Jump to content

JarMan

Members
  • Content Count

    1,092
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

302 Excellent

2 Followers

About JarMan

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

2,060 profile views
  1. Well, a worse way to try to understand scripture is to try to harmonize it all. That's what lead to the mystery doctrine of the trinity in the first place. The LDS version is no less mysterious. Actually, it's more mysterious since it has to harmonize not just the bible, but the Book of Mormon, the D&C, the PofGP, and generations of commentators. What makes the most sense is that everybody is wrong and we don't really know. Are you saying the prophet is infallible?
  2. And why haven't they? It's in the Book of Mormon.
  3. It's a Protestant practice, but not a Catholic one. The whole point of the Reformation was that the church had wandered away from scripture as a result of the assumption the pope had sole authority to interpret it. So the idea that modern revelation can trump scripture is an ancient Catholic practice in a slightly different form. But isn't this what lead to the great apostasy and all of the abuses of the church? Isn't Mormonism susceptible to the same dangers if they just pick and choose which doctrines in the scriptures they want to keep?
  4. I'm not sure if you're joking here. Is there really a game called "Here I Stand?" It was Luther who said that, of course, so I can't tell if you're making some sort of metaphorical point or what.
  5. We should be giving primacy to the Book of Mormon when it comes to doctrine. Should we say that Abinadi or Alma, who presumably recorded his history, or Mormon who abridged it all didn't understand the relationship between the father and the son? If early Mormonism had simply used their founding scripture as a guide they wouldn't have ended up all over the place on this doctrine.
  6. Your explanation is actually a pretty good example of an ad hoc argument, sometimes called an ad hoc rescue or ad hoc rationalization.
  7. But in what sense are the Father and the Son one? The 1916 statement offers several suggestions but they aren’t really found in the Book of Mormon or bible. That’s why I think the explanations are merely ad hoc. And certainly the Elohim/Yahweh dichotomy in Mormonism is not biblical.
  8. Well, as you surmised, there is a Grotius connection here. Grotius despised Calvin (who had died two decades before Grotius had been born) and Calvinism, in general. He was thrown in jail by Calvinists when they beheaded his mentor and sent the rest of the Dutch Arminians into exile. Anyway, later in his life Grotius discovered a now-famous letter from Calvin to one of his friends in which Calvin said that if Servetus ever came back to Geneva he would make sure he was killed. This was quite scandalous because it showed pre-meditation and that personal animosity was likely at the root of Calvin's prosecution of Servetus. Also, Servetus was something of a proto-Arminian. He strongly supported the idea of free will over the Calvinist ideas of predestination. At one point Calvin sent him a copy of his Institutes and Servetus returned it to him all marked up in the margins describing how Calvin was wrong about everything. No doubt this contributed to the ill-will Calvin felt toward him.
  9. Oh, I'm not confused. I'm pointing out that the bible and the Book of Mormon don't support the LDS view of God as propounded in the 1916 statement you referenced. Why do you think that is?
  10. How long have you been holding on to this?
  11. Isaiah 43 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord [Yahweh], and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God [Elohim] formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am the Lord [Yahweh]; and beside me there is no saviour. These verses don't support the idea that Elohim is Jehovah's father. Jehovah is saying there was no Elohim before him. So this is actually a direct contradiction to what you are claiming.
  12. Where does the bible support the idea that Elohim is God the Father and Jehovah is Christ?
  13. As I see it, the 1916 statement is an ad hoc explanation that doesn't agree with the Bible or the Book of Mormon.
  14. I agree that it's hard to square Abinadi's understanding of God with the modern Mormon view. Particularly Mosiah 15. I think Abinadi means that the Father and the Son are two dispositions of the same being. Not that they are one in purpose or one in some other way. Many others have also pointed this out.
  15. Royal Skousen points out that the Book of Mormon has scenes of heretics being burned at the stake similar to early modern Europe. We've discussed similarities before regarding the descriptions in Foxe's Book of Martyrs. But I've been studying one particular execution lately that has some notable similarities to Abinadi's death. This is the execution of Michael Servetus in 1553 in Geneva at the instigation of Calvin. The most notable similarity is that both Servetus and Abinadi were "guilty" of the same heresy. Servetus taught that God the Father and Jesus were the same person. He believed that God/Jesus existed in spirit form before being born and taking on a human body. This was the same heresy that Abinadi was accused of. It's interesting that Abinadi's heresy seems to have been a pretext to execute him. The real reason is that he was speaking against Noah and his high priests. In fact, years before Noah had tried to kill him. Many commentators for centuries have said the same thing about Calvin and Servetus. Calvin had a deep personal dislike for Servetus and vowed to a friend that Servetus would never leave Geneva alive if he ever came there. When he did pass through Geneva years later on his way to Italy fleeing the French Inquisition, Calvin had him arrested, tried, and executed. The pretext, according to some commentators, was heresy but the real reason was personal animosity. A secondary heresy Servetus was executed for was his rejection of infant baptism. He believed people should be baptized only when they were old enough to understand the significance of their decision. Similarly, Abinadi taught that little children who died would have eternal life (Mosiah 15:25). In an early modern context the story of Abinadi appears to be an attack on Calvin. When Abinadi says, "And if ye slay me ye will shed innocent blood, and this shall also stand as a testimony against you at the last day" (Mosiah 17:10), it reflects the view Calvin's opponents had for him. There are other anti-Calvinists tropes in the Book of Mormon, as well, so this one fits right in. There are several other similarities between these two stories, but I will just start with these major ones.
×
×
  • Create New...