73 replies to this topic

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

Wade,

I agree.

Thats it, your being to agreeable. Lol

[Rob Bowman]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 05 October 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

Thats it, your being to agreeable. Lol

Consider it a momentary lapse.

[altersteve]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

No one needs to be told that an evangelical article about LDS doctrine is an interpretation of LDS doctrine. I wouldn't ask readers to be suspicious by using the wording you suggest ("it may not accurately reflect..."), but I wouldn't have a problem with some sort of statement directing readers to official LDS sources for firsthand, authoritative articulation of LDS doctrine. In fact, in my articles, I usually do direct readers to primary LDS sources, including links in my online articles.

Usually? It should be always. You should be linking readers to the proper sources with every claim you make.

[Mark Beesley]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

I wouldn't ask readers to be suspicious by using the wording you suggest ("it may not accurately reflect...") . . .

I am certain better wordling could be employed.    But I interpret the reistance to a statement inviting suspicion, i.e. critical analysis, to be somewhat arrogant.

[Rob Osborn]

LeSellers, on 05 October 2011 - 08:20 AM, said:

CFR that we Saints believe that "he [can] be inside of all of us at the same time".

I have never heard anyone significant say that. His influence can be "omnipresent", but His person is not—His spirit body occupies the same volume of space as anyone else's (± a few cubic centimeters). However, it has no mass so He can move instantaneously between people and places. His work is to bring light (which also travels very fast) and knowledge (again, massless), so He can do His work seemingly without the passage of time. But He cannot be in two places at once anymore than you can.

Lehi

Ok then, what exactly is his influence? Is it a substance or what? Why would he need to be a spirit if his omnipresence can be everywhere at once?

[LeSellers]

Rob Osborn, on 05 October 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

Ok then, what exactly is ... [the] influence [of the Holy Ghost]? Is it a substance or what? Why would he need to be a spirit if his omnipresence can be everywhere at once?

No, it is not "a substance". It is an energy (as best I can define it), like light. It radiates (for want of a better term) from Him, but completely under His control.

He needs to be a spirit (as opposed to having a corporeal body) because He must, in the words of the Doctrine and Covenants, "dwell in us" (Doc&Cov 130:22), which is not possible for a corporeal person. Only a spirit can do that. His mission is to reveal the truth, to confirm baptismal and other covenants, to affirm choices made by the righteous, and to (for those who are prepared for it) to "burn out" the last vestiges of sinfulness, to literally change the person into a new man.

Lehi
BTW, you did not respond to the Call For Reference. LS

Edited by LeSellers, 05 October 2011 - 12:32 PM.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

For what it's worth, there is some evidence that the Holy Spirit does not "dwell within us" at all, and that such a concept is one of the "sectarian notions" (such as the similar idea that the Father and Son dwell within us) which was opposed by Joseph Smith. As some have noted on this board, the printed version of section 130 contains a late and doctrinally significant error. The original (available somewhere in the Joseph Smith Papers project) said that "the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. - and a person cannot have the personage of the H G in his heart he may receive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him." [Emphasis added]

The edited and canonized version says that: "the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him."

The original, citing Joseph Smith, stated that the personage of the Holy Ghost could not dwell in someone's heart. The edited version, which was revised and canonized only after Brother Joseph's death, says it can, because it's a spirit. But they're complete opposites; the original makes much more sense in the context of full LDS theology.

Edited by JeremyOrbe-Smith, 05 October 2011 - 12:03 PM.

[LeSellers]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 05 October 2011 - 12:02 PM, said:

The edited and canonized version says that: "the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him." [My emphasis.]

The fact that it's canonized is the key, at least in my mind. Joseph himself edited many of the records of his revelations, including the Book of Mormon and most sections in the Doctrine and Covenants. It took at least three tries for him to get to the point of what we have in the JST, and it was never finished. To say that his original record was more correct than a later, canonized version seems to disregard the non-infallibility rule and the IX Article of Faith.

Lehi

[David T]

LeSellers, on 05 October 2011 - 12:12 PM, said:

The fact that it's canonized is the key, at least in my mind. Joseph himself edited many of the records of his revelations, including the Book of Mormon and most sections in the Doctrine and Covenants. It took at least three tries for him to get to the point of what we have in the JST, and it was never finished. To say that his original record was more correct than a later, canonized version seems to disregard the non-infallibility rule and the IX Article of Faith.

Lehi

For the record, Joseph didn't edit this statement. I think it was Orson Pratt who did, apparently to harmonize it with his developing cosmology.

[LeSellers]

nackhadlow, on 05 October 2011 - 12:24 PM, said:

For the record, Joseph didn't edit this statement. I think it was Orson Pratt who did, apparently to harmonize it with his developing cosmology.

And yet it is canonized as we have it today, irrespective of who edited it to its current form.

My Joseph Smith examples were to demonstrate the principle. I was not trying to say that it was Joseph who corrected it. That's why I wrote, "Joseph himself edited many of the records of his revelations, including the Book of Mormon and most sections in the Doctrine and Covenants" The use of "himself" and "many" in this context implies that in the case before us, it was not he who did it.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

altersteve, on 05 October 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:

Usually? It should be always. You should be linking readers to the proper sources with every claim you make.

I just knew someone would find fault with what I said because I said "usually." Hey, maybe I'm a prophet! Actually, my articles on LDS doctrine will always cite primary sources, but depending on what sort of article it is, I might not provide a link to a specific web page. But I can assure you that I provide proper documentation from primary sources. Take a look at my Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide, where you will find numerous examples.

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

There's no pleasing some people.

One can be critical or discerning without being suspicious. Wouldn't you agree?

While we're on this subject, when Mormons denounce the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, and similar doctrines as evidence of the Great Apostasy, the supposed corruption of Christianity by philosophy, etc., do they ever include such disclaimers as you are saying I should use?

Mark Beesley, on 05 October 2011 - 11:09 AM, said:

I am certain better wordling could be employed.    But I interpret the reistance to a statement inviting suspicion, i.e. critical analysis, to be somewhat arrogant.

[shalamabobbi]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 09:42 AM, said:

By your reasoning, there's no reason why the Holy Ghost could not be in two or more places at the same time.

No, that would be your reasoning. Are two light particles that are entangled and travel in opposite directions in different places or the same place? If you do not understand the physics of the real world in front of your face I don't have a great deal of confidence that you have anything to contribute to our understanding of a realm unobservable to us while in mortality, unless you are laying claim to a great deal more modern revelation than is attributed to the LDS religion..

Quote

Incidentally, if you're right about spirit beings "standing in the air" and not being subject to gravity, then there's really no point in God sitting on a literal throne (i.e., a chair) in heaven.

One existence can be in the likeness of the other without them being the same reality.

[Mark Beesley]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

There's no pleasing some people.

Sure, just agree with everything I say.  

Quote

One can be critical or discerning without being suspicious. Wouldn't you agree?

Absolutely, but as I recall, you introduced the word suspicious into the discussion..  I tried to mitigate that by using the term critical analysis.  <sigh> There's just no pleasing some people.

Quote

While we're on this subject, when Mormons denounce the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, and similar doctrines as evidence of the Great Apostasy, the supposed corruption of Christianity by philosophy, etc., do they ever include such disclaimers as you are saying I should use?

Well, since such denouncement is based on revelation from God (and not their personal opinions), I guess if you want a disclaimer you'll need to talk with Him about it.  

Anyway, have a great day.  If you ever get the chance to go to Alaska, grab it.  I just returned from a two week cruisetour and was simply awestruck at the grandueur of His handiwork in that magnificient land.  Yeah, I had fun!

[KevinG]

Funny.  I just went to your page on the Gospel Principles study guide page 40 and found four links to Luke Wilsons articles and none to the actual study guide.

Of course there is the Mentoring by former Mormons page.  No equal time given to the http://mormon.org/chat/ function to talk to a current Mormon.

Of course I'm probably just "denouncing" your web site.  These are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[KevinG]

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209052507

Volgadon's not getting any love.

[Nathair]

DaddyG, on 06 October 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209052507

Volgadon's not getting any love.

Oh, Volgadon's my hero, I just didn't have anything useful to contribute there.

[volgadon]

Nathair, on 07 October 2011 - 11:47 AM, said:

Oh, Volgadon's my hero, I just didn't have anything useful to contribute there.

I have many leather-bound books...

[calmoriah]

DaddyG, on 06 October 2011 - 06:07 PM, said:

Funny.  I just went to your page on the Gospel Principles study guide page 40.......

Of course I'm probably just &quot;denouncing&quot; your web site.  These are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You know what is really funny?  All the accusations about Mormons lying on the page about voting for Romney.

From what I've seen so far on irr, it's pretty standard to assume if a LDS doesn't explain his beliefs the way the writer thinks he should, the LDS is being deceptive.

Edited by calmoriah, 08 October 2011 - 03:27 AM.

[volgadon]

calmoriah, on 08 October 2011 - 03:23 AM, said:

You know what is really funny?  All the accusations about Mormons lying on the page about voting for Romney.

From what I've seen so far on irr, it's pretty standard to assume if a LDS doesn't explain his beliefs the way the writer thinks he should, the LDS is being deceptive.

Which is a very sad and jaded outlook.