Jump to content

Is The Spirit In 1 Kings 22:19-23 Embodied Or Incorporeal?


Recommended Posts

Vance,

The fact that the change in format created a hole through which you slipped back into a thread from which you were banned does not mean the moderators meant to lift the ban.

This thread was derailed, not by me, but by your and Mr. Bukowski's off-topic rants about IRR's website. You were the one who brought up the statement on IRR's website that the LDS Church teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God the Father. That issue was and is off-topic. You offered this allegedly incorrect statement as an example of the website supposedly misrepresenting or distorting LDS doctrine. So I have asked you, repeatedly, if the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is also guilty of misrepresenting or distorting LDS doctrine. You refuse to answer that question because you know that the answer would completely undermine your attack against me (that I supposedly knowingly support misrepresentations of LDS doctrine on IRR's website).

Link to comment

Vance,

The fact that the change in format created a hole through which you slipped back into a thread from which you were banned does not mean the moderators meant to lift the ban.

So? Still irrelevant to the topic at hand.

This thread was derailed, not by me, but by your and Mr. Bukowski's off-topic rants about IRR's website.

And YOU continue to derail it rather than remain on topic.

You were the one who brought up the statement on IRR's website that the LDS Church teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God the Father. That issue was and is off-topic.

In response to Charles request. Thank you.

You offered this allegedly incorrect statement as an example of the website supposedly misrepresenting or distorting LDS doctrine.

I showed some untrue statements from your web site, as requested.

So I have asked you, repeatedly, if the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is also guilty of misrepresenting or distorting LDS doctrine.

That is irrelevant to the false information on YOUR web site. Trying to blame others for YOUR misrepresentation isn't good form.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, by its own declaration, does NOT speak for the LDS Church.

You refuse to answer that question because you know that the answer would completely undermine your attack against me (that I supposedly knowingly support misrepresentations of LDS doctrine on IRR's website).

Why answer a question that is irrelevant to the topic?

So you can continue to deflect from the fact that you argument here has been shredded?

Edited by Vance
Link to comment

Vance, I'm done responding to you in this thread. Your blatant refusal to answer a simple question regarding your off-topic accusation is there for all to see. I will continue discussing the topic of this thread with others who show themselves willing to respect board policy and to engage in genuine dialogue.

Link to comment

In case you haven't noticed, any evangelical scholar or pastor who abandons evangelicalism (think Bart Ehrman) or even questions pieces of it (think Rob Bell) becomes an instant celebrity and media darling. It would undoubtedly be a great career move, if that was my interest or motivation. I never worry about and rarely even think about what my employer might say if I take a particular position on an issue. I approach my work as a scholar, not as a hack for some employer. If you were privy to the discussions that we have in the office at IRR, you would know that I am constantly raising questions about the validity or accuracy of various common criticisms of the LDS religion. I have an annoying habit of questioning everything.

So have you read Quinns research on the "non-existant" 1820 revival? And is IRR going to update its Rev. Walters balogne any time soon?

Edited by Zakuska
Link to comment

Rob,

I'm wondering if you believe the word "spirit" ever refers to a person who doesn't have a mortal body, and if you realize the word "spirit" can also be translated as "ghost" in many cases.

I realize the word spirit can also refer to air, or breath, or a general atmosphere in some cases, but if you think about a "spirit" as a "ghost", and the ghost of a person, you might have a bit easier time realizing a spirit is actually a person and that such a person would appear in the form of a body.

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, are you saying that when the word "spirit" is referring to a person or the ghost of a person, that person or ghost of a person can appear in some form other than in the form of a person?

Heh, when I think about it, I suppose I can agree with that, as a possiblity. I know of a record stating the Holy Ghost can appear in the form of a dove, even though he is a person and not a dove, and I also know of an instance when evil spirits took the form of pigs when they chose to reside in the bodies of some pigs, so I suppose it could be possible that when we shed our mortal body our spirits will be able to shapeshift or appear as something other than a person, even though we will still be the people we are.

Maybe an advantage of being resurrected is that our spirits will be locked into the form we are in now, so that then we will always appear as people rather than as some other creature. I know I'd much rather look like a person than a pig, although pigs look like they are supposed to look.

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment

Vance, for the record, I am in the process of making several revisions to the article you faulted. I don't agree with your claim that we misrepresented or distorted Mormon doctrine, but I am working on making revisions so that the article will be more accurate and up to date. I will post something when the changes are complete (without providing an actual link).

Link to comment

Zakuska,

You wrote:

So have you read Quinns research on the "non-existant" 1820 revival? And is IRR going to update its Rev. Walters balogne any time soon?

I have already commented on this question in another thread. Please refrain from multiplying off-topic issues here beyond what has already taken place.

Link to comment

Zakuska,

You wrote:

I have already commented on this question in another thread. Please refrain from multiplying off-topic issues here beyond what has already taken place.

Thank you I will read it there.

If I knew where "there" was?

Edited by Zakuska
Link to comment

Zakuska,

The short answer is that I have Quinn's lengthy essay but have not yet read it. When I have read it and worked through the issues it raises, I will come to my own opinion on the subject.

P.S. I like your quote from Martin Luther; I've been quoting that for many years.

Edited by Rob Bowman
Link to comment

Vance, I'm done responding to you in this thread.

But will you continue avoiding the fact that your OP argument has been shredded?

Your blatant refusal to answer a simple question regarding your off-topic accusation is there for all to see.

And your attempted red herring is also there for all to see. Claiming that "the Mormon Churches teaches" something that it does NOT is misrepresentation and distortion, any way you look at it.

I will continue discussing the topic of this thread with others who show themselves willing to respect board policy and to engage in genuine dialogue.

As will I.

Link to comment

Zakuska,

The short answer is that I have Quinn's lengthy essay but have not yet read it. When I have read it and worked through the issues it raises, I will come to my own opinion on the subject.

P.S. I like your quote from Martin Luther; I've been quoting that for many years.

Thank you rob... When you come to your opinion please do share.

I wish I had seen that Martin Luther quote years ago. It would have saved me much time in trying to debate the issue with Antinomians.

Edited by Zakuska
Link to comment

At this point we cannot ban members from threads yet. With the conversion sometimes things take awhile to get back on track. If you were taken out of a thread for bad behavior it is in your best interest to start behaving or face changes to your account to limit participation.

Nemesis

Link to comment

When certain Mormons argue that Trinitarians believe in four divine persons, or in none (!), and they refuse to retract these ridiculous claims after having a Trinitarian scholar explain to them why they are blatantly false, yes, those particular Mormons are engaging in misrepresentation.

This appears to be a barb thrown at me; and it is a dishonest one. You know perfectly well that that is not how the argument goes. I started a thread on this subject a while ago which you ran away from. The argument is a very simple one: You claim that the Trinity consists of three Persons in one God. The question is, is that one God Himself (or Itself) a Person or not? If He is, then you have four "Persons" in your Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and the one God who is a conglomeration of all three of them. If, on the other hand, that one God is not Himself/Itself a Person, then you have a problem on your hand, because throughout the Bible that one God (whom you have identified with Jehovah) is portrayed as a Person, not anything else. I have given you plenty of opportunities to offer a solution to this obvious logical and theological inconsistency in your doctrine of the Trinity, and you have failed to do so. And I am not holding my breath that you will do so now.

Edited by zerinus
Link to comment

zerinus,

Your argument boils down to an attempt to paint me as a Trinitarian into a corner of affirming either that God is four persons (if I say that God is a "person"), or that he is no persons (if I say God is not a "person"). So what was wrong with my characterization of your argument? Nothing, so far as I can see.

Your claim that I "ran away from" this argument is also false. I answered it, but you didn't like my answer.

This appears to be a barb thrown at me; and it is a dishonest one. You know perfectly well that that is not how the argument goes. I started a thread on this subject a while ago which you ran away from. The argument is a very simple one: You claim that the Trinity consists of three Persons in one God. The question is, is that one God Himself (or Itself) a Person or not? If He is, then you have four "Persons" in your Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and the one God who is a conglomeration of all three of them. If, on the other hand, that one God is not Himself/Itself a Person, then you have a problem on your hand, because throughout the Bible that one God (whom you have identified with Jehovah) is portrayed as a Person, not anything else. I have given you plenty of opportunities to offer a solution to this obvious logical and theological inconsistency in your doctrine of the Trinity, and you have failed to do so. And I am not holding my breath that you will do so now.

Link to comment

This appears to be a barb thrown at me; and it is a dishonest one. You know perfectly well that that is not how the argument goes. I started a thread on this subject a while ago which you ran away from. The argument is a very simple one: You claim that the Trinity consists of three Persons in one God. The question is, is that one God Himself (or Itself) a Person or not?

Understand that when they use the word "God" in that sense they are talking about a particular kind of being rather than an individual person who is that kind of being. Or at least that's what we mean when use the word "God" in that way.

Our Father in heaven is God, and Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is also God, meaning all 3 of them are the kind of being we refer to as "God" when we use the word "God" to refer to a particular kind of being, but rather than referring to them as "Gods" they would rather refer to all 3 of them as persons who are God.

Get that straight in your head and then you'll better understand the doctrine of "Trinitarians", as well as our own doctrine of God.

Link to comment
Wade, Not everything that Dan Peterson says is a misrepresentation; in fact, I would venture that most of what he says is not misrepresentation. I do disagree with his arguments for deification, and I thought his appeal to a medieval Jewish text as support for the Mormon doctrine being "ancient" was especially problematic, but I try to keep my criticisms focused on the issues, not the person.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that everything you say here or on your blog or at your organization's website is a misrepresentation. And their criticism about misrepresentation is in regards to the issues. So, I still don['t see why you believe this differentiate you as one who supposedly "interprets differently" while Dr. Peterson and other LDS supposedly "misrepresent".

My complaint is about those who insist repeatedly on making their criticisms of me very personal. I have never criticized Dan or anyone else by making the sorts of vicious attacks that have been made against me on this forum.

I don't know what personal attacks have to do with what you say and whether you are supposedly "interpreting differently" while we are supposedly "misrepresenting," but your comments here, and on your blog and aT the website for your organization, an obvious attack on our personal religious beliefs. So, I am not sure you are in a good position to belly-ache about personal attacks, let alone assume this somehow differentiate you as one who supposedly "interprets differently" while Dr. Peterson and other LDS supposedly "misrepresent."

When certain Mormons argue that Trinitarians believe in four divine persons, or in none (!), and they refuse to retract these ridiculous claims after having a Trinitarian scholar explain to them why they are blatantly false, yes, those particular Mormons are engaging in misrepresentation.

So, when we LDS explain to you how things you state here and on your blog and on your organization's website are, about our faith, which to our way of thinking are ridiculous and blatantly false, why can't we view your comments as "misrepresentations" rather than simply "different interpretations?"

So, do you have this straight now? B:)

I am not sure. I see you and some people on our side doing the same or similar things, but you wish your actions to be considered as "different interpretations" and theirs as "misrepresentations." I have straight the apparent double standard.? Is that what I was supposed to get straight?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Wade,

You wrote:

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that everything you say here or on your blog or at your organization's website is a misrepresentation. And their criticism about misrepresentation is in regards to the issues. So, I still don['t see why you believe this differentiate you as one who supposedly "interprets differently" while Dr. Peterson and other LDS supposedly "misrepresent".

I am not arguing that Dan misrepresented anything. Perhaps he has done so somewhere, but I'm not claiming he did, and it's irrelevant to this thread.

Link to comment

That is irrelevant to the false information on YOUR web site. Trying to blame others for YOUR misrepresentation isn't good form.

It's only false if you disagree with what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism expresses as their opinion.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, by its own declaration, does NOT speak for the LDS Church.

With the above in mind, would you disagree with what the Encyclopedia of Mormonism states? or say that it is teaching false doctrine?

Link to comment

zerinus,

Your argument boils down to an attempt to paint me as a Trinitarian into a corner of affirming either that God is four persons (if I say that God is a "person"), or that he is no persons (if I say God is not a "person"). So what was wrong with my characterization of your argument? Nothing, so far as I can see.

My argument amounts to showing a logical and theological inconsistency in your Trinitarian theology that you are trying to dodge.

Your claim that I "ran away from" this argument is also false. I answered it, but you didn't like my answer.

Well, that is how it looked like from where I am looking at it. Don't know about you.

Link to comment

Heh, when I think about it, I suppose I can agree with that, as a possiblity. I know of a record stating the Holy Ghost can appear in the form of a dove, even though he is a person and not a dove, . . .

Not according to Joseph Smith:

.

Whoever led the Son of God into the waters of baptism, and had the privilege of beholding the Holy Ghost descend in the form of a dove, or rather in the
sign
of the dove, in witness of that administration? The sign of the dove was instituted before the creation of the world, a witness for the Holy Ghost, and the devil cannot come in the sign of a dove. The Holy Ghost is a personage, and is in the form of a personage. It does not confine itself to the
form
of the dove, but in
sign
of the dove. The Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a dove; but the sign of a dove was given to John to signify the truth of the deed, as the dove is an emblem or token of truth and innocence. (
TPJS
, 276. Emphasis in the original.)
Link to comment

Not according to Joseph Smith:

.

Whoever led the Son of God into the waters of baptism, and had the privilege of beholding the Holy Ghost descend in the form of a dove, or rather in the
sign
of the dove, in witness of that administration? The sign of the dove was instituted before the creation of the world, a witness for the Holy Ghost, and the devil cannot come in the sign of a dove. The Holy Ghost is a personage, and is in the form of a personage. It does not confine itself to the
form
of the dove, but in
sign
of the dove. The Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a dove; but the sign of a dove was given to John to signify the truth of the deed, as the dove is an emblem or token of truth and innocence. (
TPJS
, 276. Emphasis in the original.)

Yes, even Joseph Smith acknowledged there is a record stating the Holy Ghost could appear, and actually appeared, in the form of a dove.

Link to comment

Yes, even Joseph Smith acknowledged there is a record stating the Holy Ghost could appear, and actually appeared, in the form of a dove.

The Holy Ghost has two different meanings. It can refer to that Spirit that emanates or proceeds from God (D&C 88:7-13), and the "personage of Spirit" that acts as the third member of the Godhead (D&C 130:22). The former may be able to transform itself (or a portion of itself) into a dove; but about the latter I have my doubts.

Link to comment

Someone so well versed in Mormon research should know the difference between doctrine, practice, opinion and speculation (even if that speculation is done by more prominent members).

There is a big issue with presenting speculative or non-cannonical teachings and de-emphsising core doctrines in order to create a false impression about the LDS Church.

Link to comment

DaddyG,

I can only guess that this is aimed in some fashion at me, but what is the specific instance you have in mind? Are you defending Vance's claim that IRR's reference to the LDS Church teaching that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of the Father is a misrepresentation? If so, please answer the question Vance won't: Did the Encyclopedia of Mormonism also misrepresent Mormon doctrine? What core doctrine do you claim IRR's website deemphasizes, and what false impression about the LDS Church do you think that the website (and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, if the above issue is the point) gives?

Someone so well versed in Mormon research should know the difference between doctrine, practice, opinion and speculation (even if that speculation is done by more prominent members).

There is a big issue with presenting speculative or non-cannonical teachings and de-emphsising core doctrines in order to create a false impression about the LDS Church.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...