Rob Bowman Posted September 30, 2011 Author Posted September 30, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:It helps to understand "God was once a man", when you comprehend that men can become like God (joint heirs with Christ).We are the same species - God the Father's literal spirit children. That doesn't take away from the fact that God the Father and Jesus Christ were sinless, perfect and eternally God.We are celestial beings having a mortal experience. We have always been God's children from before the foundation of this world and we will be after it's resurrection.None of what you say here addresses the fact that Joseph Smith explicitly said that he was refuting the idea that God has been God from all eternity.You wrote:When someone tries to portray the LDS position as beleiving God the Father was a carnal being or lacked His divine attributes it is bearing false witness in the most pernicious way.I didn't say it is the LDS position, although at least until recently that was quite clearly the case. I said that it was Joseph Smith's position that God has not always been God. Pointing this out is not bearing false witness in any way.
KevinG Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) DaddyG,You wrote:None of what you say here addresses the fact that Joseph Smith explicitly said that he was refuting the idea that God has been God from all eternity.You wrote:I didn't say it is the LDS position, although at least until recently that was quite clearly the case. I said that it was Joseph Smith's position that God has not always been God. Pointing this out is not bearing false witness in any way.Sigh. Why do you insist on interpreting LDS history and doctrine in a way that the Latter-day Saints do not? Intentionally or not it is at the very least an erronious witness, and you have access to people here willing to correct those notions.The doctrinal position of the LDS is that we co-existed with God the Father from eternity to eternity. Joseph Smith's King Follett sermon does not negate that doctrine. That sermon is best understood in the context of broader LDS doctrine.You are reading things into it that simply aren't there.If you want to take issue with the belief that God the Father once experienced what the Son did and he himself was tested and progressed as we have the opportunity to do - that is fine. But I resent the false implication that we believe He was not divine and ever anything but our God. Edited September 30, 2011 by DaddyG 1
Vance Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 Sigh. Why do you insist on interpreting LDS history and doctrine in a way that the Latter-day Saints do not? Intentionally or not it is at the very least an erronious witness, and you have access to people here willing to correct those notions.The doctrinal position of the LDS is that we co-existed with God the Father from eternity to eternity. Joseph Smith's King Follett sermon does not negate that doctrine. That sermon is best understood in the context of broader LDS doctrine.You are reading things into it that simply aren't there.If you want to take issue with the belief that God the Father once experienced what the Son did and he himself was tested and progressed as we have the opportunity to do - that is fine. But I resent the false implication that we believe He was not divine and ever anything but our God.Matt 13:15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
wenglund Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) I understood that all along. But I asked you about Joseph Smith's statement, which I also quoted in my article, and you ignored it. If you did understand it, you gave no indication that you did. Instead of speaking directly to what I queried in post #102, you ironically ignored it and went on to talk about Joseph's statement. As it was, I didn't ignore Joseph's statement, I explicitly mentioned it and spoke to it in post #109 and again in #118, but wished to stay focused on the issue that I had raised, until it was resolved....So, when Joseph said, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea...," what he meant was, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God in every possible connotation from all eternity"?No. Obviously! As already explained, he meant that God was not God in the sense of the 7th connotation of the term posted previously. How did you not understand this--particularly as one who styles himself an exegete and textual critical analyst?People wonder why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. The main reason is nicely illustrated here: people come up with very creative interpretations of texts in order to avoid what they really say.Yes, something is being illustrated here, which is that you persistently misinterpret what people are say here, as well as your propensity to misread things into what people say. The fact that you have such major trouble correctly grasping people contemporary to you and from relatively the same linguist and cultural background, may reasonably cause one to wonder how incapable you may be in correctly interpreting the words of people living long ago, in different lands, with different languages and cultures. In a humorous way, it is somewhat frightening. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited September 30, 2011 by wenglund 2
KevinG Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 Wade- I would like to give Rob the benefit of the doubt (that it is simply misunderstanding on his part) but I fear given his activities outside this forum and his steadfast refusal to allow Mormons to define their own terms his motives may be driven by a fundamental assumption that Mormons are at thier core dishonest or deluded and their obfuscations must be opposed at every turn. 3
wenglund Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 Wade- I would like to give Rob the benefit of the doubt (that it is simply misunderstanding on his part) but I fear given his activities outside this forum and his steadfast refusal to allow Mormons to define their own terms his motives may be driven by a fundamental assumption that Mormons are at thier core dishonest or deluded and their obfuscations must be opposed at every turn.That's fine. However, I prefer not to stoop to Rob's level, but have determined to think of people as acting in good faith until undeniably proven otherwise, and to let them speak for themselves. To each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Rob Bowman Posted September 30, 2011 Author Posted September 30, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:Sigh. Why do you insist on interpreting LDS history and doctrine in a way that the Latter-day Saints do not? Intentionally or not it is at the very least an erronious witness, and you have access to people here willing to correct those notions.Some Latter-day Saints agree with my understanding of the KFD. Thus it is not a matter of me insisting on interpreting LDS history and doctrine in a way that LDS do not, but in a way that some LDS do not.Moreover, I base my understanding of LDS texts on what the texts say, not what mostly unnamed Mormons on an internet forum say the texts mean.You wrote:The doctrinal position of the LDS is that we co-existed with God the Father from eternity to eternity. Joseph Smith's King Follett sermon does not negate that doctrine.I didn't deny that Joseph believed that we co-existed with God from eternity to eternity. I denied that Joseph believed, in 1844, that God has been God from eternity. He explicitly denies it, you know!You wrote:But I resent the false implication that we believe He was not divine and ever anything but our God."We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea...."Should I believe what Joseph Smith said that Joseph Smith said, or what DaddyG says that Joseph Smith said?
Rob Bowman Posted September 30, 2011 Author Posted September 30, 2011 Wade,I had asked you the following question: So, when Joseph said, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea...," what he meant was, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God in every possible connotation from all eternity"? You replied:No. Obviously! As already explained, he meant that God was not God in the sense of the 7th connotation of the term posted previously. How did you not understand this--particularly as one who styles himself an exegete and textual critical analyst?I'm sorry to have to say this, but you're the one with the problem of understanding, Wade. What I said simply echoes what you said. If God "was not God in the sense of the 7th connotation of the term," then he was not God in every sense of the term, or in every connotation of the term, as you had put it previously.
Rob Bowman Posted September 30, 2011 Author Posted September 30, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:Wade- I would like to give Rob the benefit of the doubt (that it is simply misunderstanding on his part) but I fear given his activities outside this forum and his steadfast refusal to allow Mormons to define their own terms his motives may be driven by a fundamental assumption that Mormons are at thier core dishonest or deluded and their obfuscations must be opposed at every turn.Um, you are projecting here. I have not been posting attacks against Mormon forum members here, constantly vilifying them as dishonest or deluded. A number of Mormons here, on the other hand, have been vilifying me in that way (mostly alleging that I am dishonest) ever since I started posting here.
Vance Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) Should I believe what Joseph Smith said that Joseph Smith said,Well, IF we had what Joseph Smith said that Joseph Smith said, THEN you could reliably believe it. But sadly, do to his untimely MURDER, we don't have what Joseph Smith said that Joseph Smith said."A full, verbatim account of the speech does not exist". Nor does a Joseph Smith approved reconstruction from notes taken contemporaneously.So, is there anywhere, an indisputable official declaration superseding D&C 20:28? Or D&C 39:1?Oh, wait. If we take OFFICIAL declarations as more declarative than later second hand reconstructions, then what would the anti-Mormons have for fodder? Edited September 30, 2011 by Vance
Rob Bowman Posted September 30, 2011 Author Posted September 30, 2011 Vance,You seemed quite confident in this post as to what Joseph Smith said. Have you changed your mind?
Vance Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 Vance,You seemed quite confident in this post as to what Joseph Smith said. Have you changed your mind?Do either of those quotes contradict, in any way, earlier OFFICIAL declarations?
wenglund Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 (edited) Wade,I had asked you the following question: So, when Joseph said, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea...," what he meant was, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God in every possible connotation from all eternity"? You replied:I'm sorry to have to say this, but you're the one with the problem of understanding, Wade. What I said simply echoes what you said. If God "was not God in the sense of the 7th connotation of the term," then he was not God in every sense of the term, or in every connotation of the term, as you had put it previously.Rob,This is simple English. My point was that Joseph's KFD statement spoke only to the one sense in which God the Father WASN'T God at the time, it didn't speak to all the senses that he WAS God, though Joseph likely believed that he was God in those other senses. Why this clear difference is lost on you, is anyone's guess. But, I have run out of patience in my failed hope of bringing you to cognition.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited September 30, 2011 by wenglund
sethpayne Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 People wonder why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. The main reason is nicely illustrated here: people come up with very creative interpretations of texts in order to avoid what they really say.Just like with the facacta notion of the Trinity. Talk about twisting texts around and ignoring others...... 1
volgadon Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 volgadon,Assuming for the sake of argument that the statement you cite teaches the same doctrine of deification as Joseph Smith taught, my point remains that the statement Dan Peterson and other LDS apologists have been quoting from the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva does not establish the doctrine as ancient.I've documented a portion of the yod section that is indisputably ancient.But seriously now, is it really your claim that a doctrine based on gematria is good evidence of the doctrine that Joseph Smith claimed to restore? Furthermore, how is a statement about God giving the righteous 310 worlds support for the LDS claim that the exalted will make their own worlds?The doctrine isn't based on gematria. If it were then we would expect the ORA to use the same prooftext. Gematria used to derive the amount of worlds, not the itself. The verse reads I will give those who love me yesh (yod-shin). Yod-shin is 310. I will give those who love me 310. 310 of what? The idea is independent of the prooftext. It will help if you bear in mind that this declaration comes at the end of a discussion on purity. Jewish writings are like an iceberg. Much lurks underneath the surface.As for the ORA, the number of worlds isn't exact. It says that each will take according to his reward. So, obviously, some will have more, some less.
Rob Bowman Posted October 1, 2011 Author Posted October 1, 2011 Wade,You keep construing me as meaning something other than I mean. I understood YOU to be saying that Joseph meant that God was not God in every possible sense. That is what you keep confirming that you meant even as you claim I didn't understand you!Like you, I'm done trying to reason with you about this. The statement in the KFD is very clear. God came to be God; that is what Joseph said. If he came to be God, then he has not always been God. "We have imagined and supposed" that he has been "God from all eternity," but that is not so; Joseph claims he refutes that idea. Only a theological paradigm could keep someone from seeing that to be, not just Joseph's meaning, but what he explicitly says.Rob,This is simple English. My point was that Joseph's KFD statement spoke only to the one sense in which God the Father WASN'T God at the time, it didn't speak to all the senses that he WAS God, though Joseph likely believed that he was God in those other senses. Why this clear difference is lost on you, is anyone's guess. But, I have run out of patience in my failed hope of bringing you to cognition.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Rob Bowman Posted October 1, 2011 Author Posted October 1, 2011 Seth,You wrote:Just like with the facacta notion of the Trinity. Talk about twisting texts around and ignoring others......I fully expected the tu quoque fallacy to show up, and it did.
Rob Bowman Posted October 1, 2011 Author Posted October 1, 2011 Volgadon,You missed this question:"Furthermore, how is a statement about God giving the righteous 310 worlds support for the LDS claim that the exalted will make their own worlds?"
Vance Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 Volgadon,You missed this question:"Furthermore, how is a statement about God giving the righteous 310 worlds support for the LDS claim that the exalted will make their own worlds?"What?Are you trying to say that you have to "make your own world(s)" to be a god?
Rob Bowman Posted October 1, 2011 Author Posted October 1, 2011 Vance,You wrote:What?Are you trying to say that you have to "make your own world(s)" to be a god?Yes, in the sense we are discussing.Reminds me of the following joke:One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and mind your own business?”God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a man-making contest.” To which the scientist replied, “Okay, we can handle that!”“But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”The scientist said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.God looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt.” 1
volgadon Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 Volgadon,You missed this question:"Furthermore, how is a statement about God giving the righteous 310 worlds support for the LDS claim that the exalted will make their own worlds?"You must have missed the bit about this being a clear instance of an ancient text in the ORA. YOu must also have missed the bit in LDS theology about having our own worlds, regardless of personally creating them or not. 1
Rob Bowman Posted October 1, 2011 Author Posted October 1, 2011 volgadon,You wrote:You must have missed the bit about this being a clear instance of an ancient text in the ORA. YOu must also have missed the bit in LDS theology about having our own worlds, regardless of personally creating them or not.No, I haven't missed these bits. But how quickly you (and Vance) are backing away from the robust doctrine of eternal progression! Now you are moving my direction theologically, by "throwing under the bus" (one of Vance's favorite expressions) the idea that the exalted will make their own worlds.Orthodox Christians, including evangelicals, expect that the redeemed in the new heavens and new earth will have experiences beyond our present understanding. Many evangelicals are comfortable with some sort of "deification" doctrine and certainly are comfortable with the substance of what the church fathers were communicating if not the language they used to communicate it. We will be immortal, perfect beings, holy, good, loving, and supremely happy. We will enjoy God's presence forever. We will have great power (but not be omnipotent) and great knowledge (but not be omniscient). Any and every perfection consistent with our being created, finite, human persons will be ours. Physically and spiritually, we will be like Christ in his incarnate human nature (Rom. 8:29; 1 John 3:2).None of these ideas or expectations have ever been lost, and so none of them needed to be or could be restored in the nineteenth century. Here is what I argue was not lost because it was never true: that God the Father was once a mortal man; that he progressed and was exalted, becoming God; that we preexisted as God's spirit children and have been sent here to follow in the Father's footsteps and become Gods ourselves; that we will become omnipotent, omniscient beings that can create universes the same way that God created this one.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) None of these ideas or expectations have ever been lost, and so none of them needed to be or could be restored in the nineteenth century. Here is what I argue was not lost because it was never true: that God the Father was once a mortal man; that he progressed and was exalted, becoming God; that we preexisted as God's spirit children and have been sent here to follow in the Father's footsteps and become Gods ourselves; that we will become omnipotent, omniscient beings that can create universes the same way that God created this one.Of course this is nonsense. Evangelicals consistently reject the idea of deification, unless the word is redefined to mean "not deification." The ancient Christians called their view "deification" for a reason, and it was not because they meant "not deification" like Evangelicals do The fact that there were many different ancient views of the meaning and nature of deification does not change the fact that ancient Christians and Mormons believed in deification while Evangelicals do not. Another important point needs to be emphasized. Ancient Jews and Christians did not believe that God created the universe as we now define it, because they did not know of the existence of the universe as understood by modern cosmology. Before the sixteenth century, when Jews and Christians talk about creation, they are always talking about the creation of this kosmos or planetary order in a geocentric sense. The "universe," in the biblical creation narratives is the planet earth and the visible heavens (with stars not understood as distant suns of their own planetary system. For LDS perspectives, see Moses 1:8, 35; note when God reveals the true nature of the universe, Moses and Abraham are utterly astounded, Moses 1:10, 33-42, Abr 3:12) The Bible never claims God created universe as understood by modern astrophysics and cosmology. That is an assumption modern readers insert into the text, but it is not explicit in the text, and in fact distorts the essential meaning of the text as understood by its ancient readers and writers. Thus, when Joseph talks about multiple gods and eternal cycles of creation, he is transcending the biblical kosmos in terms of time and space and conceptualization. Ancient cosmogony does not correlate upon Joseph's KFD cosmogony because they are talking about two different things. Edited October 1, 2011 by Bill Hamblin 3
KevinG Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:Um, you are projecting here. I have not been posting attacks against Mormon forum members here, constantly vilifying them as dishonest or deluded. A number of Mormons here, on the other hand, have been vilifying me in that way (mostly alleging that I am dishonest) ever since I started posting here.Projecting? Another internet psychologist.Pointing out that you run an anti-Mormon (among other things) internet ministry is not vilifying you at all. Of course you feel free to redefine LDS doctrine and misquote LDS authority with impunity. 1
Vance Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) Vance,You wrote:Yes, in the sense we are discussing.Reminds me of the following joke:Ok, so God wasn't God until AFTER He created the earth, and therefore wasn't always God "in the sense we are discussing".Thanks, Bowman, you have just proven Joseph Smiths statement, as recorded, correct.Good job!!!! Edited October 1, 2011 by Vance
Recommended Posts