Who Is The "Great Spirit"? (IRR Challenged)

[JDave]

Perhaps on the basis of the fact that we have no information about what, if anything, the Lamanites actually thought a "spirit" might entail. As has been pointed out to you several times, and you have so blithely ignored, Lamoni was close to being convinced that the obviously human, unquestionably material (and very strong) Ammon was that selfsame "Great Spirit."

Actually Lamoni was convinced at one point. In verse 2 Lamoni remarks, "Behold, is not this the Great Spirit?" but then in verse 4 he states, "Now I know that it is the Great Spirit". He was totally convinced.

Ironically it is Ammon's physical prowess and physical strength that convince Lamoni that Ammon is the Great Spirit, for "he cannot be slain by the enemies of the king ... because of his expertness and great strength."

And even when Ammon says to him "I am a man.", that doesn't shake his resolve because he still asks him immediately afterwards, "Art thou that Great Spirit?"

Edited February 10, 2012 by JDave

[wenglund]

I don't see any begging the question in what you quoted from me.

It is becoming more and more self-evident that you don't see a lot of things. Spiritual blindness isn't your only sight deficiency.

That's because Joseph Smith didn't have anything to do with producing the Bible, as he did the Books of Mormon, Moses, and Abraham, his revelations in D&C, and his other sermons.

I see. This presupposes that the books he produced were a reflection of his beliefs at the time he produced them. And, yet, you don't see any question begging. LOL

What about the D&C?

But you raise a good point, and that is that I omitted the JST, except of course for the Book of Moses. Including it strengthens my case. Most of what Joseph did on the JST was done in 1830-1833. It reflects the same "binitarian" outlook as the Book of Moses and Joseph's revelations in the 1831-1835 period I mentioned.

That is an interesting assertion. Could you pull a couple of examples from the JST and explain why you consider them as binitarian?

Also, can you explain how you differentiate between modalistic, monotheistic, binitarian, ditheistic, trinitarian, and polytheistic passages.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 10, 2012 by wenglund

[Bernard Gui]

That God the Father is a being of flesh is not "explicitly found in the Book of Mormon"—either in 3 Nephi or anywhere else. None of the passages you cite demonstrate your claim.

On the contrary, passages such as Mosiah 15:5 strongly suggest that the Father is not a being of flesh. You don't have to be a great reader to see that "thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father..." equates God the Son with "flesh" and God the Father with "Spirit."

I strongly disagree with you on this. 3 Nephi could not be more plain.

Bernard

[KevinG]

I strongly disagree with you on this. 3 Nephi could not be more plain.

Bernard

Are you sure? Have you cleared this opinion of your own religion with the Catholics and Protestants first?

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard, I had stated that the Book of Mormon does not teach that God the Father was a being of flesh. You replied: Perhaps you are not clear on the meaning of explicitly. Explicit: "a. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. b. Fully and clearly defined or formulated" (American Heritage Dictionary). If it takes you over 500 words and cross-references to ten other scriptural texts to show the idea in question, then the idea is by definition not stated explicitly in your text! Query: Will the exalted become part of the Godhead?

Come now! The doctrine of the Trinity is never explicitly expressed in the Bible, yet it is used to exclude

LDS from the whole of Christianity. How many words and cross-references does it take you to explain it?

Since my explanation was offensive to you (you counted the words?), I'll make it simple.

He spent several days with them showing them

his true nature...an immortal man in a body of flesh and bone.

They saw him as a Man descending from heaven. The Father testified

that this Man was his beloved Son.

His first act was to invite them to come one by one and touch him so that

they would know his true nature. In their presence he prayed to the Father

as they prayed to him. In their clear view he ascended to the Father.

The whole experience at the temple taught them the true nature of the

Father and the Son and the true relationship between the Father and the Son.

Who was this Father? What is He like? What will

become of you? He told them explicitly:

You shall be as I am and I am as the Father.

Nothing could be more plain.

Will the exalted become part of the Godhead?

What do you mean "become a part of"?

Bernard

[Xander]

JDave

When did I ever say that? I merely am arguing that they DON'T teach a God who is spirit only.

By this logic, anyone who believes God is made of Jello, can say Mormon doctrine supports this belief because nothing in Mormon doctrine says God is made up of only flesh and bones. Jello could be on of those other unnamed ingredients, right? This is essentially what you're doing here. You're relying on what the text doesn't say whereas Rob is relying on what it does say.

Your "substantial" evidence consists of a single reference each by two missionaries, and that after pointing out to the reader that it is a Lamanite title, showing a preference for the title God, and then effectively eliminating "Great Spirit" from the Lamanite converts' gospel vocabulary.

Nothing was "eliminated," it was already established that the two were synonymous. You don't get to ignore that and then impose a so-called purge of Lamanite doctrine and vocabulary, for which you have absolutely no evidence outside your imagination. These missionaries obviously knew what was meant by the "Great Spirit" or else they never would have agreed that it was the same God they also worshipped.

I think Rob's point is that there is nothing in the Book of Mormon to support the theology that was developed later by Joseph Smith; the doctrine that God has a body of flesh and bones. You seem to be missing the point of all this for the purpose of diverting attention away from the fact that Rob's point is on solid ground. You don't get to characterize it as an anti-Mormon fantasy since LDS scholars have already conceded the point.

The article you cited doesn't even mention the account of Ammon and Aaron.

The article established the overall point that you seem to be missing here. Why do you think it matters to critics at all if the Book of Mormon doesn't teach a flesh and bones God? It matters because it shows that this was a development in Joseph Smith's theology and it causes several problems for the Mormon claim that these doctrines were lost and then restored. It also causes problems for his First Vision story. Mormons generally believe the "flesh and bones" doctrine is based on the First Vision experience. This is what we taught as missionaries too.

Incidentally, it is worth mentioning that the inclusion of "Great Spirit" in the Book of Mormon is further evidence of Joseph Smith trying to conflate Lamanite lingo with that of the American Indian. It is an anachronism because the Indians didn't even use that phrase until after the Europeans began to colonize the Americas.

The only argument it makes about God being a spirit is to say that the Book of Mormon presents one God who was a spirit and then came in flesh, Jesus Christ. It pretty much takes that point for granted since it fits so well with the overall conclusion of the article. That is what Rob, and you apparently, are doing. You see an overall picture of a developmental process to Joseph Smith's understanding of the Godhead. Then when you read a passage in the Book of Mormon and on the surface it supports that view, you run with it rather than taking it in context.

The problem with this is that there is no reason to believe the Lamanite King had a Savior/Son God in mind here. That obviously isn't what he meant by Great Spirit, and it would be dishonest for the Nephite missionaries to pretend he did. And I'm not "taking" the verse to be anything. I simply responded to Gui's initial misreading of the text and criticized him for it because he and others were, ironically, lambasting Bowman (with all the usual "deception" jargon) for failing to consider the context. Again, it is an irrefutable fact that Gui was wrong in his original claim about these verses. He said these comments were made by the apostate Lamanites, and not the Nephite missionaries.

As far as I am concerned, the Book of Mormon doesn't teach God the Father has a body of flesh and bones and there is no reason to believe these Nephites, assuming they even existed, believed this to be the case.

No I haven't. Is it even germane to the discussion at hand? Sure I could say that it doesn't matter if the Nephites taught that God is a spirit, and I actually agree that it can be adequately answered in that manner or by pointing to an incremental understanding of the nature of God. But that isn't the issue at all.

Well, it was in the original thread started by Gui. You said this was a break off from the original thread so I just assumed you were arguing along those same lines.

Rob and you are claiming that the Book of Mormon teaches something it doesn't.

Uh, no I'm not. You're claiming it doesn't teach spirit "only" and I'm saying it doesn't need to, anymore than Jesus needed to tell the Samaritan woman that God's body doesn't exclude wood or metal.

Your point here is similar to Rob's -- "Besides, it isn't a big deal, so don't worry about it." Lack of rigor in small details, especially when questioned, does not inspire confidence in one's overall work.

Well, I think you're forucisng on an irrelevant detail while ignoring the bigger problem. Your only hope of victory here is to keep pounding the obvious point that neither scripture says spirit "only." Well, that isn't a very good argument IMO.

Mark Beeslesy,

Why? Are you confusing omniscient with omnipresent? And if so, what scriptural support is there for the suggestion that the Father is omnipresent?

Good call. I had all the "omnis" running in my head and misspoke. But whether the Bible teaches this is irrelevant it seems to me. It is traditional Christian doctrine and one that doesn't bode well with Mormonism's God confined to a corporeal body. Hence, Rob's concern. I'm not an Evangelical and have little interest in squabbling over what the Bible "really" teaches, as this battle has been going on for centuries between much smarter people with no winner in sight. It is pointless. My only point is that it runs contray to traditional Christian doctrine, and hence, these Christians do not want Mormons claiming the Christian title. Whether they are justified with this attitude, that is beside the point.

Vance,

Right, because a being of flesh can't walk on water nor ascend into heaven. Got it.

You laughed at theory, but all you have is theory. You don't think so? Then why don't you go ahead and explain to us how this works, without theorizing of course.

Thought so.

Right, so when you are in the ocean, you are EVERYWHERE in the ocean. Got it.

I think we need to clarify something here. Being literally everywhere and having the capability to be everywhere are two different things. I don't know any Christian who really thinks God is in my glass of milk. What I understand is that they believe he has the ability to be everwhere, particularly for the purposes of answering prayers. This he could not do if he were not Spirit. Thus, God resides in heaven by choice but he can, whenever he chooses, appear anywhere and everywhere in the universe if needed.

Right, because of YOUR PRESUMPTIONS and stuff. Got it.

The incoherence of the Mormon God has nothing to do with presumptions, and everything to do with the fact that it is incoherent.

Right, because you theorize/PRESUME that resurrected body MUST have the same limits as the mortal body. And you would know this how?

You are the one making claims about the intergalactic traveling of an anthropomorphic body made of flesh and bones. You are the one launching into theory here, not I. You are the one who needs to stop laughing at theory and realize that is all you're doing. You are the one with the burden here. Talk about presumptions. You presume this all works fine and dandy with no problems just because Joseph Smith said so. Kinda like how kids are told Santa Claus can travel to every home in the world in one night carrying enough presents for a billion children. He can also slide his fat butt down every chimney with presents in tow, and make it back to the North Pole in time for breakfast. Your blissful acceptance of this Mormon doctrine is similar to the way children blindly accept the Santa story without question... at least until they get older.

Right, because YOU say so. Got it.

Look, the context clearly has the woman referencing two locations, the mountain and Jerusalem. Jesus responded by making these comparisons moot, teaching the woman that God is spirit. As such, he can be worshipped from any location. That is context driving the interpretation, not vice versa.

That is the point of this passage.

You can't just delete the portions that refer to locations, pretend they didn't matter, and then preach to me about contextual interpretations without looking silly. As far as the corporeal nature of spirit, that is another issue, and the reason I mentioned the first century Palestian was to point out how absurd it would be to expect this woman to have been engaged in such philosophical thinking. Thinking that the Helenized Christians quickly adopted. Trust me, I've researched and written more on this topic than you're probably willing to read.

DaddyG

I do not recall the missionary lesson that says "let me tell you what the Bible really means". Did I miss that discussion?

Did you write this with a straight face? When I was on a mission virtually every discussion involved biblical scriptures as cross references. You're telling me we never had to tell investigators what these verses REALLY mean, even when it runs contrary to their traditional understanding? We had to do this all the flippin time, and we always had to fall back on the claim that unlike other apostate religions, we had true apostles and prophets who were authorized by God with the true Priesthood, so they could to tell us what the Bible REALLY means. That is why they should accept our interpretation over any Protestant minister or Bible scholar. Relying on biblical scholarship is akin to relying on the arm of the flesh. Relying on Protestant ministers is like relying on servants of Satan because they get paid money (yes, we used those scriptures too!). So I don't know who you think you're kidding DaddyG. The LDS Church has a long history of attacking other Churches, but they do it in their own special way. Behind closed doors usually with the odds in their favor because missionaries don't like setting up discussions if the "investigator" is going to have someone else there to help him/her with critical issues (unless of course that person is LDS and intent on seeing him/her baptized).

[wenglund]

He who flunked the test of faith (if not also the tests of logic) continues to presume to illogicaly tell those who continue to pass the test of faith, what is to be believed and what is taught and stated in scripture and why it can or can't be believed or taught. The irony continues to be lost on him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

He who flunked the test of faith (if not also the tests of logic) continues to presume to illogicaly tell those who continue to pass the test of faith, what is to be believed and what is taught and stated in scripture and why it can or can't be believed or taught. The irony continues to be lost on him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And here I was going to waste my time responding to him line by line.

Nicely and concisely put.

[Xander]

He who flunked the test of faith (if not also the tests of logic) continues to presume to illogicaly tell those who continue to pass the test of faith, what is to be believed and what is taught and stated in scripture and why it can or can't be believed or taught. The irony continues to be lost on him.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I see wade is still referring to his own tripe as logical, hoping that somehow that will actually make it logical.

Vance has passed no "faith test" as you imagine. In fact, he failed a very basic test of comprehension, as you have done so many times in the past. He believes without evidence, which is not a "test," it is simply a choice. Calling it a test is just a rhetorical trick played by those who cannot support their beliefs with evidence or logic, but want to marginalize those who disagree as those who "failed" something while rewarding their coreligionists for having "passed."

Did I fail a test of faith when I rejected the existence of Santa? You have to have a reason for placing faith in something. It doesn't just plop itself on your lap as a test. If I have no reason to believe Jesus really meant to say to the woman that God is "also" spirit, then I've "failed" nothing. I'm only guilty of letting the text drive my conclusion. Leave it to wade to try spinning this into some convoluted apologetic advantage.

This is your way of conjuring up more confirmation bias, implying that those who do share in with your multiplicity of wild and unsupported theological presuppositions, are merely "failures" because they didn't pass something that you imagine to be self evident.

Cute. But that's all it is.

[wenglund]

And here I was going to waste my time responding to him line by line.

I used to do that with him, and spent hours unraveling his confusion and illogic and trying to reason with him, only to find him invariably repeating his dogmatic barks and howls and continuing on as though his banality had unquestionably carried the day. It took me forever to figure out that my doing the same thing over and over with him was not going to produce different results. I have since become comfortable with and tolerant of his insipid opinions, even when baselessly stated as fact. To me, he is self-decredibilizing and as harmless as a fuzz ball, and a gift to apologetics. Send in the clown.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I see wade is still referring to his own tripe as logical, hoping that somehow that will actually make it logical.

Vance has passed no "faith test" as you imagine. In fact, he failed a very basic test of comprehension, as you have done so many times in the past. He believes without evidence, which is not a "test," it is simply a choice. Calling it a test is just a rhetorical trick played by those who cannot support their beliefs with evidence or logic, but want to marginalize those who disagree as those who "failed" something while rewarding their coreligionists for having "passed."

Did I fail a test of faith when I rejected the existence of Santa? You have to have a reason for placing faith in something. It doesn't just plop itself on your lap as a test. If I have no reason to believe Jesus really meant to say to the woman that God is "also" spirit, then I've "failed" nothing. I'm only guilty of letting the text drive my conclusion. Leave it to wade to try spinning this into some convoluted apologetic advantage.

This is your way of conjuring up more confirmation bias, implying that those who do share in with your multiplicity of wild and unsupported theological presuppositions, are merely "failures" because they didn't pass something that you imagine to be self evident.

Cute. But that's all it is.

Hey Diddle Diddle...and the incurable dogmatist barks at the moon...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JDave]

Well, I think you're forucisng on an irrelevant detail while ignoring the bigger problem.

This thread simply isn't about your "bigger problem". It is all about that pesky irrelevant detail that should not be included in Rob's guide. Leave the rest for another thread. If you want to conflate it, fine. But do it in a different thread.

Rob claims there is contained within the pages of the Book of Mormon a teaching that God the Father is a spirit. The exact quote from his guide reads, "The Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father is a person of spirit". I dispute that claim. I am not asserting that the Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father is a person of flesh and blood, or even a person of flesh and blood and spirit. The assertion here is made by Rob, and that is what needs to be defended and where the burden of proof lies.

If you want to contribute to the thread, help Rob out by responding to the actual textual arguments against his case. There's quite a few piled up waiting for response.

[wenglund]

To clarify, is Rob interpreting the word "spirit" in the title "great spirit" as meaning an unembodied spirit?

In other words, is he trying to make the case that Joseph Smith, in his earlier years, believed that God was an unembodied spirit, and Joseph's belief was reflected in his production of the Book of Mormon, but later evolved to a belief in God as an embodied spirit, and then as an embodied spirit of flesh and bone, as reflected in the production of later scriptures?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JDave]

To clarify, is Rob interpreting the word "spirit" in the title "great spirit" as meaning an unembodied spirit?

Yes, which is why the thought of Ammon as an embodied "Great Spirit" completely destroys his assertion.

In other words, is he trying to make the case that Joseph Smith, in his earlier years, believed that God was an unembodied spirit, and Joseph's belief was reflected in his production of the Book of Mormon, but later evolved to a belief in God as an embodied spirit, and then as an embodied spirit of flesh and bone, as reflected in the production of later scriptures?

I believe that is supposed to be the "bigger problem that this thread just doesn't get into.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

.

If you want to contribute to the thread, help Rob out by responding to the actual textual arguments against his case.

Good luck with this. A certain poster who will remain unnamed has a really hard time "responding to the actual textual arguments".

Carry on.

Edit: I am not talking about Rob.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[JDave]

Carry on.

The irony is that the further this does carry on the more it seems that this whole "Great Spirit" kerfuffle is actually getting close to being evidence that the Book of Mormon teaches a God of flesh and bone. At least if you follow Rob's logic.

The Lamanites believe in a deity they refer to as "The Great Spirit".

The Lamanites believe their deity to be a physical, flesh and blood man

- The Lamanites associate physical strength with their deity

- The physical prowess and physical strength of Ammon causes Lamoni to think Ammon is their "Great Spirit"

- The Lamanites associate the human form with their deity

- Ammon's obvious physicality and corporeal form didn't even give the Lamanites pause in declaring him their Great Spirit

- Ammon declares "I am a man", after which Lamoni immediately asks him, "Art the that Great Spirit?"

- In contrast, the brother of Jared was completely shocked to see his presupposed spirit Deity appear in human form

According to Rob, when the missionaries Ammon and Aaron say that the Great Spirit is God, they are thereby stating that there is an ontological equivalence between the Great Spirit and God.

Thus God the Father, by Rob's logic, is shown to have a physical body of flesh and blood according to the Book of Mormon.

Edited February 10, 2012 by JDave

[Hestia]

Children, children, stop the personal bickering and name calling. This thread has degenerated and is being closed.