Weak Spots in Mormon Theology

[Robert F. Smith]

One such area involves the Holy Ghost, which seems in the Lectures on Faith to have been a substance (definitely not a third person in the Godhead), and then in Nauvoo becomes a personage of spirit, and then even later on after Joseph Smith's passing, the Holy Ghost comes to be defined as the personage of spirit and the Holy Spirit is defined as the ubiquitous spirit substance.

Then there is the "weak spot" involving the difference between the Light of Christ (given to every person), and the Holy Ghost, which is divided up into The Influence of the Holy Ghost (which everybody may receive prior to baptism, but only insofar as it testifies of the Book of Mormon and leads a person to baptism), and the Gift of the Holy Ghost (which is defined as the right to have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion).

--Consiglieri

There have indeed been claims made by people I know that the Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are separate concepts, if not separate entities. My take on this issue is as follows.

HOLY SPIRIT / HOLY GHOST

[Robert F. Smith]

Roberts' studies are as relevant today as they were in 1922.

The late Brigham Madsen shared your view, but there is not a shred of evidence to support that claim.

Time and scholarship have not stood still in the intervening years, and Roberts' honest, herculean effort to explore any and all possible weaknesses in the Book of Mormon should be seen as a creature of its time -- outdated and largely irrelevant.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes. And one could add the automatic salvation of aborted babies and the mentally handicapped. These kind of fly in the face of the ideas that we come to earth to be tested and/or to get a physical body.

The call to perfection is a fallacy for you here, and is a weak spot for nearly all religions simply based on the notion of an all-perfect creator whose creation is obviously anything but perfect. Only in Mormonism, where perfection is a discrete, limited, divine attribute, and where imperfect, non-contingent beings are coeternal with God, do apotheosis and evil exist simultaneously in a processual state. Ask your friends at the School of Theology across Foothill Blvd whether this makes any sense.

[Stargazer]

Yes, we really need a comprehensive Encyclopedia of Truth, that would contain all the truth, revealed to us without hindrance. If you will, a Final Encyclopedia.

Give me a break;

There is no amount of revelation that could occur in this life that would end with everyone saying, "That covers it all!" As soon as there was definitive word about whether or not the Holy Ghost was going to get a body (let's assume He does), then someone is going to demand if He's going to be born with it on this planet, or some other planet, and it wouldn't stop there, nosir, next there would be a demand to know what his Name is going to be (let's assume William), and then finally what color his eyes are going to be, how many children he'll have, and so on ad infinitum.

Even the stuff we think we know is subject to further questions. All you have to do is haul out the "Why" word. Like one of my kids did:

Dad, why is the sky blue?

Because the gases in the atmosphere preferentially absorb the lower frequencies of light, letting primarilyy bluish frequencies all the way through so you see them.

Dad, why do the gases absorb the lower frequencies more than the higher frequencies?

That's because lower frequency light has less energy and those gases have the correct molecular structure to absorb those particular frequencies.

Dad, why do they have that molecular structure and not some other?

Because God made them that way, that's why! Now eat your dinner!

[Chris Smith]

The call to perfection is a fallacy for you here, and is a weak spot for nearly all religions simply based on the notion of an all-perfect creator whose creation is obviously anything but perfect. Only in Mormonism, where perfection is a discrete, limited, divine attribute, and where imperfect, non-contingent beings are coeternal with God, do apotheosis and evil exist simultaneously in a processual state. Ask your friends at the School of Theology across Foothill Blvd whether this makes any sense.

I'm not sure why you say it's a fallacy for me-- but in any case, I agree that the notion of an all-perfect creator is problematic for those who believe in such a thing. (And honestly, I don't think LDS entirely escape this problem.)

[why me]

How would you convince some of our good christian friends that they are not privy to the Holy Ghost, yet you are?

I think that they can be privy to the holy ghost. I don't think that the holy ghost discriminates. Also, I do believe that certain people need to be in different churches. For example, a good catholic may not be ready to be a good mormon. Much better to keep him or her in the catholic faith. I am sure that the holy ghost is aware of our weaknesses and strengths.

I have sat in the catholic church and felt the spirit. My daughter who served a mission in a catholic country would sit in a catholic cathedral and feel the spirit with her partner. It was a holy place.

[CV75]

All of these differences and "tweaking" of concepts seems the result of attempts to harmonize "conflicting" authorities, as well as to flesh out the LDS Plan of Salvation.

Other examples occur to me, but I am wondering whether anybody else believes in the existence of "weak spots" in LDS Theology, and if so, what some of those might be.

I think some evolution is to be expected in our theology or doctrine, or the prophets' understanding of these, as our leaders seek or need more information in behalf of the Church and exercising their keys. Maybe some of of it reflects the best thinking or understanding to date, or a position to lead with in the time being for practical purposes, or even a "this works for now and let's wait and see" attitude. I know this happens for me on a personal basis.

[tana]

I've always thought baptism for the dead was an odd thing. It feels more like the attempts of a well intentioned believer trying to reconcile the problem of the countless souls left out of heaven because of the baptism ritual mandate.

[Deborah]

I've always thought baptism for the dead was an odd thing. It feels more like the attempts of a well intentioned believer trying to reconcile the problem of the countless souls left out of heaven because of the baptism ritual mandate.

Or a just and loving God wanting all his children of every generation to not be left out of heaven because they couldn't personally participate in a rite that was necessary.

[tana]

Or a just and loving God wanting all his children of every generation to not be left out of heaven because they couldn't personally participate in a rite that was necessary.

But there you go having God wanting things again.

PS. I shall post no more as to this dialog in this thread.

[Senator]

Even the stuff we think we know is subject to further questions.

..and that is not a good thing?

Dad, why is the sky blue?

Because the gases in the atmosphere preferentially absorb the lower frequencies of light, letting primarilyy bluish frequencies all the way through so you see them.

Dad, why do the gases absorb the lower frequencies more than the higher frequencies?

That's because lower frequency light has less energy and those gases have the correct molecular structure to absorb those particular frequencies.

Dad, why do they have that molecular structure and not some other?

Because God made them that way, that's why! Now eat your dinner!

I applaud your kid. He or she will go on to discover great things......if they do not get shut down.

[SilverKnight]

The teaching that all children who die before the age of accountability are automatically saved in the Celestial Kingdom is a weak spot. The best thing you can do for your children, therefore, is to kill them before their 8th birthday.

No. If anything this is a theological strong spot.

Prevailing Christian doctrine at the time (Catholic at least) contended unsaved/unbaptized children who died were damned.

+1 Mormonism.

[FormerLDS]

Here's one...

[urroner]

Here's one...

Here's one what?

[Kevin Christensen]

I hear this frequently but I've yet to see anyone demonstrate how anything on his list has been resolved without creating bigger problems.

Roberts' studies are as relevant today as they were in 1922.

I've read John W. Welch's 1985 FARMS Preliminary Report "Answering B. H. Roberts Questions and An Unparallel." I also notice that Brigham Madsen and George D. Smith and Grant Palmer discuss the Study, they prefer not to mention the existence of Welch's paper. Madsen referred to the Welch study in a footnote once, but in a subsequent essay didn't mention it. Smith never mentions its existence in any of his essays. Grant Palmer in Insider's View, cherry picks a few quotes from Roberts without comment, and of course, in an impressive display his profound insider knowledge, fails to mention the existence of the Welch study. It's all typical. Appeal to the Roberts study at this late date is basically an rhetorical appeal to Authority, meant to dazzle the naive and flatter the skeptics.

I'm very curious to see how, for instance, Welch's more recent discussion of the trials of Sherem, Nehor, and Korihor in his book Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon creates bigger problems, relative to the naive claims made in the Roberts study.

I personally see the Roberts study as representing a hole that is now 87 years deep and one scholar wide. A lot has been learned since then. Were Roberts around today, I think he'd be far more willing to face and acknowledge the "Problems of the Roberts Study" than those who still lean on the Study and Roberts reputation, as though it were the last word in honest and informed scholarship. I wasn't impressed when I read it in 1985 and I have learned a great deal more in the past 25 years.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Senator]

I SO wish I had thought of this answer.

So with your confessed complicity to this verse of scripture (as an answer to my non-question), are you agreeing that:

a) The LDS church has theological/doctrinal weaknesses

and

b) That they are God given

and

c) That if we humbly seek, the weakness may become strengths

?

[urroner]

While on my mission, I heard a RCC priest mention that the doctrines and beliefs in the RCC were like brick that helped make up the RCC. He also said that if the RCC was to come out and start removing the bricks that were bad or just plain wrong, that it would weaken the RCC too much and thus affect the faith of its members. He just hoped that God would solve those problems before the RCC collapsed.

I giggled to myself, realizing that the CoJCoLDS didn't have those problems, but that was back then and I have come to realize that all religions, including the CoJCoLDS have a similar problem. The problem is caused by baggage brought on by the problems of earlier belief systems in my POV.

Christianity didn't spring up from out of a vacuum, but Christ had to work within the system of his time. If he had simply told everybody that the Jewish religions of his day were totally corrupt and full of holes and needed a complete revamp, I believe the people would have rejected him completely. Moses tried doing that and the people rejected him, so God gave him the lesser law, the Law of Moses.

Since Protestantism came out of the Catholic belief system, they brought old luggage with them, the same way the early Catholics brought in baggage, the same way the first Christians brought in baggage.

And the CoJCoLDS is no different in my POV in this arena. When God restored His authority to the Earth again in the early 1800s, it had to be done within a belief system already set up. Joseph Smith couldn't teach new truths until they had been revealed to him, if he was permitted to teach those new truths, so until then, what could he teach and I feel that he couldn't teach or reveal all that had been revealed to him because it would cause too many problems within the Church.

This is one of the reasons why there are holes within the gospel. Sometimes God decides to retrofit an old building and that makes a lot of limitations in what can be done.

Also, in any belief system, there will be all sort of holes that are hard to explain or even impossible to explain. The same even goes for science. A lot of things are happening out in the universe that according to our current understanding of physics shouldn't be happening and isn't very easy to explain and when it is explained, it makes absolutely no sense.

For example, the universe is about 14 billion years old, so if nothing can go faster than the speed of light, at the most, the universe should only have a radius of 14 billion lightyears, making it 28 billion lightyears from one side to the other side, but it has be suggested by many top notch physicists that it could be twice that big and that there are galaxies traveling faster than the speed of light away from us. It all involves with the expansion of space which isn't subject to the speed of light limitation.

And then there is the problem of gravity.

I am not bothered very much by the holes in the gospel, but it would be nice to understand the holes better and get them all filled in, to make the gospel more consistent. I also agree with the following:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[FormerLDS]

Here's one what?

Once, when I was on splits we met an elderly lady in her doorstep. She very coridally, yet dogmatically told us "The Bible does not agree with LDS theology."

Perhaps these words resonated with questions I had been having (my own weakness perhaps??), but I began to seriously compare what the Bible plainly said with what I believed as a Latter-day Christian.

I'm here to tell you that indeed the Bible simply does not agree with LDS theology. As a Latter-day Christian, if you feel that it does then:

A) You have misunderstood what the Bible plainly says.

B) You do not understand LDS theology.

Regardless, reading the Bible with no preconceived (LDS) meaning, can change your mind, your life, your beliefs and your eternal destination.

I truly wish this were not so friends...

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Once, when I was on splits we met an elderly lady in her doorstep. She very coridally, yet dogmatically told us "The Bible does not agree with LDS theology."

Perhaps these words resonated with questions I had been having (my own weakness perhaps??), but I began to seriously compare what the Bible plainly said with what I believed as a Latter-day Christian.

I'm here to tell you that indeed the Bible simply does not agree with LDS theology. As a Latter-day Christian, if you feel that it does then:

A) You have misunderstood what the Bible plainly says.

B) You do not understand LDS theology.

Regardless, reading the Bible with no preconceived (LDS) meaning, can change your mind, your life, your beliefs and your eternal destination.

I truly wish this were not so friends...

So are you saying that because members of the LDS Church don't believe in your particular interpretation of "plain" Biblical theology that they are bound for Hell?

[SilverKnight]

Once, when I was on splits we met an elderly lady in her doorstep. She very coridally, yet dogmatically told us "The Bible does not agree with LDS theology."

To which you might have responded: "Thankfully, you are absolutely right."

Perhaps these words resonated with questions I had been having (my own weakness perhaps??), but I began to seriously compare what the Bible plainly said with what I believed as a Latter-day Christian.

As did I.

I found that mormon theology greatly improved upon the confusion, contradiction, fear and cruelty found in the bible.

I'm here to tell you that indeed the Bible simply does not agree with LDS theology.

And we're here to agree with you.

And express how thankful we are for that.

Regardless, reading the Bible with no preconceived (LDS) meaning, can change your mind, your life, your beliefs and your eternal destination.

No doubt.

A plain reading of the bible with no preconceptions makes countless people give up on Christianity every day.

Many of today's best and brightest atheists were Christians until the read the bible critically.

I truly wish this were not so friends...

Indeed.

[FormerLDS]

So are you saying that because members of the LDS Church don't believe in your particular interpretation of "plain" Biblical theology that they are bound for Hell?

A "particular interpretation"??

That's good.

And let me take a wild guess whose "particular interpretation" you've chosen to believe - assuming you sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as General Authorities.

No, the Bible says "He that HATH the Son HATH eternal life."

I believe "He that HATH the Son HATH eternal life."

I couldn't say this and truly mean it as an LDS Christian.

[urroner]

Once, when I was on splits we met an elderly lady in her doorstep. She very coridally, yet dogmatically told us "The Bible does not agree with LDS theology."

Perhaps these words resonated with questions I had been having (my own weakness perhaps??), but I began to seriously compare what the Bible plainly said with what I believed as a Latter-day Christian.

I'm here to tell you that indeed the Bible simply does not agree with LDS theology. As a Latter-day Christian, if you feel that it does then:

A) You have misunderstood what the Bible plainly says.

B) You do not understand LDS theology.

Regardless, reading the Bible with no preconceived (LDS) meaning, can change your mind, your life, your beliefs and your eternal destination.

I truly wish this were not so friends...

Hmm, interesting. So one must reject Mormonism because of its rejection of clear, easy to define doctrine that even a blind man can see and a deaf man can hear.

Now, out of these plain as day doctrines, I have heard many mainstream Christians say that works are not necessary for salvation, but OTOH, I have heard many mainstream Christians say that they are important and that one cannot be saved without good works. So, FormerLDS, which is the plain doctrine taught in the Bible?

I have hear from many mainstream Christians that once one is saved, one is always saved, the old OASA doctrine, but I have also heard from other mainstream Christians that this is a false doctrine, that it is not taught in the Bible. So, FormerLDS, which is the plain doctrine taught in the Bible?

I have heard many mainstream Christians say that on must confess the name of Christ in this life in order to be saved and yet I have heard many mainstream Christians say that this is hogwash, because little children can't do it and what about those who never heard about Christ, are they damned to an eternity of suffering in Hell because they never heard about Christ. So, FormerLDS, which is the plain doctrine taught in the Bible?

I have heard many mainstream Christians say that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and the complete word of God, but I have also heard many mainstream Christians say that the Bible isn't inerrant nor infallible, and that they have serious reservations about it being the complete word of God. So, FormerLDS, which is the plain doctrine taught in the Bible?

[FormerLDS]

To which you might have responded: "Thankfully, you are absolutely right."

As did I.

I found that mormon theology greatly improved upon the confusion, contradiction, fear and cruelty found in the bible.

And we're here to agree with you.

And express how thankful we are for that.

No doubt.

A plain reading of the bible with no preconceptions makes countless people give up on Christianity every day.

Many of today's best and brightest atheists were Christians until the read the bible critically.

Indeed.

Does everyone choose to beleive the truth?

[urroner]

A "particular interpretation"??

That's good.

And let me take a wild guess whose "particular interpretation" you've chosen to believe - assuming you sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as General Authorities.

No, the Bible says "He that HATH the Son HATH eternal life."

I believe "He that HATH the Son HATH eternal life."

I couldn't say this and truly mean it as an LDS Christian.

Why? Do you have a speech impediment or don't you know how to speak English?

As an LDS Christian, I can not only say it, but I can mean it completely, probably more completely than you.

[urroner]

Does everyone choose to beleive the truth?

Well, you definitely have chosen to believe what you believe is the truth.