Zakuska Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Zakuska,It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists. I applaud your bravado in saying so.Just calling them like I see them Rob. Looking in the mirror sometimes is quite scarry.
CV75 Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists. I applaud your bravado in saying so.CFR -- also, how do you quantify "fairly common"?
Storm Rider Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Storm Rider,You wrote:Excuse me, but if you don't see any value in this topic, that's your business. Other Mormons here seem to think it's very important--and they're right. The issue of the nature of spirit and its relation to matter (and/or to the physical world) is extremely important because it is part of a larger worldview that shapes the way we think about God and ourselves.Wade had cited 1 Kings 22 in support of his belief that spirits have spirit bodies. This thread was a response to his argument. The topic, therefore, originated from a Mormon, not from me.Rob, I would chastize a LDS more easily than I would a non-member. I expect more of LDS in certain areas because in those situations I know they should know better. You will have to admit this is a pretty esoteric concept and one that only a very small minority of Christians would have enough knowledge to discuss. If a spirit is not a "body" or a "person" then the scriptures become meaningless. There is just too many examples where a spirit has form, likeness, and image. How could they not have a body?
Storm Rider Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists. I applaud your bravado in saying so.You completely misrepresent what he stated. His statement was, "An "immaterial" non-existant God who doesn't have a body is the very definition of Athieism." How on earth does that equate to making your statement that it is "fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists". Provide a CFR. Never in my entire life have I ever heard a LDS make any such statement or inference. This may be Zak idea of the definition of atheist, but it is his alone and it is not the definition of atheism. Zak, open a bloody dictionary before spouting nonsense. Do you actually think orthodox Christians are atheists? If you do, go to your wife, your hometeacher, your EQP, or HPGL, and ask them to slap the peewadden out of ya and bring you back to reality. You are way out of bounds; stop it!Rob, LDS believe that all those who follow Jesus Christ are Christians. To say anything different is a bald-faced lie. This is the type of drivel that reassures me that trusting people such as yourself is folly in the extreme; they are but wolves in sheeps clothing. Too quickly do I hear the words, Get thee behind me. 1
Nathair/|\ Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 If I may be so bold, it seems that Mr. Bowman is legitimately trying to understand us. However he is limited by being an outsider. I suggest that the only way he will succeed is if he were to immerse himself in LDS culture, ie. live for a period of time as one of us to the extent that is possible without violating his conscience or making covenants he will not be willing to keep.
Zakuska Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Rob said earlier about the "Host of Heaven".2. The “Host of Heaven”Micaiah tells Ahab that he saw “all the host of heaven standing beside” the LORD “on his right hand and on his left” (v. 19). If we are to take the spirit’s “standing” in verse 21 anthropomorphically as meaning that the spirit was a man-shaped being standing on literal legs and feet, we should also interpret the host of heaven “standing” on the right and left sides of the LORD literally as well.However, Micaiah’s reference to “the host of heaven” poses something of a problem for such a literal reading of the scene. The usual meaning and reference of the biblical expression “the host of heaven” is to the stars, planets, and similar observed objects in the sky (see especially Deut. 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kings 23:5; Isa. 34:4; Jer. 8:2; 33:22; Dan. 8:10; cf. also Ps. 33:6; Neh. 9:6a; Isa. 40:26; 45:12). The plural form “hosts” was often used to refer to angelic or spiritual beings, especially in the common expression “the LORD (God) of hosts” (occurring about three hundred times in the Hebrew OT). Since spirits or angels were also associated with heaven, it is not surprising that here in Micaiah’s revelation the expression “the host of heaven” refers to spirits, but this usage is unusual (1 Kings 22:19 and the parallel 2 Chron. 18:18 are the only clear examples; Neh. 9:6b; Isa. 24:21; 34:4; Dan. 4:35 are also likely examples). An ancient Hebrew reading the text would immediately associate the expression “host of heaven” with the stars and other points of light in the sky, which in the broader culture were associated with or identified as supernatural beings and often worshiped as deities. Micaiah uses this ancient mythological imagery to refer to the spirits that were with the LORD without endorsing the mythological worldview from which that imagery originated.Consider how this information about the “host of heaven” and the previous point about the sitting of God on his throne as figurative converge. We have seen that God is a being too immense or transcendent to be literally sitting in a chair somewhere, and that the beings attending him in Micaiah’s scene are metaphorically referenced using an expression denoting the stars in the sky. These two points converge toward the same conclusion, which is that the whole description is symbolic, not literal. The spirits to the LORD’s left and right are not literal stars, nor are they beings literally standing on either side of the LORD as he sits in his chair. Micaiah is using stock religious imagery and language of his culture, not offering a literal description of the celestial kingdom.It is often said that the scene Micaiah describes is God in his heavenly court or divine council. Although this interpretation is widely held, there are some reasons to think it may not be quite accurate. Micaiah’s use of the term “host of heaven” describes the spiritual beings in God’s presence as an army. That is what the term “host” (seba’) means. Furthermore, Micaiah describes the host as standing not before or facing the LORD, as council members attending to the presiding King, but as “standing beside him on his right hand and on his left.” This imagery depicts the host as flanking their King and Commander-in-Chief, what is in effect a military formation. A literal example appears in Samuel, where Shimei “threw stones at David and at all the servants of King David, and all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left” (2 Sam. 16:6). It is therefore more likely that Micaiah is describing a military scene in which the LORD sits on his throne with the armies of heaven arrayed with him. This imagery fits the context as well: the subject of the whole passage is Jehoshaphat and Ahab’s alliance and their intention to attack Ramoth-gilead (v. 20, cf. vv. 1-18). That Micaiah is describing a military scene in heaven adds further confirmation that the description is symbolic: Micaiah clearly does not mean that the LORD is preparing to send his army to wage a literal battle against Jehoshaphat and Ahab.:palm-forhead:Please see highlighted sentences.John Gills Exposition on the Whole Bible...1 Kings 22:19Ver. 19. And he saith, hear thou therefore the word of the Lord,.... Since he had represented what he had said as proceeding from hatred to him, he would make it clear and plain that what he had said was the word of the Lord, and according to his mind; and that what the other prophets had said was owing to a lying spirit in them, which the Lord suffered for his ruin; all which are represented as in a vision, in which things are brought down to the capacities of men, and not as really transacted:I saw the Lord sitting on his throne; so it was represented to his mind, as if he had seen with his bodily eyes the divine Being in a glorious form, as a king sitting on his throne, to do justice and judgment; as Ahab and Jehoshaphat were now sitting on their thrones, only as a far greater King, even the King of kings, and in a more splendid manner:and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left the ministering angels ready to do his will.John WesleyVerse 19. He said - I will give thee a distinct and true account of the whole matter, in God's name and presence. I saw - By the eyes of my mind: for he could not see the Lord with bodily eyes. The Host - The angels, both good and bad, the one possibly on his right, the other on his left hand. Nor is it strange that the devils are called the host of heaven; if you consider, first, that their original seat was in heaven. Secondly, that the name of heaven is often given to all that part of the world which is above the earth, and among the rest, to the air, and where the devil's residence and dominion lies, Eph. ii, 2, and that both Michael and his angels, and the Dragon and his angels, are said to be, and to wage war in heaven, Rev. xii, 7, either the air, or the church.Geneva Studie bible.22:19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the p host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.(p) Meaning, his angels.Nope guys... these "Hosts of Heaven" are not seen as planets and stars, but Gods Angelic council. Edited September 21, 2011 by Zakuska
Zakuska Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 You completely misrepresent what he stated. His statement was, "An "immaterial" non-existant God who doesn't have a body is the very definition of Athieism." How on earth does that equate to making your statement that it is "fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists". Provide a CFR.Never in my entire life have I ever heard a LDS make any such statement or inference. This may be Zak idea of the definition of atheist, but it is his alone and it is not the definition of atheism.Zak, open a bloody dictionary before spouting nonsense. Do you actually think orthodox Christians are atheists? If you do, go to your wife, your hometeacher, your EQP, or HPGL, and ask them to slap the peewadden out of ya and bring you back to reality. You are way out of bounds; stop it!Rob, LDS believe that all those who follow Jesus Christ are Christians. To say anything different is a bald-faced lie. This is the type of drivel that reassures me that trusting people such as yourself is folly in the extreme; they are but wolves in sheeps clothing. Too quickly do I hear the words, Get thee behind me.You asked for a definition... you got it...Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]]If something is "immaterial" then it doesn't exist ergo Athiesm.
Calm Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) You asked for a definition... you got it...If something is "immaterial" then it doesn't exist ergo Athiesm.Only if one insists that only matter exists.Not everyone believes this and it is inappropriate to insist that all must accept this premise as part of their rationale as there is nothing logically impossible about something existing beyond matter/energy.There are many belief systems that define "spiritual" as "not matter" or "immaterial". They are just as reasonable given their premises as LDS are given theirs and since it is impossible to measure or observe either situation ("more refined matter" or "immaterials") dismissing either one as unreasonable while accepting the other as reasonable is absurd and extraordinarily arrogant.Telling a Christian that he is an atheist because he believes that spirit is immaterial is twisting a belief into something that it is not that is as bad as anything I've seen an anti-mormon do, you should reconsider your approach. This is worse than proclaiming that LDS believe in a "different Jesus". Honestly I find it somewhat childish in appearance to do so and not something I would expect of you, Zak. Please think seriously about it. It is not just an exercise in logic what you are doing.PS: sorry if this sounds harsh, but you are a good guy and I want you to look like that to everyone else as well as to me. Edited September 21, 2011 by calmoriah
Rob Bowman Posted September 21, 2011 Author Posted September 21, 2011 Storm Rider,You wrote:You completely misrepresent what he stated. His statement was, "An "immaterial" non-existant God who doesn't have a body is the very definition of Athieism." How on earth does that equate to making your statement that it is "fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists". Provide a CFR.Never in my entire life have I ever heard a LDS make any such statement or inference. This may be Zak idea of the definition of atheist, but it is his alone and it is not the definition of atheism.In a recent thread I started, "Trinitarians do not view God as an abstraction!" I documented such a misrepresentation of orthodox Christians on this forum and elsewhere.You wrote:Rob, LDS believe that all those who follow Jesus Christ are Christians. To say anything different is a bald-faced lie. This is the type of drivel that reassures me that trusting people such as yourself is folly in the extreme; they are but wolves in sheeps clothing. Too quickly do I hear the words, Get thee behind me.I don't recall saying that Mormons believe that we are not Christians; what I said is that some (not all) Mormons believe that we are atheists. If that sounds confused, take it up with them.
Storm Rider Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 I don't recall saying that Mormons believe that we are not Christians; what I said is that some (not all) Mormons believe that we are atheists. If that sounds confused, take it up with them.Rob, please do not be pedantic in your approach. If one is an athiest, one is not Christian; they are juxtaposed and cannot exist in the same person....unless maybe we are discussing the Jesus Seminar and those poor souls don't have a clue about God, his Son, or the Holy Spirit, but I digress. You still have not provided a single reference where the LDS Church teaches or that LDS in any degree think that Christians are atheists. Until you do so, desist form repeating a lie. You know it is a lie and I know it is a lie; don't play games. Your behavior is typical Envangelical boneheadedness resistance to give up when truth stares them in the face, but if you try to seek the Spirit you will know it. You get a two-fer also; the darkness gets dispelled and you will actually see where you are going. No more bumping into that obnoxious iron rod again.
LeSellers Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 If I may be so bold, it seems that Mr. Bowman is legitimately trying to understand us. However he is limited by being an outsider. I suggest that the only way he will succeed is if he were to immerse himself in LDS culture, ie. live for a period of time as one of us to the extent that is possible without violating his conscience or making covenants he will not be willing to keep.He may be "legitimately trying to understand us," but his motivation for "understanding us" is not "real intent"—it's to attack us better.He's following Sun Tzu's advice to know his enemy.Lehi
mfbukowski Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) I don't recall saying that Mormons believe that we are not Christians; what I said is that some (not all) Mormons believe that we are atheists. If that sounds confused, take it up with them. I must say you outdid even yourself on this comment. If I had room to make this part of my siggy, I would, but alas- it is already longer than it should be and I don't want to lose any of the wisdom it contains for this...........comment. Edited September 21, 2011 by mfbukowski
cdowis Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) If I may be so bold, it seems that Mr. Bowman is legitimately trying to understand us. However he is limited by being an outsider. I suggest that the only way he will succeed is if he were to immerse himself in LDS culture, ie. live for a period of time as one of us to the extent that is possible without violating his conscience or making covenants he will not be willing to keep.I can give a personal observation.May I suggest that for over a decade he had indeed immersed himself with Mormonism (while still remaining a outsider). At some point he made the transition from tenative disagreement, sittting on the sidelines, to active, forceful opposition. He states that he prayed about the BOM and received an answer that it is false. He no longer is "confused" about what we teach, but has his own web site where he sells antimormon materials and exposes our temple rites. Edited September 21, 2011 by cdowis
Rob Bowman Posted September 21, 2011 Author Posted September 21, 2011 Storm Rider,You wrote:Rob, please do not be pedantic in your approach. If one is an athiest, one is not Christian; they are juxtaposed and cannot exist in the same person....unless maybe we are discussing the Jesus Seminar and those poor souls don't have a clue about God, his Son, or the Holy Spirit, but I digress. You still have not provided a single reference where the LDS Church teaches or that LDS in any degree think that Christians are atheists. Until you do so, desist form repeating a lie. You know it is a lie and I know it is a lie; don't play games.I'm not; perhaps you are (I can't tell). I never said that "the LDS Church teaches" that orthodox Christians are atheists. I said that "some (not all) Mormons" think so. I entirely agree with you when you say that one cannot be a Christian and an atheist at the same time. You're absolutely correct! But you are assuming that all of your brethren are consistent, or that all of them agree that orthodox Christians are really Christians.I provided documentation showing that some Mormons have indeed described us as "atheists" ("closet atheists," according to BCSpace; "religious atheist," according to Orson Pratt) or have made comments amounting to the same thing (e.g., that we believe in "an impersonal nothingness," according to Bruce McConkie). So what I said was absolutely not a lie. I can't say what BCSpace believes about us being Christians, but I can say that we have statements from McConkie indicating that he did not regard orthodox believers as Christians. So he was probably consistent in this regard.Now, please apologize for falsely accusing me of a lie.
wenglund Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) I find it very illuminating that several Mormons here agree with the atheists in rejecting the existence of the kind of God that William Lane Craig affirms and defends. We really do believe in two very different kinds or conceptions of God.It is about as illuminating as you being in league with radical Islamist in rejecting a number of LDS beliefs.The point being, the only thing I see illuminating about this you thinking the game of guilt by association is worth playing. LOLThanks, -Wade Englund- Edited September 21, 2011 by wenglund
CV75 Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 In a recent thread I started, "Trinitarians do not view God as an abstraction!" I documented such a misrepresentation of orthodox Christians on this forum and elsewhere.I find this grossly insufficient to show that “It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists.”A message board where a poster asserts or opines something in questionable debate really does not constitute much of a reference, and certainly does not qualify as a "fairly common" sentiment.McConkie did not express a view that defines orthodox Christians as atheists, but his summary characterization of the Trinity doctrine as to what he sees it affirming.In his notes to the chapter entitled, “God and the Godhead” Talmage describes two classes of atheist, clearly qualifying that immaterialists worship God but deny His existence in duration and space. He uses Pratt’s comments that acknowledge that immaterialists grant the powers of God to what they worship.Is this really all it takes to conclude that “It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists” or is something else going on here? 1
CV75 Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 I provided documentation showing that some Mormons have indeed described us as "atheists" ("closet atheists," according to BCSpace; "religious atheist," according to Orson Pratt) or have made comments amounting to the same thing (e.g., that we believe in "an impersonal nothingness," according to Bruce McConkie). So what I said was absolutely not a lie. I can't say what BCSpace believes about us being Christians, but I can say that we have statements from McConkie indicating that he did not regard orthodox believers as Christians. So he was probably consistent in this regard.I find this grossly insufficient to show that “It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists.”A message board where a poster asserts or opines something in questionable debate really does not constitute much of a reference, and certainly does not qualify as a "fairly common" sentiment.McConkie did not express a view that defines orthodox Christians as atheists, but his summary characterization of the Trinity doctrine as to what he sees it affirming.In his notes to the chapter entitled, “God and the Godhead” Talmage describes two classes of atheist, clearly qualifying that immaterialists worship God but deny His existence in duration and space. He uses Pratt’s comments that acknowledge that immaterialists grant the powers of God to what they worship.Is this really all it takes (including "indicating" and 'probably"?) to conclude that “It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists” or is something else going on here?
mfbukowski Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 "Christians as atheists"?What an absurdity! Just another smokescreen diversion to bring attention away from the unanswered contradictions of a "thing" which is made of nothing and which the mind cannot even conceive.We might as well argue about the color of mercy or the taste of mathematics. Yes, you can put the words together just as you can with "incorporeal" and "thing" but does it mean anything? Of course not!A logical category error is a category error regardless of how you dress it up.Pardon me- I have to go work in my yard and plant my testimony to make it grow.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Rob, I would chastize a LDS more easily than I would a non-member. I expect more of LDS in certain areas because in those situations I know they should know better. You will have to admit this is a pretty esoteric concept and one that only a very small minority of Christians would have enough knowledge to discuss. If a spirit is not a "body" or a "person" then the scriptures become meaningless. There is just too many examples where a spirit has form, likeness, and image. How could they not have a body?There is a sense in which they don't have a body... depending on what you mean by a "body".Spirits/Ghost don't have bodies of flesh and bone as Jesus did after he was resurrected, but they still have some kind of a body.The trouble here is that the word "body" can be used to refer to different kinds or types of bodies.
Ahab Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Storm Rider,You wrote:I'm not; perhaps you are (I can't tell). I never said that "the LDS Church teaches" that orthodox Christians are atheists. I said that "some (not all) Mormons" think so. I entirely agree with you when you say that one cannot be a Christian and an atheist at the same time. You're absolutely correct! But you are assuming that all of your brethren are consistent, or that all of them agree that orthodox Christians are really Christians.I provided documentation showing that some Mormons have indeed described us as "atheists" ("closet atheists," according to BCSpace; "religious atheist," according to Orson Pratt) or have made comments amounting to the same thing (e.g., that we believe in "an impersonal nothingness," according to Bruce McConkie). So what I said was absolutely not a lie. I can't say what BCSpace believes about us being Christians, but I can say that we have statements from McConkie indicating that he did not regard orthodox believers as Christians. So he was probably consistent in this regard.Now, please apologize for falsely accusing me of a lie.Rob,Please try to understand that when some Mormons accuse some Christians of being atheists, what they're referring to is the idea that some Christians believe God, our Father, doesn't have some type of "real" and "physical" form and substance, which to those Mormons conveys the idea that God is seen as more of an abstract thought rather than something, or someone, which exists in reality.I'm pretty sure I correctly understand what you really believe about the "form" and "substance" of God. You believe he doesn't have any of either, and yet you still believe he exists, in some way.It's pretty weird, and wrong, but I wouldn't go so far as to call you or anyone else who is that type of Christian an atheist. I'd simply say that you and they don't know God, our Father, along with everyone else who is God, does have some form and some substance.It kinda reminds me of what Jesus said to some Samaritan woman.You worship you know not what... while we know what we worship. Edited September 21, 2011 by Ahab
Zakuska Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) There is a sense in which they don't have a body... depending on what you mean by a "body".Spirits/Ghost don't have bodies of flesh and bone as Jesus did after he was resurrected, but they still have some kind of a body.The trouble here is that the word "body" can be used to refer to different kinds or types of bodies.But can you think of any usage of the word "body" that does not include some type of "element"?Body of WaterBody of Beleivers in ChristBody of BretherenBody of SoldiersStudent Body Edited September 21, 2011 by Zakuska
LeSellers Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 But can you think of any usage of the word "body" that does not include some type of "element"?Body of WaterBody of Beleivers in ChristBody of BretherenBody of SoldiersStudent BodyBody of beliefsBody of knowledgeBody of ideasThat said, (our) spirits are organized intelligences, clothed in spirit matter having the same form (shape/size) as the physical bodies they will one day inhabit.Lehi
Zakuska Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Body of beliefsBody of knowledgeBody of ideasThat said, (our) spirits are organized intelligences, clothed in spirit matter having the same form (shape/size) as the physical bodies they will one day inhabit.LehiWell I stepped in that one... didn't I.
Calm Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 It is also important to remember that just because the same language isn't used doesn't mean the same concept or understanding isn't there, just under a different term.Most nonLDS Christians I have known visualize their soul as having some form or substance while still being immaterial. It would be interesting to know if they would be okay with describing that form as a body. Considering how many portray ghosts in the shape of humans (incuding those who believe ghosts are the dead), it seems to me that they would, even if they believe that form is optional.
Recommended Posts