhere when he goes creating.

I don’t say it must be my way.

What kind of translation are you using? The Good News Bible?

Try a better translation. That one changes the sense of a lot of verses.

[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”][Actually, no. It’s fact. It’s a matter of linguistic meaning. The verse does not explicitly claim that there are no others involved. It does not refer to others, but it does not exclude their possibility either.

No, not my imagination. It’s a matter of revelation. .[/quote]

Can you provide links to the revelations? I don’t see it in the bible anywhere where it says others helped or were around at the time.

Who know what version bible it is… it’s got a yucky yellowish cover on it…

現代中文譯本

I thnk it was wriiten by some dudes in Malaysia. Maybe the English in it aint too hot… oops actually it’s in Chinese oh well

It is issued by the Catholic Church here in Taiwan. Guess they musta chosen a bad bible then.

[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]What kind of translation are you using? The Good News Bible?

Try a better translation. That one changes the sense of a lot of verses.[/quote]

I guess just like Oils aint Oils, Bibles aint jut bibles either.

So many version to choose from all with different verses are there?

The KJV doesnt say we or others either.

[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]I saw a lion at the zoo.

Does that sentence mean nobody else saw a lion? Does it mean the speaker saw a lion and only a lion? Does it mean the only place the speaker saw the lion was at the zoo?

No, none of these.[/quote]

You keep using false analogies. You’re presenting an analogy of verse 27 without verse 26. You’re omitting critical data.

Here’s a better analogy:

‘I said, ‘Let’s go to the zoo’. I went to the zoo.’

According to English grammar, what does a natural reading of that phrase convey? According to English grammar, is the second phrase trying to tell us:

  • All referents of ‘us’ went to the zoo
  • One referent of ‘us’ went to the zoo
  • None of the referents of ‘us’ went to the zoo
  • Something else

And no, I didn’t ‘take that out of context as if to mean nothing I say is what is official’. I referred specifically to the doctrine under discussion:

This does however demonstrate that you’re not a completely reliable source for LDS doctrine. But you already told me that no individual Mormon is, so that’s nothing new.

[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]
Do orthodox Christians believe in there being true gods other than God? No.
Do Mormons believe that? Yes.[/quote]

That is a great departure from the very foundation (monotheism) of Judeo-Christianity, no?

So you think. But LDS think differently. We’re not Christadelphians who believe Christ was not the Creator and did not exist before birth.

I don’t accept that as the full truth, because I know it’s not the full truth. That’s the ‘milk before meat’.[/quote]
But it’s what LDS believe. And it’s what’s doctrinal.

I was perfectly clear, you just refuse to listen.

B is certainly true. A is possible, but I don’t know of a canonical source. Officially, it was Jesus. Maybe there were helpers. The official line is: all we have to know is that God did it through Christ.

This is completely untrue.[/quote]
It’s completely true, and your next little bit was completely off the mark and shows you don’t understand the rules of entailment in linguistics.

You keep harping about “scholarly consensus”, but it’s a scholarly consensus of people who don’t believe in modern revelation. Their choice is between “angelic host” or something unknown. So, they pick angelic host. It’s a consensus of assumption, not proof.

That wasn’t a mistake.[/quote]
Yes it was. There was no Hebrew on the papyrii. If Joseph Smith translated it, then it wouldn’t have been Hebrew. Admit your mistake.

No, it was from Egyptian. It is similar to the KJV Bible as the translator was familiar with that. I responded to that already, but you ignored my response.

No RDO, not in this case.[/quote]
Yes, Fortigurn, in this case. You see a difference and assume contradiction without realizing the many ways both accounts can be correct and in harmony. Basic failure on your part.

Then stop using them yourself, or go visit FARMS. I’m answering you to the best of my ability. We’re on an internet forum and you’re claiming a contradiction where none exists. I don’t have to give you the official doctrine, I only have to show how it is possible for reconciliation.

No, I don’t care if you believe it. Just, it destroys your argument of saying there is a contradiction. It can be read so that there is none.

And yet, you can also read that we don’t believe in any other God besides God, but you won’t accept that. Only that you read one thing and insist it has to be a contradiction. But it’s not.

I’ll take door number 3. I don’t want to spend the time to do it. Go visit FARMS. I’ve got other things to do then sit here responding to you. This is taking too much time and I’m not going to get into any further points. There are more than enough here as it is.

I’ve read numerous debunkings on this subject which were very convincing to me. I recognized at least 2 sources you quoted as things I have recently read debunkings for. Of course you won’t take my word and insist I find this for you, but I’m going to decline.

I choose not to go any further on any other topics. Pretty soon I’m going to end up all posting on this thread, and then of Forumosa (at least for a few months.) Call it a cop-out if you wish, but it’s about time, not about the arguments.

But Fortigurn, you don’t read them as an LDS reads them. So you are giving a non-LDS reading of the same things.

Unnecessary. I was showing how it can fit, not that it must be. Your apparent contradiction does not exist unless you can show that LDS believe that Gods in those verses means other than what we know as the Godhead.

I have.[/quote]
No, you didn’t. Council of Gods could be the Godhead. Show that it isn’t.

RDO, you didn’t even address my point.[/quote]
Why should I when you didn’t address my earlier response? I don’t want waste more time repeating myself than I already have.

So? But LDS believe it. You said they didn’t. You were wrong.

Nice anti-Mormon links. Sorry, I decline to go into it. Too much time investment required.

You’re to believe all of what the Church teaches, not just a little part.[/quote]
Sure, but not everything said by someone in Church is doctrine, and I stick to the doctrine. You want to talk about stuff that isn’t doctrine and call it doctrine.

Still destroys your contradiction. And there are other ways to do so.

Which one? I’m well aware of it, but I view it from an LDS perspective.

You mean, in quoting you? But by writing BOM, you created confusion, since you are not Mormon and used an abbreviation usually reserved for the Book of Mormon. I just pointed it out to help you avoid confusion in the future. If you were LDS, you would have known not to make such an error.

No, just this thread. You fail to understand the prophets.

In debunking your argument, official answers aren’t required. If you want to make your case, find it yourself. Your contradiction doesn’t exist unless you can show Gods refers specifically to someone outside the Godhead. Only canonical writing is accepted.

Nope. I said that article was not official. Watch your accusations.

No I don’t. I know you’re wrong and I can tell everyone here you’re wrong. I gave enough sources to prove my point, just you refuse to admit how utterly absurd your position is.

[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]I saw a lion at the zoo.

Does that sentence mean nobody else saw a lion? Does it mean the speaker saw a lion and only a lion? Does it mean the only place the speaker saw the lion was at the zoo?

No, none of these.[/quote]

You keep using false analogies.[/quote]
No, it’s exactly the same, and I’m demonstrating a simple principle. It applies equally to how you are presenting it.

Not for the purpose of showing entailment.

[quote]Here’s a better analogy:

‘I said, ‘Let’s go to the zoo’. I went to the zoo.’
According to English grammar, what does a natural reading of that phrase convey?[/quote]
It conveys that:

  1. The speaker invited others to go to the zoo.
  2. The speaker went to the zoo.

Nothing else (with the exception of the necessary existential information, existence of speaker and the zoo).

[quote]
According to English grammar, is the second phrase trying to tell us:

  • All referents of ‘us’ went to the zoo
  • One referent of ‘us’ went to the zoo
  • None of the referents of ‘us’ went to the zoo
  • Something else[/quote]
    Choice B. However, that’s not the point I was making.
    What is entailed by your quote?
    [ol][li]That the speaker is referring to himself and others.[/li]
    [li]The speaker invites others to go to the zoo.[/li]
    [li]The speaker goes to the zoo.[/li][/ol]
    What is not entailed by your quote?
    [ol][li]That anyone other than the speaker goes.[/li]
    [li]The anyone other than the speaker does not go.[/li]
    [li]The speaker does not go to other places other than the zoo.[/li][/ol]
    Your reading of Genesis saying it precludes anyone other than God from creating is wrong. It is clear the verse there only refers to God and not to others, but it does not preclude others from also creating. It makes no mention of that either way.

Now, you can say that the combination of the two verses implies that none of the whomever God was talking to, but as soon as you get into implicature you are dealing with what was NOT said, and the listener may be mistaken. You are free to think that’s what it means, but that’s not actually what it says.

Perhaps you didn’t mean to say I was unreliable about all things, but sure sounded like that’s what you were implying. That’s the trouble of interpreting things when they aren’t explicitly stated. :sunglasses:

I disagree with the conclusion you drew from this, though. I think my taking great care to state when I am venturing into the realm of personal belief shows that I won’t go talking about my own personal views without at least giving some fair warning. I’ll say something is a gray area if it is not covered by canon and official pronouncements. And if I don’t know, I’ll say it.

If I say X is doctrine, then it is pretty sure to be found in official works. If I say it’s not official doctrine, it’s pretty sure not to be there. If it’s something that’s not official, but something that is discussed or frequently believed, I’ll be clear about saying that and won’t try and pretend it’s not mentioned at all.

Can I be wrong? Sure. But I’m pretty reliable for this.

[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]Your reading of Genesis saying it precludes anyone other than God from creating is wrong. It is clear the verse there only refers to God and not to others, but it does not preclude others from also creating. It makes no mention of that either way.

Can I be wrong? Sure. But I’m pretty reliable for this.[/quote]

OK so then for the virgin mary to become pregnant we also cannot preclude others were there are helped in her pregnancy.

After all the verse only refers to the holy spirit and not to others, but it does not preclude others from also creating. It makes no mention of that either way. :smiley: :smiley:

Sat TV-

Words and sentences have specific meanings. What exactly is and is not explicitly stated in a sentence is covered in the field of pragmatics in linguistics. What is explicitly stated and must be true from a true sentence is called entailment. Things not said but appears to be the meaning of the speaker/writer is called implicature.

Certain things are entailed by how the writers described Mary. In English that includes her not having had sex with a man since the word used was “virgin”. If you have a specific belief you want to ask if it is ruled out by what is entailed in the Biblical writings, start a new thread on it. It’s not relevant to the matter here.

I allow that there are many possible ways to read many scriptures-- including ways that don’t match my own beliefs. Some interpretations are more likely than others, but most often there’s a way or reading to make it possible. When people try to force a narrow reading, it often is done by insisting on a meaning that is not entailed by the statement.

I don’t claim Mormonism’s belief is the only possible one. I just say it can’t be ruled out by what is written there-- and that is clear from a standpoint of pragmatics.

[quote=“R. Daneel Olivaw”]Sat TV- Words and sentences have specific meanings. What exactly is and is not explicitly stated in a sentence is covered in the field of pragmatics in linguistics. What is explicitly stated and must be true from a true sentence is called entailment. [color=blue]Things not said but appears to be the meaning of the speaker/writer is called implicature[/color].

Certain things are entailed by how the writers described Mary. [color=blue]In English that includes her not having had sex with a man since the word used was “virgin”. [/color] If you have a specific belief you want to ask if it is ruled out by what is entailed in the Biblical writings, start a new thread on it. It’s not relevant to the matter here.

I allow that there are many possible ways to read many scriptures-- including ways that don’t match my own beliefs. Some interpretations are more likely than others, but most often there’s a way or reading to make it possible. [color=blue]When people try to force a narrow reading, it often is done by insisting on a meaning that is not entailed by the statement.[/color]

I don’t claim Mormonism’s belief is the only possible one. [color=blue]I just say it can’t be ruled out by what is written there-- and that is clear from a standpoint of pragmatics[/color].[/quote]

Who is to say that there were no Angels present when the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary? Nothing written precludes that, it is not written that there were no others present. Isnt this the same point you claim for Genisis?

Secondly if you claim that God and Jesus and holy Spirit were there at the creation of the universe then does it also mean Jesus was there the conceive himself in the Virgin Mary? After all you claim that the Gods are made up of Jesus God and the Holy Spirit.

Now as other Christians believe that Jesus only joined God and the Holy spirit as the Trinity after Jesus ascended to heaven after the crucifiction, then it wasnt possible he was there at the creation of the universe.

But you do not believe that you have said so yourself. SO for LDS does this mean Jesus conceived himelf in his mother?

As you have said before you are only speculating on this as there is nothing revealed.

SO on the one hand you claim there are others at the creation of the universe where God only mentions “I” not us" but you mean that to allow others may have been present even when the words and the meanings of the words mean clearly God ONLY.

So you are allowed to have these interpretations but others are not.

This is what you do all the time.

[quote]I don’t claim Mormonism’s belief is the only possible one.[/quote] Why would you? You have previously stated that mormons are free to believe anything they want if it is not “revealed”.

No, apparently you don’t understand what I’ve been saying. I’m not excluding anything. I’m allowing for multiple possibilities. What I’m pointing out is that you cannot read from the text itself that is whom God is talking to in that verse. It could be. But Fortigurn is saying it must be because of the grammar, which is incorrect.

No, it doesn’t. Think about what you’re saying.

And, how does that differ from the idea of the Trinity here?

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can each be properly referred to as God. They can also be referred to collectively as God. Sort of like the word “family”. Family can mean the whole group. But then you can also say, “he’s family”, meaning a member of the family.

You’ll find that there’s a division of belief over this question. Some Christians believe what you said, others believe in a pre-mortal Christ as God as well. Often the beginning of the Gospel of John is cited as evidence of this. Mormons are not unique among Christians in believing in a pre-mortal Christ. I can give you links showing other Christian denominations saying this if you really want.

Speculating on what? On exactly who is referred to in the Book of Abraham? Yes. About if God was speaking to/about Christ when he said “us” in Genesis 1:26? No, I believe there is revelation on this. However, it is Mormon only revelation. I don’t expect non-Mormons to accept that as official.

That’s the exact opposite of what I was saying. Seriously, what on earth makes you think that’s what I’m saying? Go back, re-read what I wrote.

This is what you do all the time.[/quote]
No way. If you think that then you’ve got a reading comprehension problem. I have repeated time and time again that I think there are many valid interpretations.

What does that have to do with what I said? There are official Mormon doctrines that Mormons are expected to believe. What does that have to do with non-Mormons? My statement there is saying that other people can read things a different way, and it can makes sense.

You really don’t make any sense at all.

I say there are many ways to read something. You claim I say there’s only the Mormon way.
You find that Mormons can have their own opinions about things where there is no revelation to somehow be strange.
You say I go around pushing my religion on people and act arrogant when you come onto threads and say how my beliefs (whether just being theistic or Mormon in particular) is stupid, while I don’t go bothering anyone about their beliefs here.

Sometimes you can ask an interesting question, but most of the time you are coming so way out of left field with your accusations and so completely missing the very basic gist of the conversation that it’s exasperating.

Sorry folks, but I think that’s all I’ll be saying here. I need to think of packing up my PC and won’t have time to respond to anything else.

Good news is, I guess any of you who want can have the last word. :smiley:

No, I have said that from the grammar we can know that God is addressing someone other than God, and from the grammar we can know that only God created. It is an investigation of the broader literary context which informs us that the others whom God is addressing are members of the heavenly court. Standard LDS apologists agree with this, but they argue that this heavenly court constitutes other deities, not angels.

They appeal to proximate (non-Hebrew), ANE texts which refer to a council of deities and argue that this is the original orthodox Hebrew religion, and that these other deities are the referent of the ‘Gods’ of LDS Scripture, and the ‘council of Gods’ of official LDS teaching.

Your problem is that you disagree with the secular literary experts (because their conclusion contradicts your theology), you present a false analogy of the text, you can’t demonstrate that your understanding of ‘Gods’ in BOA is official LDS teaching (or that it is even compatible with official LDS teaching, because as you’ve told me you don’t even know what official LDS teaching is on this issue), and your talk of pragmatics and entailment requires ignoring half of the text as well as the context.

Just as you expect me to believe you over any article in the Ensign you disagree with, just as you expect me to believe you over Lorenzo Snow, Smith, Young, and standard LDS teaching materials, so you expect me to believe you over secular literary experts in this field. You will understand of course why I find it incredibly unlikely that all of these people are wrong and you are right.

Because the trinity is not referred to as ‘Gods’, it’s referred to as ‘God’. Of course it’s completely illogical, but the trinitarians still differ from LDS in that they don’t refer to the trinity as ‘Gods’. LDS refer to their ‘Godhead’ as ‘Gods’, and are henotheists in that they believe in more than one God, but only worship one as the God.

But in LDS teaching ‘God’ usually refers to Heavenly Father, whereas ‘Godhead’ is used collectively. And to use singular pronouns and verbs with ‘God’ means that only one person is referred to, not a collective, whereas to use plural pronouns and verbs with ‘God’ means that more than one person is referred to. And to use plural pronouns and verbs with God
S
', as BOA does, means that more than one God is referred to.

No, it doesn’t. Think about what you’re saying.

Sometimes you can ask an interesting question, but most of the time you are coming so way out of left field with your accusations and so completely missing the very basic gist of the conversation that it’s exasperating.[/quote]

Maybe all I am saying is that if Jesus was around prior to his human physical presence, that it was possible as the Holy Spirit God and Jesus as one, Jesus was part of his own creation in a human mortal form?

Yeah guess it don’t look good. But as such it is an act of spirituality not human nature so it’s a devine act. no?. So I suppose nobody reads it any way other than the miracle of holy conception performed, I believe, by the Holy Spirit. No mention in the Bible of any other presence and for most christians who belive Jesus was not around yet not an issue. Might be an issue for those who believe that Jesus was around prior to the creation of the universe.

I would say that you as an ELDER have become used to questions out of left field as you call it.

After all, I’m an elapsed athiest just asking qestions :smiley:

[color=blue]Speculating on what? On exactly who is referred to in the Book of Abraham? Yes.[/color] .[/quote]

Thank you.

So it is not unusual for people to speculate, human nature.

But if Mormon Elders and the Prohets arent’s sure maybe we should all start praying for the correct revelation. It seems thats many revelations people claim are from God don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Certainly I don’t expect to have any revelations.

So you think. But LDS think differently. We’re not Christadelphians who believe Christ was not the Creator and did not exist before birth.[/quote]

No it’s not a matter of what I think or you think. The words simply aren’t there.

But it is not all of what LDS believe. It’s the ‘Basic Beliefs’. I don’t accept that as the full truth, because I know it’s not the full truth. That’s the ‘milk before meat’. There’s nothing there about polygamy, for example.

No you’re not being clear. You have given me two contradictory statements:

  • others were involved— particularly a pre-mortal Jesus’

  • ‘LDS believe the Son carried it out’

Which one are you going to go with? Or will you choose a third option?

So far you said this:

If A is possible but you don’t know a canonical source, then why did you tell me A. The fact is that you contradicted yourself. You said A earlier, then later switched to B when A became too difficult.

The canonical source is the BOA, which says ‘the Gods’ created. Now according to a previous statement of yours (which you have since abandoned), capital ‘G’ God refers to Heavenly Father, son and Holy Spirit. But you say that LDS call them only one God, so this can’t refer to Heavenly Father, son and Holy Spirit. Nor can you say that this is Christ acting as the agent of Heavenly Father, since the language of agency is not used here, and is specifically excluded.

LDS teachers (including Smith), explained it refers to Gods other than Jesus. Officially, that’s LDS teaching.

Can you explain why academically trained Hebrew linguists also seem not to understand the rules of entailment, since they disagree with your conclusion?

This is special pleading.

No, the choice is ‘angelic host’ because there is proof for the angelic host, and no proof for anything else. That’s not assumption. You’ve admitted your own belief is based on the asumption that Smith had a revelation.

I never said that Smith translated any Hebrew from the BOA. I have consistently said that he didn’t translate anything from the BOA. I said that in writing the BOA he translated ‘elohim’ as ‘gods’. To date you still haven’t addressed his grammatical error.

Evidence please. I have already presented positive and negative evidence against it. You cannot appeal to an Egyptian Vorlage without evidence.

I didn’t ignore it. I pointed out that it wasn’t simply ‘similar to the KJV Bible’, but that the text was almost identical, word for word, including word order, other than specific changes made for the purpose of the new theology.

No, I see a contradiction because the BOA contradicts BOMs. If BOMs is using the language of agency as you claimed (though you can’t find this in official LDS teaching), then it is referring to one person (Jesus), and BOA contradicts it, since BOA is not using the langauge of agency. If BOMs is not using the language of agency, then it is still referring to one person (though can’t tell me whom), and BOA still contradicts it.

You have to give me the official doctrine in order to prove that your private interpretation is in harmony with the official doctrine. But of course this is all smoke and mirrors. Why not just give me the official doctrine? Why don’t you know it?

I didn’t say that at all. I said you believe in other capital ‘G’ Gods.

But Fortigurn, you don’t read them as an LDS reads them.[/quote]

But I do. I’ve read Smith’s commentary on them. I’ve read Young’s commentary on them. I’ve read the commentaries of a number of other LDS scholars, so I know how an LDS reads them. In particular, I know how leading LDS read them.

I’m grouping these together. I already did that. I gave you quotes from Smith and Young, as well as quotes from BOA. And remember, you have to show that ‘Gods’ in those verses really means ‘Jesus’. It can’t mean ‘the Godhead’, because you already told me that you believe the Godhead is one God, and you told me that only Jesus created, as the agent of heavenly Father.

No RDO, I said that’s not all LDS believe, and to represent it as what LDS believe is false because it’s lying by omission.

RDO, you really shoot yourself in the foot when you do that. They were all LDS links. They were all sites by LDS members, and one of them happens to be Jeff Lindsay, prominent LDS apologist. And you called them all ‘anti-Mormon links’! That shows you didn’t even bother reading them, or even reading what I wrote (I identified them all as LDS links).

I want to talk about the stuff which your Church calls doctrine.

Which one? I’m well aware of it, but I view it from an LDS perspective.[/quote]

Do you know which Ensign article I’m referring to? Clearly not:

[quote=“The Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, “The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation,” Ensign, Jan 1989, 27”]'In 1830, Joseph Smith had learned clearly that God the Father created “this heaven, and this earth” through his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. (See Moses 2:1; John 1:10–14.) But in 1835, the Prophet translated a record that revealed more concerning who created the earth and how it was done. He learned from the book of Abraham that Jesus Christ acted in concert
with other Gods
to create our world
: “Then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.” (Abr. 4:1.)[/quote]

You can’t get around that. Once more your only recourse will be to say that the Ensign article is wrong, the authors are teaching error, and that you are right not them, or to say that since the Ensign can’t teach official doctrine that this isn’t official doctrine.

But of course as I’ve already pointed out several times, what we have here is an example of X being taught as something LDS should believe, even if (as according to you), it’s not official doctrine. This reinforces yet again my original point, that LDS are taught to believe many things even if they aren’t official doctrine. And behold, that’s exactly what the other Ensign article said.

Of course this article also views certain other teachings of Smith as true and as teachings which LDS are to believe:

You dismissed that teaching completely (you claimed it was only a personal revelation to Lorenzo Snow), and even claimed it isn’t taught (contrary to what we see here), but clearly these three authors are teaching it right here in the Ensign, and clearly they believe it, and clearly they understand others should believe it also. Once again of course we have an example of X being taught as something LDS should believe, even if (as according to you), it’s not official doctrine.

Time and again I find standard LDS material contradicting your beliefs. As an Internet Mormon, yours is the ‘Elite’ religion, not the religion of Utah or the doctrine of the masses.

Read it again. I did not write ‘BOM’, I wrote 'BOM
s
', to avoid confusion. You didn’t read it properly.

No, just this thread.[/quote]

Sorry, I quoted both Smith and Young:

Smith and others certainly didn’t see it that way, since they also referred to ‘capital G’ Gods, and didn’t see this as any different from the rest of the canon. Nor did they believe these multiple ‘capital G’ Gods were simply the Father, son, and Holy Spirit:

You can’t get around that. They did not understand the passage as you do.

Nope. I said that article was not official.[/quote]

No, you said it was false. You said we can’t say it’s not doctrine, but neither can we say it is:

That disagrees completely with the Ensign article, which says that it is doctrine:

[quote=“Gerald N. Lund, “I have a Question,” Ensign, Feb. 1982, 39–40”]‘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]

He says that they are accepted as doctrines. You say we can’t say they are doctrines. He says we can and they are accepted as doctrines. You’re telling me that what he is saying is false. Once more I find a major difference between what LDS members claim to be doctrine, and once more I find you attempting to contradict sources from LDS teaching materials. You do not represent LDS teaching accurately, and it’s very easy to discover this.

fldsdress.com/
At long last, the sacred undergarments are available to us Gentiles, even if of the Hebrew variant,…
Sholom!