Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Waltz

James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

Recommended Posts

What an utterly asinine response. Go, Cougars!!?

My opinion is that

even if you were to answer the question I actually asked, I'm convinced

that your answer probably wouldn't be

completely satisfying, at least to me.

And that's not meant to be a personal insult;

Lots of things get written that don't necessarily reflect authorial intent, right?

For instance, I asked you a very specific question, right?

Even if I am constrained to think that you understood the question I asked

I'm not sure that you would be able to

satisfactorily answer it. You might try, to be sure.

But, I'm not sure you would be able to pull it off;

unless you believe that your words have some sort of intrinsic,

truth value; I find the very concept

truly laughable.

Heck, I'm not even sure that language is capable of

evincing your pessimism about language.

And, that's quite an admission on my part.

Dude! Maybe you should stop talking!

You might be bumming the non-lame people out now.

Did I say that your response was asinine?

cks

Just a thought.

:P;):crazy::fool:

That's really clever and original. But my name is spelled H-A-M-B-L-I-N, not M-E-T-C-A-L-F-E.

Share this post


Link to post
I have followed the discussion in entire. Can you please point out where you answered the question with anything other than "I don't think the question is relevant"?

I suppose, sure. Quote me in context and ask what questions you would.

Can you please point out where you answered the question with anything other than "I don't think the question is relevant"?

Um...Can you "please point out where " answered the question (I confess, I don't know what "The Question" is, but it sounds interesting) with anything other than 'I don't think the question is relevant'?

Just so that we're on the same page.

cks

Share this post


Link to post
It is inadequate because it is not an answer to the question I asked.

I asked: "Does D&C 1:31-32 contain intrinsic errors?" Dr. Hamblin has not answered this very direct question.

For me it seems he has answered the question by explaining what language is capable of, identifying error without context or additional information to fill the gaps is impossible in language which is capable of having more than one meaning (it therefore may or may not be in error depending on the greater context chosen to apply to it...but then is it really the revelation that would be in error or simply the application of it in a particular context)...perhaps you disagree because you see this ambiguity of language as an unproven (at least so far) claim.

Perhaps it would be helpful to us for you to demonstrate the range of responses that you would consider answers to this question. Does an answer require a "yes" or "no" or can it be "maybe" or even "the question doesn't apply" or some such variation? If it does require one of those, perhaps you would be kind enough to specify why in your view it does and an answer such as Bill has given you does not actually connect with what you are asking.

It seems like ck is asking in his view the equivalent of "is the light "red" or "blue" having in mind that he has identified a specific type of light of a certain colour (and can pinpoint this by specifying a frequency) while the corresponding view is more that one knews to know the environment surrounding the light to determine what colour is actually being seen by the eye, the frequency of the light being only one of the factors to be used in evaluating what the experience of seeing the colour will be like.

I also may have completely missed the point of both comments and be totally off on my analogy, it's happened before, lol.

It appears to me like there are at least two conversations going on...the words appear to have connection with each other, but the various participants seem to not get the assumptions the others are bringing to the party....my interpretation is that ck is stating something has not been demonstrated sufficiently that others feel has been, when this happens it is usually in my experience a problem of conflicting assumptions. I think Bill has tried to clarify his assumptions about language along with some other stuff; I am less sure about ck as some of his comments (such as when he's been waiting for a particular question or response to show up) seem to be trying to guide the conversation to a certain goal in preparation to examine assumptions/concepts. I am not sure...if I am correct in the source of the miscommunication...what the solution would be except to start at defining assumptions first and making sure agreement is reached before moving on to the next step.

And that sounds like something that will take a lot of time and likely trouble and is probably better suited for a pundit thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted what twice, exactly, mfb? Or, what, thrice?

It is inadequate because it is not an answer to the question I asked.

I asked: "Does D&C 1:31-32 contain intrinsic errors?" Dr. Hamblin has not answered this very direct question.

I am at a total loss to see how Dr. Hamblin has "nailed the issue perfectly" when he has, thus far, failed to answer the question directly.

Again, for anyone:

Dr. Hamblin hasn't answered that question.

Your "thrice" might be indicative of what one might label "(I-already-know-everything-that-is-true) traditionalism," and you're welcome to it, mfb. I haven't been so richly blessed.

But, perhaps, at this point, I should take comfort in determinism? At least, then, it's not my fault.

Best.

cks

I guess five times is not enough:

Well, for starters:

1- What is sin? Any sin at all?

Major sins only?

2- What is repentance?

3- What are the commandments?

There is certainly room for ambiguity here. Hence, no inerrancy. It is not that the text is or is not-error free as you like to pose the question. It is that there is ambiguity and uncertainty with every text. With human language it cannot be otherwise. (Hence, for example, the Rabbis produced the Mishnah to clarify the Torah, and the Talmud to clarify the Mishnah, with the result that Rabbis are still squabbling in endless pilpul about what the Talmud means.)At any rate, as JW has noted, in the real world, there is no unity of interpretation. There is much less unity now than there was during the early Reformation, and less unity in the Reformation than there was in Medieval Catholicism. As more texts are discovered, more and more differences in the texts appear, and as time progresses, despite the huge advances in linguists, textual criticism, etc, there is increasing disunity of interpretation rather than increasing unity. So, whatever the reality of a hypothetical lost inerrant ur-text, the reality of what we have to deal with on a day-to-day basis is: there is no such thing as an inerrant text.

Note what I said:

There is certainly room for ambiguity here. Hence, no inerrancy.

There is certainly room for ambiguity here. Hence, no inerrancy.

There is certainly room for ambiguity here. Hence, no inerrancy.

There is certainly room for ambiguity here. Hence, no inerrancy.

The text is errant, minimally, since it does not clarify what is sin, what are the commandments, and what is repentance. So how could such a text be inerrant?

How could I possibly have made this clearer?

CK is now in the esteemed company of Billy on my "Do not respond list." Bye.

Share this post


Link to post
I am sticking my nose in here in a conversation which is not even mine, but the answer is "it depends on what you mean". If he is to simply answer "yes" the implication that could be taken is that the BOM is not inspired. If he answers "no", he "loses the debate". So this is itself an example of the ambiguity of language. The real answer is neither yes nor no, and yet you have phrased the question in such a way that he cannot answer that way. To me, even though you say this is not a debate, it sure looks like you want it to be.

Again, I apologize for sticking my nose into your conversation.

You're correct. This is part of the problem in this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Part of what I mean is that "God" the Father doesn't have hands, man.

And that's the part you're tap dancing around. God didn't write any of the scriptures. None of them. I was very specific about who did the physical writing, which were humans. In fact, I'll be clearer. Who were the authors of the scriptures? Humans. The scriptures we have were not authored by God. They were authored by people using an errant form of communication. These people were attempting to use that inadequate form of communication to give some idea of the divine intent they had received through revelation.

Written human communication cannot convey the divine intent. Hence, scripture cannot be inerrant.

Okay. This is sort of, I think, reflective of my complaint, j.

Except that I've made a good faith attempt to respond directly to your question, to explain why I can't answer yes or no, and to then give my response. You're not doing that with my questions.

So the unargued argument goes, I suppose. I haven't seen that argument cogently argued here, yet. It has been readily assumed and thrown about here and there, but not demonstrably shown.

Translation: you don't have a good answer, so the question becomes "irrelevant".

I've attempted to answer direct questions. Others manifestly have not. In point of fact, there has been the indication that my questions cannot be answered with a yes or a no. I've asked direct questions and yet have not received direct answers.

Actually you haven't made a good attempt. I, personally, would be glad for any answer that addresses the question directly. I've been left to make my own observations about who authored the scriptures due to your non-responses.

One example of this phenomena that springs to mind is this:

I asked you:

You answered:

I think we can classify this as "not actually answering certain questions directly."

Your attempted clarification employed what, again, to my mind, is not at all a self-evident assertion (viz., "and it is by no means an inerrant one").

And the point you continue to miss is that I attempted a clarification. You're not doing that. You're rephrasing the discussion away from the questions we're asking (notice that you've attempted to move the discussion to LDS scripture and Joseph Smith more than once).

So, get involved in the discussion. Quit hedging and trying to direct it elsewhere. As has been noted, we're becoming awful suspicious that you don't have good answers concerning inerrancy to the questions we're asking.

The questions are simple. They're designed to clarify your viewpoints. When you dismiss them as irrelevant and try to rephrase the discussion, it really looks like evasion on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted what twice, exactly, mfb? Or, what, thrice?

It is inadequate because it is not an answer to the question I asked.

I asked: "Does D&C 1:31-32 contain intrinsic errors?" Dr. Hamblin has not answered this very direct question.

I am at a total loss to see how Dr. Hamblin has "nailed the issue perfectly" when he has, thus far, failed to answer the question directly.

Again, for anyone:

Dr. Hamblin hasn't answered that question.

Your "thrice" might be indicative of what one might label "(I-already-know-everything-that-is-true) traditionalism," and you're welcome to it, mfb. I haven't been so richly blessed.

But, perhaps, at this point, I should take comfort in determinism? At least, then, it's not my fault.

This is getting a little bizarre.

I also answered the question, and all I got back was a complaint that my explanation wasn't a yes / no answer.

Dr. H. posts his response - and re-posts it - and we still get the claim that there's been no response.

He's right. This is starting to get a little too Billy-like for my comfort.

Share this post


Link to post

All right, just a recap of the points so far:

LDS position

- Human writing is inherently ambiguous in nature, and so is inadequate to convey the divine intent in and of itself.

- Because of the weaknesses of human writing, the intent cannot be fully understood from the writing itself.

- Hence, human writing - including scripture - cannot be inerrant.

- Divine revelation, as it comes from God to the individual, is perfect communication.

- When the individual attempts to write that divine communication down, it loses much in the transmission due to the inadequacy of writing.

- Scripture has value as a partial communication of God's intent and has much value because of that.

- Scripture is not the ultimate source of doctrine and understanding; God is.

- God gives the Spirit to individuals to assist them in understanding fully the divine intent that was only partially transmitted through the written scriptures. Written scriptures serve as a catalyst to allow the Spirit to come and testify of all truth to the individual.

EV position

- God has communicated His will inerrantly through the scriptures, either in the original autographs, or in the scriptures we have today (depending on who you ask).

- Human language is inherently ambiguous (not agreed upon by all EVs).

- Scripture is sufficient in and of itself to allow us to understand God's intent and will.

- There is no agreement on what constitutes unity in Christianity.

Any additions or corrections are welcomed.

I've been mostly interested in pressing the point of whether human writing has the ability to be inerrant. I don't see any evidence that it does, and I see plenty of real-life evidence that rampant ambiguity exists in all of the scriptural writings that we have. Several examples of that ambiguity have been given.

This scriptural inerrancy issue seems to be a pivotal one for EV claims. I suspect that if the concept is accepted that scripture cannot be inerrant, one of the Foundational Pillars of EV theology falls apart. Hence the difficulty in getting an honest analysis of the issue from the EV side.

Because of its fallacy, the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy can have a negative impact on EV faith claims.

One begins to understand Bart Ehrman's motivations a little better.

Share this post


Link to post

In the â??progressionâ? of the discussion it has gotten to inerrancy it appears. Inerrancy (not necessarily a salvation issue) can be debated adinfinitum. The only thing I would say on the inerrancy issue for now is that all sides have a form of it that the other side shares in common. When a prophet speaks for God, at that point they are â??inerrantâ?.

Hence, according to Mormonism, â??Joseph Smith is a true prophet of Godâ?. Some of us here donâ??t buy it (and understand what it means without any ambiguity) and believe he is a â??false prophetâ? (not unambiguous to any here I donâ??t think but I guess I could be wrong) not of God but of Satan.

If I could see that he was a â??trueâ? prophet of God then I could accept his claims as being one (Mormonism doesnâ??t deny that Jesus came in the flesh but they have failed in the testing of spirits department):

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (1 John 3:1-3)

I was attempting to demonstrate (some groups led by what I believe are false prophets) the above in a thread I started recently and it was shut down after this statement I made:

In the book of Revelation 20, there are two books of reference. We are all born with our names (figuratively speaking I think) with the record of all our imperfect works in total are. At the moment of faith, they are then in the Lambs book of life where all our imperfect works are cleansed by the blood of Jesus. The only thing God sees is that we belong to Jesus who gives the rewardof eternal life with God in His presence. What more could one want?

what more? how about a substantive thread that contains more than circular reasoning and proselyting.~hermes

Sometimes it seems people strain out a gnat but swallow a camel in some of the discussions Iâ??ve read/been involved in. I think it is more important to arrive at conclusions of the verses that are not ambiguous and that most of us would agree on (with some exceptions as always):

Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. (Matthew 7:24-25)

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. (Matthew 24:14)

Then He said to them, â??These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.â? And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, â??Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.â? (Luke 24:44-49)

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, â??Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.â?? â??Then they also will answer Him, saying, â??Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?â?? Then He will answer them, saying, â??Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.â?? And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.â? (Matthew 25:41-46)

And He said to them, â??It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (Acts 1:7-11)

These are the â??last wordsâ? of Brigham Young, as quoted in a Mormon Church pamphlet not â??anti-Mormon literature (His dying words were about Joseph Smith, not Jesus):

Brigham Young died at his home in Salt Lake City on August 29, 1877. His last words were as if the Prophet Joseph Smith had come to take him into the spirit world, for he said: â??Joseph! Joseph! Joseph! Joseph!â? Brigham Young had finished his lifeâ??s work. (BRIGHAM YOUNG, PROPHET, STATESMEN, PIONEER pamphlet)

Itâ??s about Jesus and what he did for us on the cross as the atonement, not what Joseph Smith did or anyone else. Until Jesus returns, the battle rages on in the way it was prophesied to.

The thread started with the idea presented in the James White video concerning him charging Mormonism with â??polytheismâ? (â??diatribeâ? according to David).

It seems that David appears to always defend Mormonism, even in things that the RCC would oppose or so it appears to me (I can understand truly wrong statements that Mormons arenâ??t guilty of), even while holding to the position of an RCC Christian (guess who this is about David?):

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. )1 Nephi 14:10)

And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men. Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 13:26-28)

The Bible is the â??standard of judgmentâ? as acknowledged in Mormonism by its own leaders but then goes on to add â??other scriptureâ? which in my view distorts the clearly taught Gospel in the New Testament as Paul said would be distorted (in which has come to pass).

When it comes to the â??polytheismâ? question, the definition is debated as to whether or not it is the best choice of terms that can be applied to what Mormonism actually teaches.

How many Gods are there in reference to the Godhead and are there other â??g/Godsâ? that actually exist outside the Godhead?

Can the term â??g/Godâ? be equated to what we actually are in the sense of how we came to be, literally born in the pre-existence by heavenly parents (after that to earthly parents per eternal progression), just like all the other gods have done before us (as in Mormonism)? Its 1+1+1= godhead then a plurality of other g/Gods after, adinfinitum:

. . .I will preach on the plurality of Gods. . . .I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have, three Gods anyhow; and they are plural; and who can contradict it?. . .

Or were we formed out of the dust of the earth (the Biblical teaching) where God breathed into Adam the breath of life and are human not g/Gods. Human beings created in His image (whatever that actually means) and did not preexist?

As I understand it, the Trinitarian view, holds that there is only one God (monotheism, the Schema as appealed to by Jesus) and in the Godhead three â??personsâ? but are only â??one Godâ? as even the BofM affirms (sometimes in a modalistic way).

Numerically expressed as 1x1x1=1 (a mathematically true statement) not 1+1+1=1 (not a mathematically true statement). In the New Testament:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, â??All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:18-20)

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . .Let us make man in our imageâ?. In the Old Testament, whenever the â??Trueâ? God is being referenced it is God (singular).

I think I understand the Mormon reasoning against the â??Trinitarianâ? in preference to a â??plurality of godsâ? view but it just doesnâ??t ring true to me and in fact smacks of the â??romance of the godsâ? as Walter Martin used to say (not going to endear me to any of you here but then I never have been).

God is from â??everlasting to everlastingâ? and therefore the definition as applied to them is that they (Father/Son/Holy Spirit) are the â??oneâ? God. By virtue of our being brought into existence we are not â??g/Godâ? by nature but will live forever in â??eternal punishmentâ? in hell or â??eternal lifeâ? in His presence as resurrected, glorified, human beings:

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. (1 John 3:1-3)

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (John 5:28-29)

So now you intend to resist the kingdom of the LORD through the sons of David, being a great multitude and having with you the golden calves which Jeroboam made for gods for you. â??Have you not driven out the priests of the LORD, the sons of Aaron and the Levites, and made for yourselves priests like the peoples of other lands? Whoever comes to consecrate himself with a young bull and seven rams, even he may become a priest of what are no gods. (2 Chronicles 13:8-9)

However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those, which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? (Galatians 4:8-9)

It is in this more narrow sense (not actually becoming divine beings but partakers of the divine nature- one doesnâ??t become a loaf of bread because one eats it. We reap the benefit of the nutrients the bread has in it) that we will become like Jesus in the resurrection because â??we will see Him as He isâ? and will be in a glorious resurrected body, just like the one He has when He raised Himself from the dead (something I donâ??t see Joseph or anyone else doing).

I believe we can reflect some of the divine attributes in the sense that Adam and Eve were given rule over the earth and in that way can become like God but not God in the way God is God.

My understanding of â??polytheismâ? is the belief in the actual existence of other beings referred to as â??g/Godsâ? as well. Not necessarily worshipped but their existence is acknowledged.

I understand that â??henotheismâ? more specifically is only the worship of one of these g/Gods. So Mormonism I think can be stated to meet both definitions as I understand their teaching. Also by definition â??false prophets/teachersâ? because their â??scriptureâ? I believe ends up contradicting Biblical Scripture.

â??Mormonsâ? view themselves in their understanding that they are actually the true â??Christiansâ? and that â??other Christiansâ? are not in the true church and by default can only make it to the terrestrial kingdom of God. It sounds on the surface ok but by the nature of â??Truthâ? is either right or wrong (I believe it is wrong).

We after all have been charged with being wrong, pagan worship, having Greek philosophy as the basis of belief, that is those who are not Mormon, according to Joseph Smith (I donâ??t believe it was God who said this but Joseph himself as the words came from him, just like all the other statements he made and passed off as â??Scriptureâ?):

I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof. (POGP, JOSEPH SMITHâ??HISTORY, 1:19)

Following the death of the apostles, revelation ceased. The authority of God was no longer among men. Christianity sickened and died. In time, a new religion grew up in its placeâ??a religion that professed to be Jesus Christâ??s Church, but which in reality was a conglomerate of pagan worship and Greek philosophy, â??having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.â?. . .that eventually led to the complete apostasy of the true church and the eventual creation of an apostate religion that has been responsible for the extermination of the Messiahâ??s true followers and the persecution of his chosen people, the Jews. . . . (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.9)

The above part of â??they draw near to me with their lipsâ? is quoting Jesus in which He was chastising the Pharisees due to the practice of giving money into the coffers to get a kickback from the priests instead of providing for their parents:

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. (Matthew 15:1-14)

That would be those who I assume (providing I understand the supposedly unambiguous position Mormons here take) â??other Christiansâ? are living their lives being believers in God but not having the â??fullness of the Gospelâ? according to Mormonism and therefore cannot progress any further.

Iâ??ve never said that Mormons canâ??t be Christian in some of their faith as believed but the Mormonism part of their faith I donâ??t believe is. God is the one that ultimately decides who is or isnâ??t â??Christianâ?. The Biblical warning is to â??watch outâ? for false prophets/teachers that come in Jesusâ?? name.

I have a concern for the part of the Mormonâ??s faith that might put the â??Truthâ? they do hold to in jeopardy (spiritually as in being defiled with false belief) as cyanide does to one who drinks cool-aid, in a physical way) as in Jim Jones did to his followers who threw the Bible down and said listen to me (in effect this is what Joseph has done when it comes to the Bible).

It comes out this way:

There is a spiritual power in the Book of Mormon that is unique to all other scriptures, . . .(The Ensign, Pres. Benson, Sept. 1987, p.78)

Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated, â??Men can get nearer to the Lord, can have more of the spirit of conversion and conformity in their hearts, can have stronger testimonies, and can gain a better understanding of the doctrines of salvation through the Book of Mormon than they can through Bible. . . .There will be more people saved in the kingdom of Godâ??ten thousand times overâ??because of the Book of Mormon than there will be because of the Bible.â? (Address at Book of Mormon Symposium, Brigham Young University, 18 Aug., 1978.) (The Ensign, Pres. Benson, Nov. 1984, p.7)

Third, how important is the Book of Mormon? Joseph Smith called it â??the keystone of our religion.â? (History of the Church, 4:461.) â??Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations,â? he said, â??and where is our religion? We have none.â? (History of the Church, 2:52.). . .(The Ensign, President Ezra Taft Benson, Nov. 1984, p.6)

the everlasting gospel could not be discovered through reading the Bible alone. . .this is the only Christian church in the world that did not have to rely upon the Bible for its organization and government. . . (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.40)

Iâ??m not personally judging anyone because I donâ??t really know the hearts of any individual here. But I can make a judgment (of which Iâ??m accountable to God for) based on what I believe the Bible teaches as opposed to belief systems that have come on the scene since time began. Joseph Smithâ??s system of Mormonism I believe meets those conditions:

THE DIVINE MISSION OF JOSEPH SMITH

CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH

Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188, 1954 edition)

A footnote to Mormon reasoning, considering a Sunstonianâ??s perspective in the article entitledâ??THEOLOGY AND CHRISTOLOGY THROUGH THE LENS OF A LITTLE COUPLET (I donâ??t have an address for this at present):

WHEN BYU RELIGION PROFESSOR STEPHEN E. Robinson collaborated with an evangelical Christian to write How Wide the Divide?, he devoted his contributions to minimizing Mormon departures from more orthodox forms of Christianity. Judging from Robinsonâ??s position and influence, we have come a long way from our nineteenth-century heritage of glorifying in alienation from mainstream Christianity. For my part, I suspect that we have never fully appreciated how wide the divide really isâ??or might be, if we took our founding prophet at his word. If accepted, Joseph Smithâ??s later teachings have implications, unappreciated perhaps by the Prophet himself, which could place us even further from the Biblical Christian tradition than the Mormon firebrands of the nineteenth century recognized. Over the years, observers on both sides of the divide have remarked that the theology Joseph taught in the King Follet Discourse fits poorly, or not at all, with orthodox Christianityâ??s notions of humanity, deity, and their relations one with another.

Share this post


Link to post

Charis Alone Through Pistis Alone ! :P .

Share this post


Link to post
For me it seems he has answered the question by explaining what language is capable of, identifying error without context or additional information to fill the gaps is impossible in language which is capable of having more than one meaning (it therefore may or may not be in error depending on the greater context chosen to apply to it...but then is it really the revelation that would be in error or simply the application of it in a particular context)...perhaps you disagree because you see this ambiguity of language as an unproven (at least so far) claim.

Perhaps it would be helpful to us for you to demonstrate the range of responses that you would consider answers to this question. Does an answer require a "yes" or "no" or can it be "maybe" or even "the question doesn't apply" or some such variation? If it does require one of those, perhaps you would be kind enough to specify why in your view it does and an answer such as Bill has given you does not actually connect with what you are asking.

It seems like ck is asking in his view the equivalent of "is the light "red" or "blue" having in mind that he has identified a specific type of light of a certain colour (and can pinpoint this by specifying a frequency) while the corresponding view is more that one knews to know the environment surrounding the light to determine what colour is actually being seen by the eye, the frequency of the light being only one of the factors to be used in evaluating what the experience of seeing the colour will be like.

I also may have completely missed the point of both comments and be totally off on my analogy, it's happened before, lol.

It appears to me like there are at least two conversations going on...the words appear to have connection with each other, but the various participants seem to not get the assumptions the others are bringing to the party....my interpretation is that ck is stating something has not been demonstrated sufficiently that others feel has been, when this happens it is usually in my experience a problem of conflicting assumptions. I think Bill has tried to clarify his assumptions about language along with some other stuff; I am less sure about ck as some of his comments (such as when he's been waiting for a particular question or response to show up) seem to be trying to guide the conversation to a certain goal in preparation to examine assumptions/concepts. I am not sure...if I am correct in the source of the miscommunication...what the solution would be except to start at defining assumptions first and making sure agreement is reached before moving on to the next step.

And that sounds like something that will take a lot of time and likely trouble and is probably better suited for a pundit thread.

Hi Call--

I think you're spot on in most of this. It's incredibly frustrating to be charged with not having answered questions that one has already, in one's own mind, sufficiently answered. That's apparently being felt on both sides. (I know I'm feeling it; and I've been charged with avoiding questions that I'm just not sure how else to answer.)

There is a presuppositional divide that is hindering true communication. I almost feel as if some posters are performatively instantiating their belief in the inability of language to communicate without inevitable misunderstandings.

Almost.

A point of clarification about something you wrote:

I am less sure about ck as some of his comments (such as when he's been waiting for a particular question or response to show up) seem to be trying to guide the conversation to a certain goal in preparation to examine assumptions/concepts.

I was certainly waiting for someone to make the point you made, but not in order to pounce on it. In fact, your point, while valid, actually introduced more complexity into the discussion. Complexity, that is, that I'd just as soon not have had raised before some sort of consensus had been reached about what it is separately possible for an author and a reader to do.

Thanks for your very helpful summary.

Best.

cks

Share this post


Link to post
You're correct. This is part of the problem in this discussion.

I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
I think you're spot on in most of this. It's incredibly frustrating to be charged with not having answered questions that one has already, in one's own mind, sufficiently answered.

Gosh, this written communication sure is tough isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
I apologize.

You don't need to apologize for CK.

Share this post


Link to post
You don't need to apologize for CK.

CK doesn't need to apologize for CK, at this point, either.

Share this post


Link to post
In fact, you're point, while valid, actually introduced more complexity into the discussion. Complexity, that is, that I'd just as soon not have had raised before some sort of consensus had been reached about what it is separately possible for an author and a reader to do.
LOL, I was just thinking yesterday as I was pondering this conversation when I couldn't sleep that I tend to prefer complexity over simplicity in general and probably introduce it into conversations here way too much.

Share this post


Link to post
LOL, I was just thinking yesterday as I was pondering this conversation when I couldn't sleep that I tend to prefer complexity over simplicity in general and probably introduce it into conversations here way too much.

One of my favorite shows is 24. It's a very complex show, compared to most in TV wasteland. There are several plots going on at the same time and I'm left wondering how they are all going to tie in at the end.

I like complexity, but not too much where I'm just lost.

Share this post


Link to post
You don't need to apologize for CK.

I was being uncharacterisically charitable because I thought you were agreeing that my post was sticking my nose in where it didn't belong.

I won't make that mistake again. :P

Share this post


Link to post
LOL, I was just thinking yesterday as I was pondering this conversation when I couldn't sleep that I tend to prefer complexity over simplicity in general and probably introduce it into conversations here way too much.

Conclusively adding complexity to a convoluted conversation in this case is not too complex. Capeesh?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...