Cobalt-70 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 CFR.This is a common claim that people make, but I've never seen anyone provide a reference to back that up. Joseph's revision of Genesis 1:26 and 5:1-2 (which, you recall, he made in 1830) seem to show that he believed that God had a body of some sort. Whether or not he believed God was a spirit, he never believed God was "immaterial."Other examples are listed here:http://en.fairmormon...ge_of_spirit%22Read Lectures on Faith in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. It says that the Father is a "personage of Spirit," unlike the Son. D1ck believed pretty much the same thing as Smith did, circa 1835. He wrote that the Son had a tangible, physical body, and that physical body probably resided at the "Throne of God" at the center of the universe.
zerinus Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Gained "traction"? He's not using his Mormonism as "traction." You should instead say that he has minimized the "DRAG". Again... his Mormonism doesn't help his candicacy. It hinders it.He is in the same situation that JFK was when he was seeking office as President of the United States. Once upon a time for a Catholic that would have been unthinkable. The same is true of Mormonism. It is being recognized more and more as a mainstream American religion.
altersteve Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Read Lectures on Faith in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. It says that the Father is a "personage of Spirit," unlike the Son. D1ck believed pretty much the same thing as Smith did, circa 1835. He wrote that the Son had a tangible, physical body, and that physical body probably resided at the "Throne of God" at the center of the universe.Did you even read what I just wrote, or anything in the link I provided? Yes, he believed the Father was a "personage of Spirit," having a spirit body, but he obviously didn't believe He was "immaterial." He believed God had a body of something. As the author of the FAIR article wrote, "The Lectures on Faith clearly taught a separation of the Father and Son. They also clearly taught that the Father and Son were 'embodied,' with visible forms having precise dimensions and position in space." Edited December 21, 2011 by altersteve
Cobalt-70 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Did you even read what I just wrote, or anything in the link I provided? Yes, he believed the Father was a "personage of Spirit," but he obviously didn't believe He was "immaterial."The FAIR website doesn't try to refute the idea that Smith considered the Father was a "personage of Spirit" circa 1835. In fact, a different FAIR article (http://en.fairmormon...it_vs._Embodied) basically concedes this. As to JST Genesis 1:26 and 5:1-2, Smith did indeed believe circa 1830 that God had a body, but an immaterial spirit body, as reflected in the book of Ether. Keep in mind, also, that Smith was essentially a modalist circa 1829-30. Edited December 21, 2011 by Cobalt-70
stemelbow Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I've been talking about ideas that cross institutional/denomination boundaries. That actually helps as an explanation of what is meant by "influential". On that note, I wonder why ideas are the only thing in consideration when it comes to influential. Influence can result by more than just ideas.
Pahoran Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 No. This isn't a bull's eye.Many people in Joseph Smith's day believed in the existence of numerous worlds.Many also assumed that some of these worlds were populated.Some even believed that Jesus' sacrifice atoned for the sins of those other worlds. Sound familiar?None of which means it wasn't a bull's-eye. It only means that some other people had similar ideas. A bull's-eye is an accurate hit, whether only one person makes it, or if dozens do.You should read Emmanuel Swedenborg. He was brilliant, and a major influence upon American thinking in the 19th century.Yes, Mike. We all know the old Joseph-borrowed-from-Swedenborg chestnut.Personally, I think Swedenborg's teachings are far more brilliant than Joseph Smith's ever was. But that is just me.Mike, you would think the village idiot's teachings were "far more brilliant than Joseph Smith's ever was"[sic]. And yes, we already know that's just you.Regards,Pahoran
LDSToronto Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 None of which means it wasn't a bull's-eye. It only means that some other people had similar ideas. A bull's-eye is an accurate hit, whether only one person makes it, or if dozens do.Are you saying the only qualification for correctness is that Joseph said it? Joseph agreeing with a 3,000 year old idea, an idea, incidentally, that had been confirmed via observation (mankind knew other planets existed), constitutes a bulls-eye?Sheesh, you are too easy to please H.
Pahoran Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Are you saying the only qualification for correctness is that Joseph said it? Joseph agreeing with a 3,000 year old idea, an idea, incidentally, that had been confirmed via observation (mankind knew other planets existed), constitutes a bulls-eye?Sheesh, you are too easy to please H.No, I'm saying the only qualification for correctness is that the statement is correct.Circular, I know; but there it is.Incidentally, I think I liked your other avatar better.Regards,Pahoran
Mike Reed Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) None of which means it wasn't a bull's-eye. It only means that some other people had similar ideas. A bull's-eye is an accurate hit, whether only one person makes it, or if dozens do.Don't be silly. Hitting a "bull's eye" isn't the same thing as hitting something, let alone a target. "Bull's eye" implies that there was an impressive hit of sorts. I realize that you are desperate to score "points" in any way that you possibly can (no matter how cheap), hence the "sic" in your previous post, but no. Despite your wishful thinking, this isn't a "bull's eye"---not in the slightest. Edited December 21, 2011 by Mike Reed
cdowis Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Read Lectures on Faith in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. It says that the Father is a "personage of Spirit," unlike the Son. .I don't understand -- are you actually claiming that JS wrote this? Perhaps you can start another thread giving us your evidence.
Cobalt-70 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I don't understand -- are you actually claiming that JS wrote this? Perhaps you can start another thread giving us your evidence.Regardless of who wrote it, all I'm saying is that Joseph Smith believed it. Otherwise, he would not have allowed it to become the "Doctrine" part of the Doctrine & Covenants. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Jesus is pretty cool. Certainly a guy ahead of his time.What percentage of Swedenborg's writings have you read to know that Jesus' gospel is better?Oh come on Mike! You're sounding just a tad bitter there dude!
Mike Reed Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) You guys won't believe this. Just this evening I took a shower. No... that isn't the amazing part. What is amazing is what happened WHILE I was taking a shower. Are you ready for this? Brace yourselves....WATER came out.I vaguely remembered reading about water in the Book of Mormon, so I spent my entire evening combing over this volume of scripture and learned that the Book of Mormons mentions "water" 123 times and "waters" 916 times!!BULL'S EYE!! Edited December 21, 2011 by Mike Reed 2
mfbukowski Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Well my favorite guy, William James was WAY COOLER than any of your favorite guys, SO THERE!
Mike Reed Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Oh come on Mike! You're sounding just a tad bitter there dude!Seemed like an honest question to me.
Mike Reed Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Well my favorite guy, William James was WAY COOLER than any of your favorite guys, SO THERE!William James WAS freaking cool! He nerly undermined my agnosticism enough to make me a pragmatist. Edited December 21, 2011 by Mike Reed
Mike Reed Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) William James WAS freaking cool! He nerly undermined my agnosticism enough to make me a pragmatist.But then again... WIlliam James was heavily influenced by Swedenborg too. Edited December 21, 2011 by Mike Reed
mfbukowski Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 But then again... WIlliam James was heavily influenced by Swedenborg too. Yes he was
mfbukowski Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 William James WAS freaking cool! He nerly undermined my agnosticism enough to make me a pragmatist.So how much of a shove do I have to give you to make you fall over the edge? Have you read some Dewey?
Mike Reed Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Yes he was It is pretty cool. At GTU Berkeley, Henry James Sr's trunk (that had stored Swedenborg's writings, which William remembered his father always taking with the family on their travels) is on display in the library. Many of the books he owed are available to read at GTU too. Edited December 21, 2011 by Mike Reed
Mike Reed Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) So how much of a shove do I have to give you to make you fall over the edge? Probably not much. I'm pretty close.Have you read some Dewey?Only a couple selections. He should probably be next on my list though.Have you read Marilynne Robinson's book "Absense of Mind"? You'd probably enjoy here book too. Edited December 21, 2011 by Mike Reed
stemelbow Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 You guys won't believe this. Just this evening I took a shower. No... that isn't the amazing part. What is amazing is what happened WHILE I was taking a shower. Are you ready for this? Brace yourself....WATER came out.I vaguely remembered reading about water in the Book of Mormon, so I spent my entire evening combing over this volume of scripture and learned that the Book of Mormons mentions "water" 123 times and "waters" 916 times!!BULL'S EYE!!Wow what a nice guy.
Ares Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Whose Gospel? Yours?If you don't want to be called Anti-Mormon then don't act like one. This comment was uncalled for.
Mike Reed Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 If you don't want to be called Anti-Mormon then don't act like one. This comment was uncalled for.I mentioned how brilliant Swedenborg's writings are, and Duncan dismissively replied, "The Gospel is a better way of life." So I asked which "Gospel" he was specifically referring to, since, after all Swedenborgians would regard Swedenborg's writing as pertaining to the "Gospel." I don't see anything anti-Mormon about that, nor do I agree that it "was uncalled for." 1
Senator Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I mentioned how brilliant Swedenborg's writings are, and Duncan dismissively replied, "The Gospel is a better way of life." So I asked which "Gospel" he was specifically referring to, since, after all Swedenborgians would regard Swedenborg's writing as pertaining to the "Gospel." I don't see anything anti-Mormon about that, nor do I agree that it "was uncalled for."Or, you can just tell Ares to take a hike! That's allowed. 1
Recommended Posts