BCSpace Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 In addition, Rhino's hypothesis that we will be like the angels (as if we and the angels were any different) violates scripture such as....How is saying that we will be like the angels in terms of no marriage in heaven violate the above Scriptures (none of which mention marriage or angels).It was a two part argument. You took the first part and tried to apply the answer of the second part. Nice try at obfuscation (the evagelical's especiality!). Try again.I'll look up Tobit in my Jerusalem Bible when I get home. Thanks for the tip!You're welcome! I do enjoy and appreciate John Tvedtnes' explaination of Matthew 22 in terms of Tobit.
Paul Ray Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 If our use of words depended on everyone else understanding them in exactly the same way, we'd never really talk. I don't second the motion Heh, you really think so? I think we could still talk, and everyone would be able to know what we meant.It would be kinda hard to put into practice, though, unless everyone... everyone... used the same words.But I also believe there will be some people who try to use words to convey one and only one meaning.
Zakuska Posted February 7, 2007 Author Posted February 7, 2007 Theres also the little issue of Backwards compatibility.
Paul Ray Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 And their I think you are missing the fact that Christ is God... he was sent by the father and he returns to the father, and we get caught up to become one with them.Are you using the word God, while saying Christ is God, to say Christ is our Father in heaven?That Christ and our Father are the same person?I don't think so, but then again, I may not really know what you mean.
BCSpace Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Heh, you really think so? I think we could still talk, and everyone would be able to know what we meant.It would be kinda hard to put into practice, though, unless everyone... everyone... used the same words.But I also believe there will be some people who try to use words to convey one and only one meaning.This is why an LDS person should never apply the word 'trinity' to the LDS Godhead when trying to showcase the similarity (that we all believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). It is disingenuous and misleading at best.
Paul Ray Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Theres also the little issue of Backwards compatibility.You mean like now, when we're trying to explain what Joseph Smith meant when he said that?
Paul Ray Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 This is why an LDS person should never apply the word 'trinity' to the LDS Godhead when trying to showcase the similarity (that we all believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). It is disingenuous and misleading at best.I disagree. The word "trinity" means, literally, three who are in unity.I use the word trinity because I know that those three are truly united.... and I know of no rule which says I can't use that word that way.You may decide to use it differently, but you and I would not be in agreement about that.I may change my mind, though. If everyone votes to pass my measure, I may then vote to pass yours.
BCSpace Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 This is why an LDS person should never apply the word 'trinity' to the LDS Godhead when trying to showcase the similarity (that we all believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). It is disingenuous and misleading at best.I disagree. The word "trinity" means, literally, three who are in unity.The problem with that is there is so much more applied to the word by trinitarians than simple unity. It's much better to showcase our differences (and the superiority of ours in scripture and history) than to trap someone into thinking we are the same imho.Too often have I seen people happily accept our religion (whether they join or not) and then find out that what they thought was not at all what we believe and then feel that they were lied to. From my observation, sugar coating like this is a prime reason for poor retention of new converts in the Church.
rhinomelon Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 It doesnt matter if the couplet is specifically speaking of the father or the son because they are part of each other.Now who's being Trinitarian? According to LDS theology, Christ is "a" God, and the couplet is referring to God the Father. Two points which make it difficult to link Snow's couplet with anything in the ECF. Are you saying the couplet refers to Christ? It was a two part argument. You took the first part and tried to apply the answer of the second part. Nice try at obfuscation (the evagelical's especiality!). Try again.While I can only say that any perceived attempt at obfuscation was not intended on my part, the same cannot be said of your obvious ad hominem dig. Anyway, having looked at the passage in Tobit for myself, there is no mention of marriage after death, only that the two were "destined for one another from the beginning". It also gives no parameters for "the beginning", so any attempt to read LDS pre-existence into this passage is inconclusive at best. In light of this, my original question stands. How does my saying that "we will be like the angels in that we will not be married in the resurrection" violate those passages? Take care, everyone
Paul Ray Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 The problem with that is there is so much more applied to the word by trinitarians than simple unity. It's much better to showcase our differences (and the superiority of ours in scripture and history) than to trap someone into thinking we are the same imho.Too often have I seen people happily accept our religion (whether they join or not) and then find out that what they thought was not at all what we believe and then feel that they were lied to. From my observation, sugar coating like this is a prime reason for poor retention of new converts in the Church.I was referring to the meaning of words. If people have preconceived ideas about what a word, or a term, means, then of course they may not agree on the truth.Some of the best books on Earth are dictionaries, and I use those in harmony with the standard works.
BCSpace Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 It doesnt matter if the couplet is specifically speaking of the father or the son because they are part of each other.Now who's being Trinitarian?Which well illustrates why LDS should not use the term 'trinity' to describe their doctrine.It was a two part argument. You took the first part and tried to apply the answer of the second part. Nice try at obfuscation (the evagelical's especiality!). Try again.While I can only say that any perceived attempt at obfuscation was not intended on my part,Hard to believe since you repeated it below.the same cannot be said of your obvious ad hominem dig.Except for the fact that it was not ad hominem; indeed! In light of this, my original question stands. How does my saying that "we will be like the angels in that we will not be married in the resurrection" violate those passages?That we will not be married in the resurrection I addressed in the first part (Tobit). This is why it's an obfuscation on your part. The idea that we will simply be like the angels is contradicted by the verses because they (and others) specifically testify that we will be like the Gods. We will have the same body, glory, power, and authority, etc. Anyway, having looked at the passage in Tobit for myself, there is no mention of marriage after death, only that the two were "destined for one another from the beginning". As I said, I like John Tvedtnes' explaination...."...in the Apocrypha... we read of a young woman, Sarah, who had been married to seven husbands (all brothers), each of whom was killed on the wedding night by a demon. But in the story (Tobit 6:10-8:9), Sara ultimately marries an eighth husband, Tobias, son of Tobit, who, following instructions from the archangel Raphael, manages to chase the demon away and is therefore not slain. Of special interest is the fact that the archangel (who, according to Tobit 3:17, had been sent to arrange the marriage) tells the young man that his wife had been appointed to him "from the beginning" (Tobit 6:17). This implies that she had not been sealed to any of her earlier husbands, which would explain why none of them would claim her in the resurrection, as Jesus explained. But if she were sealed to Tobias, the situation changes. Assuming that the Sadducees (whose real issue was one of resurrection, not of eternal marriage) were alluding to this story but left off part of it, this would explain why Jesus told them, 'Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God'" (Tvedtnes, J., "A Much-Needed Book That Needs Much", FARMS Review of Books, vol. 9, no. 1, 1997, p. 41.)It also gives no parameters for "the beginning", so any attempt to read LDS pre-existence into this passage is inconclusive at best. Did I say pre-existence? That is well-proven elsewhere. Foreordination is good enough here.
Paul Ray Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 It doesnt matter if the couplet is specifically speaking of the father or the son because they are part of each other.Now who's being Trinitarian?Which well illustrates why LDS should not use the term 'trinity' to describe their doctrine.Is someone saying the only ones who get to use that word is them, or us?Hmm. Okay. I vote for us (LDS).
Paul Ray Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Did I say pre-existence? That is well-proven elsewhere. Foreordination is good enough here.Oh my heck! Are some people still using the word "preexistence"?You guys are behind on the times... the word to use now is "premortal".
Zakuska Posted February 7, 2007 Author Posted February 7, 2007 Are you using the word God, while saying Christ is God, to say Christ is our Father in heaven?That Christ and our Father are the same person?I don't think so, but then again, I may not really know what you mean.No not the same person... no more than my son is the same person as I am.What Im saying is Christ is god by very nature. And so is our spirit which came from God and is going to return to God. The difference is our nature that was Godly nature, was corrupted in the fall.
BCSpace Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Which well illustrates why LDS should not use the term 'trinity' to describe their doctrine.Are you saying the only ones who get to use that word is them, or us?Are you saying that one of us should not be allowed to use that word?Not at all. I'm just saying it's disingenuous for an LDS person to describe LDS doctrine using the term 'trinity'. Whether it's in Gospel Doctrine or Gospel Essentials class, or posting on message boards and chat rooms, I often find myself having to straighten things out because some LDS person said something like 'We believe in the trinity too!'.Oh my heck! Are some people still using the word "preexistence"?You guys are behind on the times... the word to use now is "premortal". Indeed. Was I the one who brought it up?
Paul Ray Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Not at all. I'm just saying it's disingenuous for an LDS person to describe LDS doctrine using the term 'trinity'. Whether it's in Gospel Doctrine or Gospel Essentials class, or posting on message boards and chat rooms, I often find myself having to straighten things out because some LDS person said something like 'We believe in the trinity too!'.Okay, have a seat. And if you are seated already, get comfortable.We (LDS) do believe in the trinity too!... according to the true definition of trinity.Indeed. Was I the one who brought it up?No, but you said it was well proven elsewhere.If you decide to define the trinity, please also define the preexistence while also showing how that has been well proved elsewhere, please.Thank you. Thank you so much. I value your contributions.
rhinomelon Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 That we will not be married in the resurrection I addressed in the first part (Tobit). I'm not seeing the connection between Tobit and marriage in the resurrection. Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit (my "obfuscation" probably is due to the fact that I really have no idea where you're going with Tobit).The idea that we will simply be like the angels is contradicted by the verses because they (and others) specifically testify that we will be like the Gods. We will have the same body, glory, power, and authority, etc. I did not say that we will "simply be like the angels". I said we will be like the angels in that we will not be married in the resurrection. So far, I have seen nothing to contradict that claim. You seem to be operating under a false notion of what I'm actually saying. Whether that could be considered purposeful obfuscation on your part is known only to you We will be like the angels in terms of marriage; we will be like Christ in terms of resurrection body, authority, power, etc. So I still don't see where my clear statement violates Scripture (none of those verses describe "the Gods" being married, so it still doesn't address the issue really). Take care, everyone
Zakuska Posted February 7, 2007 Author Posted February 7, 2007 (my "obfuscation" probably is due to the fact that I really have no idea where you're going with Tobit).Kansas perhaps?
BCSpace Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Okay, have a seat. And if you are seated already, get comfortable.We (LDS) do believe in the trinity too!... according to the true definition of trinity.Except that the definition you are using is not the one posited by trinitarians who believe that this unity includes a oneness of substance and that they are literally the same God.The fact remains that LDS doctrine cannot be described using the terms of trinitarian doctrine without being disingenuous.If you decide to define the trinity, please also define the preexistence while also showing how that has been well proved elsewhere, please.Apples and oranges. While it is indeed proper to say pre-mortal life rather than pre-existence, both terms come from LDS usage whereas the your attempted trinity usages tries to compare nonLDS Christian usage with Christian usage. In other words, people know what one means no matter if you use pre-existence or pre-mortal, but they won't know what you mean when you use the term 'trinity' to describe the LDS Godhead and are likely to feel deceived when they find out the truth.
Paul Ray Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Except that the definition you are using is not the one posited by trinitarians who believe that this unity includes a oneness of substance and that they are literally the same God.Yeah. So? Who says I have to use their definition of trinity?The fact remains that LDS doctrine cannot be described using the terms of trinitarian doctrine without being disingenuous.My definition of trinity is in harmony with what the word actually means.While it is indeed proper to say pre-mortal life rather than pre-existence, both terms come from LDS usage whereas the your attempted trinity usages tries to compare nonLDS Christian usage with Christian usage.I am not comparing my usage with their usage. Why would I want to do that?I am using the dictionary to understand what the word actually means.In other words, people know what one means no matter if you use pre-existence or pre-mortal, but they won't know what you mean when you use the term 'trinity' to describe the LDS Godhead...If they asked me, I would tell them. And I suspect they know how to use a dictionary.and are likely to feel deceived when they find out the truth.Yeah, well, I can't help that. I think they should have used the dictionary in the first place.My defiinition of the trinity is true, according to the word, itself, regardless of what they think about it.
johnny Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 BCSpace,>> The deification of man remains a Biblical fact.Deification as taught by the Mormon Church is not a Biblical fact. The following article says:Can Human Begings Become God?http://www.affcrit.com/pdfs/2002/02/02_02_a2.pdfGod is God both outside of creation and within creation; human beings can at best be joined to God and thereby become God within the confines of creation, but even here, they will not usurp the unique identity that the sole God has. Human beings will never lose their attributes as creatures, they will never be the Creator or the creative and boundless power of the Creator. Human beings will forever posses the human form and the human nature; thus, they will be limited to the confines of the created universe and never be omnipresent as the unique God is.
Zakuska Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 2007 Until a few years ago... The LDS chruch was pretty much the only church that would publicaly teach the defication of man. The olympics help change that.DOH!
johnny Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Zakuska,>> The LDS chruch was pretty much the only church that would publicaly teach the defication of man. Could you please share with us the official Mormon teaching of defication.
Zakuska Posted February 8, 2007 Author Posted February 8, 2007 Sure thing... summarized in one little couplet:"As man is God once was, as God is man may become."It's really no more difficult than that and needs no more theological baggage attached to it.
johnny Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 Zakuska,>> "As man is God once was, as God is man may become."Is this offical, if so please provide the link.>> It's really no more difficult than that and needs no more theological baggage attached to it.What are the attributes of this "man" ... again please provide the link to the offical Mormon teaching that describe these attributes.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.