Question About El As The God Of The Exodus

[Calm]

when they assert that GtF has a body but Jesus Christ does not yet an angel of the Lord has a body and can wrestle with Patriarchs and even lame their thigh with a trick blow, etc.

Why is this problematic? You are describing three individuals, two that possess physical form and one that does not.

Considering how LDS think of spirit as matter, even if one were to postulate that God the Father put aside his physical human form from time to time, it still would not cause him to suddenly be limitless in form even if he is limitless in influence and power and glory, etc. If one assumes that having a specific form is limiting, then God the Father is limited no matter what because he is a Spirit (as well as having a physical form). However, that is an assumption and not a necessary one, but one derived from traditional concepts.

adds more limitations upon God

Only if one assumes that being physically located in a body is limiting...there is no logical reason I know of that prevents God the Father from having limitless power, influence, glory, etc. simply because he is in a physical and spiritual form.

Something (and thus someone) can be infinite while still having some attributes that have limits. There is nothing that logically prevents this beyond assumptions made about a physical form and how spirit supposedly functions.

Edited May 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Questing Beast]

@Cal: The doctrine of progression in Mormon cosmology says that Christ is of our generation, a sibling to ourselves. He had no physical tabernacle, yet created the world. We are told by JS to test angels, if they are in a spiritual state they will not try to shake hands because we would feel NOTHING, if they are resurrected they will shake hands. There were NO resurrected angels before Christ's resurrection. Therefore all angels were as yet without physical bodies, they could not make a physical connection to the world. Leave aside the anomaly that the "Creator" Jesus Christ could manipulate physical matter and organize it even while without a physical body of his own at the time: if he without a physical body, like the angels, could not shake hands with a mortal, then how to manipulate physical matter? More muddle.

The point of this concept of "muddle" is that infinite concepts about "God" exist in a legion of religions. It is not logical to seize upon a singular, exclusive dogmatic paradigm and then point to the "falsehoods" originating from all other dogmas, as Mormonism has always done from the outset, without foundation, imho. God Is Infinite and the concepts of that definition are likewise Infinite....

[Calm]

There were NO resurrected angels before Christ's resurrection.

Unless they were resurrected or had received bodies in the same manner that God the Father had. I don't see how you can conclude that there were no others in existence that were like God the Father. One would assume that at least God the Mother was and if she is a resurrected being as the Father is (or however else he obtained his body), then why not others?

Leave aside the anomaly that the "Creator" Jesus Christ could manipulate physical matter and organize it even while without a physical body of his own at the time

I see a couple of issues here with assumptions....one which is because the angels would refuse to shake hands, it means they can't manipulate physical matter. If spiritual matter is the same thing as physical matter, only more refined, why couldn't they? Isn't it more likely that there is another issue involved such as it being Joseph that couldn't perceive the pure spiritual matter, not the other way around. From what I've seen, it is generally assumed that we manipulate our physical bodies in a great part through our spirit...the analogy of the body as a glove for the spirit...the hand moving the glove would seem to imply that we believe that the spirit is the ultimate cause of movement, etc. in the body.

If Spirit is the same thing as Physical---matter, than there is no inherent reason why spirit cannot manipulate matter...if one has the power to do so and the scriptures talk about God's Priesthood as being the power by which creation occurs. Thus if Christ and others who were spirit only had been given the Priesthood (and I see no reason why this could be so), then they could participate in creation.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1982/04/the-doctrine-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

We received the priesthood first in the premortal existence and then again as mortals. Adam held the keys and used the priesthood when he participated in the creation of the earth. After his baptism he received the priesthood again, and he now stands as the presiding High Priest over all the earth.

If one can heal a body or move a mountain by faith, why would not a spirit be able to do so if s/he had the proper faith? Edited May 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

From a Mormon POV, Joseph Fielding Smith had resolved the issue of a wrestling angel very simply and satisfactorily by positing that it was a translated man. Now, whether or not this is the intended meaning is another matter.

[Nevo]

There were NO resurrected angels before Christ's resurrection. Therefore all angels were as yet without physical bodies . . .

Unless they were resurrected or had received bodies in the same manner that God the Father had. I don't see how you can conclude that there were no others in existence that were like God the Father. One would assume that at least God the Mother was and if she is a resurrected being as the Father is (or however else he obtained his body), then why not others?

I think Questing Beast is correct that, according to LDS doctrine, there were no resurrected angels in the Old Testament—given that "there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it" (D&C 130:5) and that none of "those who do belong or have belonged" to this earth were resurrected prior to Christ (see 1 Cor. 15:20-23).

But clearly the Old Testament does allow "angels" (lit. messengers) to manipulate physical matter (see, e.g., Judges 6:21). It's not clear to me how an intangible spirit (see Luke 24:39) could grasp a staff or a sword, or grapple with a human, but apparently they can.

[Robert F. Smith]

Tacenda has it right, you are now in the habit of disagreeing with me for whatever complex of reasons.

When you get it right, I say so, and congratulate you.

When you are wrong, and you are often wrong in a multitude of ways., I also say so.

I am consistent, Beast. You on the other hand are not.

I said the precise opposite of what you went on about. There is a "muddle" in the scriptures and doctrine as taken by Mormonism, when they assert that GtF has a body but Jesus Christ does not yet an angel of the Lord has a body and can wrestle with Patriarchs and even lame their thigh with a trick blow, etc. Trying to "clarify" this by further asserting that Jesus only got his physical body upon being born as a mortal furthers the muddle and adds more limitations upon God, unless we individually come up with speculations to offer as explanations. The "gospel of Christ" is simple, the speculations are legion, welcome to man-made dogma.

You get an "F" here for incoherent composition.

It is not clear what you are saying, and for all I know that is intentional -- or perhaps you actually think in such a disorganized and inconsistent manner.

A. a muddle in scriptures & doctrine as taken by Mormonism? (does this suggest that the Bible and Mormonism are in cahoots?)

B. they (the muddle of scriptures & doctrine as taken by Mormonism) assert that God the Father has a body, but the Son does not

C. they assert that the angel of the Lord has a body and can wrassle and cause lameness

D. the Son gets his physical body upon being born as a mortal, which adds to the muddle and limitations placed upon God (by who?)

E. all this requires legions of speculations offered as explanations (man-made dogma)

F. instead, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple

G. yet, God is infinite.

God Is Infinite. What part of that is hard to understand? I did not say "comprehend". I understand the concept of Infinite, I apprehend it, I do not comprehend it. So demanding that strict, finite, dogmatic definitions of "God" are exclusively true is denial of an Infinity of added concepts, i.e. moving yourself in the opposite direction of greater truth....

You clearly want to have it both ways: the simplicity of the Gospel versus the inifinity of God.

The simplicity of the Gospel cannot be comprehended, but only apprehended.

Dogmatic definitions of God versus the infinity of God.

Exclusive definitions of God versus the infinity of God.

Greater truth about God comes from affirmation of the infinity of God.

It seems clear to me from this only that you accept a version of "God" which is non-anthropomorphic and unbiblical. Perhaps you should read

Norbert Samuelson, "That the God of the Philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Harvard Theological Review, 65 (1972):1-27. Abstract at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7813859 .

See also http://books.google.com/books/about/The_God_of_the_philosophers.html?id=DWppmkOm1M4C .

[Nathair/|\]

What about angels who are in their mortal bodies?

[Questing Beast]

Unless they were resurrected or had received bodies in the same manner that God the Father had. ...

See Nevo's response about angels only from this earth ministering here.

I see a couple of issues here with assumptions....one which is because the angels would refuse to shake hands, it means they can't manipulate physical matter. If spiritual matter is the same thing as physical matter, only more refined, why couldn't they? Isn't it more likely that there is another issue involved such as it being Joseph that couldn't perceive the pure spiritual matter, not the other way around. From what I've seen, it is generally assumed that we manipulate our physical bodies in a great part through our spirit...the analogy of the body as a glove for the spirit...the hand moving the glove would seem to imply that we believe that the spirit is the ultimate cause of movement, etc. in the body.

I am demonstrating how we all make assumptions. To then call them "revelations" from God is a huge leap, especially when one set of assertions/assumptions attempts to trump the rest. Yes, spirit is matter, if Joseph Smith is right, and I see no reason why shouldn't be. Therefore spirit is "more refined" than carnal matter that apparently dies, or at least does not remain in its immortal configuration. The "muddle" I was illustrating with involves a set of assertions attempting to be revealed doctrines, and exclusive ones at that, which means very limiting concepts. We have the doctrine of no resurrection till Christ, ergo no physical angels yet, unless mortal ones, i.e. messengers called by God. A mortal angel would hardly tempt Jacob to say "I have seen the face of God and I still live", no matter how privileged such a mortal was in communication with God. So the Genesis story does not fit what JS said about physical bodies in the preexistence, there are none, so all angels from "heaven" prior to Christ's resurrection must be spirit only, and we know that they cannot touch us.

If Spirit is the same thing as Physical---matter, than there is no inherent reason why spirit cannot manipulate matter...if one has the power to do so and the scriptures talk about God's Priesthood as being the power by which creation occurs. Thus if Christ and others who were spirit only had been given the Priesthood (and I see no reason why this could be so), then they could participate in creation.

https://www.lds.org/...sthood?lang=eng

If one can heal a body or move a mountain by faith, why would not a spirit be able to do so if s/he had the proper faith?

No reason why not. Except that if shaking hands is deceptive to an angel that is only a spirit, as JS said, then surely wrestling would be right out....

[Questing Beast]

From a Mormon POV, Joseph Fielding Smith had resolved the issue of a wrestling angel very simply and satisfactorily by positing that it was a translated man. Now, whether or not this is the intended meaning is another matter.

I can accept that. But it is still speculation in an effort to get around a conflict between doctrinal statements....

[Questing Beast]

.... It's not clear to me how an intangible spirit (see Luke 24:39) could grasp a staff or a sword, or grapple with a human, but apparently they can.

Only apparently, not literally, or else intangible spirits could apparently shake hands if offered, yet JS clearly said "no" to that. So, no wrestling either, since that would be an even greater deception than merely pretending to shake hands. Translated being? Don't know, don't care. The issue is conflicting, changing doctrines as religions morph over the ages. And JS's assertions that he was "restoring all things as at first". What happens when JS's doctrines don't fit anything we know from evidence of the time? "El" and YHWH were the same God? Really, and why didn't JS know that clearly before he died?...

[Robert F. Smith]

@Cal: The doctrine of progression in Mormon cosmology says that Christ is of our generation, a sibling to ourselves. He had no physical tabernacle, yet created the world. We are told by JS to test angels, if they are in a spiritual state they will not try to shake hands because we would feel NOTHING, if they are resurrected they will shake hands. There were NO resurrected angels before Christ's resurrection. Therefore all angels were as yet without physical bodies, they could not make a physical connection to the world. Leave aside the anomaly that the "Creator" Jesus Christ could manipulate physical matter and organize it even while without a physical body of his own at the time: if he without a physical body, like the angels, could not shake hands with a mortal, then how to manipulate physical matter? More muddle.

Once again, you have put God in a box and created your self-made muddle (God created in your limited image).

Our elder brother, the Son of God, had no physical body. Thus, you conclude that he must have tried to shake hands with someone (CFR), or that some disembodied angels tried to shake hands with us (CFR), ignoring the possibility that embodied angels actually had physical contact, or that God the Father (aka LORD) actually had physical contact with humans, thus bursting your absurd bubble. You just haven't thought this through, Beast.

The point of this concept of "muddle" is that infinite concepts about "God" exist in a legion of religions. It is not logical to seize upon a singular, exclusive dogmatic paradigm and then point to the "falsehoods" originating from all other dogmas, as Mormonism has always done from the outset, without foundation, imho. God Is Infinite and the concepts of that definition are likewise Infinite....

Well, yes, there are a legion of religions and that does pose a muddle for some. The key to winnowing out the dross is to examine them by class for internal consistency, which none but the LDS will be found to have. You can verify that for yourself via your own careful, logical study and scrutiny, or even via the experimental method (Alma 32), or the Holy Spirit (Moroni 10:4-7, James 1:5- -- whichever epistemology you prefer.

Saying that God is infinite is a copout and tells us nothing.

[Questing Beast]

When you get it right, I say so, and congratulate you.

When you are wrong, and you are often wrong in a multitude of ways., I also say so.

I am consistent, Beast. You on the other hand are not.

I am very consistent within my framework of mostly ignorance. I rarely get Mormon doctrine wrong.

You get an "F" here for incoherent composition.

That's okay, you're not my teacher.

It is not clear what you are saying, and for all I know that is intentional -- or perhaps you actually think in such a disorganized and inconsistent manner.

Isn't it grand that "God" understands each of us intimately then? My "salvation" does not depend on being coherent to anyone. But I think the trouble is with you, since the greatest majority of the time other people don't seem to have too much trouble understanding what I am saying.

Let's see if I understand what you are saying that I said:

A. a muddle in scriptures & doctrine as taken by Mormonism? (does this suggest that the Bible and Mormonism are in cahoots?)

Yes, but only if "in cahoots" means Mormonism's interpretation of the Bible.

B. they (the muddle of scriptures & doctrine as taken by Mormonism) assert that God the Father has a body, but the Son does not

DID not, before his earthly sojourn.

C. they assert that the angel of the Lord has a body and can wrassle and cause lameness

No, the scriptures a la Mormon style, do not say that the angel that wrestled Jacob could have been from the presence of God and also have a physical body with which to wrestle a physical mortal.

D. the Son gets his physical body upon being born as a mortal, which adds to the muddle and limitations placed upon God (by who?)

No, the scriptures a la Mormon style, do not say that Christ's physical, glorified body is a muddle or limitation, they state that a glorified body is kept always and forever. But other religious concepts outside of Mormonism do not impose any such limitation on God, so they must, being more infinite and incomprehensible in scope, be more true than a doctrine which states (without stating any exceptions) that God is "limited" to keeping his mind inside a physical body no matter what.

E. all this requires legions of speculations offered as explanations (man-made dogma)

Yes, making sense out of conflicting doctrinal statements definitely requires a plethora of speculations; see the "translated man" speculation already alluded to above.

F. instead, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple

The "gospel" is simple because it is God saving man through faith and repentance.

G. yet, God is infinite.

There is nothing simple about an Infinite Being, or THE Infinite Being, not from the perspective of a creation (sapient notwithstanding) of that Necessary Cause, that exists inside of creation (space-time) and has not the capacity to behold the whole mind of God.

You clearly want to have it both ways: the simplicity of the Gospel versus the inifinity of God.

I don't see the problem. I offered the "gospel of Christ" above in a very short sentence.

The simplicity of the Gospel cannot be comprehended, but only apprehended.

The concept of the "gospel" is simple, as is the concept of infinity, but the "method" is God Itself, so it cannot be comprehended.

Dogmatic definitions of God versus the infinity of God.

Yes, dogmatic (exclusive assertions) about God cannot be true, only the greatest concept possible to imagine, and even that is not so much as a beginning of what/who God Is.

Exclusive definitions of God versus the infinity of God.

Rhetorically stating the same thing.

Greater truth about God comes from affirmation of the infinity of God.

Absolutely true.

It seems clear to me from this only that you accept a version of "God" which is non-anthropomorphic and unbiblical. ...Yes, God, or "God" is far more than anthropomorphic concepts and is also unbiblical. I never said that "God" Is not biblical. There is not anything which "God" Is not....

[Questing Beast]

What about angels who are in their mortal bodies?

Not possible, if by that you mean angels who are still aging naturally, yet somehow go back and forth between earth and "heaven". A translated being could do that, but the angel Jacob wrestled was amazing to Jacob, enough so that he declared he had "seen the face of God". Any mortals like that? Not that I know of....

[Stone holm]

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is a good one that differentiates between El and YHWH. From the NEB:

"When the Most High [EL] parceled out the nations, when he dispersed all mankind, he laid down the boundaries of every people according to the number of the sons of God; but the LORD's [YHWH's] share was his own people, Jacob was his allotted portion.

What version is this?

[Questing Beast]

Once again, you have put God in a box and created your self-made muddle (God created in your limited image).

Our elder brother, the Son of God, had no physical body. Thus, you conclude that he must have tried to shake hands with someone (CFR), or that some disembodied angels tried to shake hands with us (CFR), ignoring the possibility that embodied angels actually had physical contact, or that God the Father (aka LORD) actually had physical contact with humans, thus bursting your absurd bubble. You just haven't thought this through, Beast.

Of course I have thought it through. See above: you have mistakenly accepted the notion that God the Father had direct contact with mortal men. Never. At most he was visible and audible but never physically connected with anyone (other than Mary, who BY asserted was one of GtF's wives). I stated only that IF Christ without a body had tried to shake hands he would not have been felt, being without a physical body; and if angels without bodies will not attempt to shake hands neither would Christ without a physical body, i.e. at any time in OT history. You mention that angels had actual physical contact before the resurrection; but although I cannot think at the moment of an example of such, it remains impossible for angels without physical bodies, according to the stated doctrines, so speculation is the answer, e.g. translated beings.

Well, yes, there are a legion of religions and that does pose a muddle for some. The key to winnowing out the dross is to examine them by class for internal consistency, which none but the LDS will be found to have.

That's a laugh. I have been pointing out inconsistencies left and right, answerable only by further speculation.

You can verify that for yourself via your own careful, logical study and scrutiny, or even via the experimental method (Alma 32), or the Holy Spirit (Moroni 10:4-7, James 1:5- -- whichever epistemology you prefer.

Been there and done that and I am apparently unsatisfied by the "experiment", over half a century of it by now.

Saying that God is infinite is a copout and tells us nothing.

You are calling the Necessary Cause a copout. Wow. Of course Infinity tells us nothing, since our minds are finite, while Infinity continues (that's an incorrect or inaccurate word, but we have no better) to increase forever (another inaccurate word, since there is no such thing as "forever" outside of space-time; everything is simply NOW, no matter how much of it there Is). All concepts of before and after and cause and effect are only in the world created by "God". "God" relates to us in the infinite ways we can comprehend, after first apprehending. Those of us who have not even reached apprehension don't believe in "God" at all: but I have to wonder if there even are such beings....

[volgadon]

Not possible, if by that you mean angels who are still aging naturally, yet somehow go back and forth between earth and "heaven". A translated being could do that, but the angel Jacob wrestled was amazing to Jacob, enough so that he declared he had "seen the face of God". Any mortals like that? Not that I know of....

We-karan or panav.

[Questing Beast]

We-karan or panav.

?

[volgadon]

?

Srry, I forgot a word. We-hineh karan or panav.

וְהִנֵּה קָרַן, עוֹר פָּנָיו

[Nathair/|\]

Not possible, if by that you mean angels who are still aging naturally, yet somehow go back and forth between earth and "heaven".

Nope, I mean ordinary people going through their mortal rite of passage who have been called to serve as messengers.

A translated being could do that, but the angel Jacob wrestled was amazing to Jacob, enough so that he declared he had "seen the face of God". Any mortals like that? Not that I know of....

Moses, Taliesin...

[Robert F. Smith]

?

Ex 34:30 והנה קרן עור פניו וייראו מגשת אליו

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 12 May 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

When you get it right, I say so, and congratulate you.

When you are wrong, and you are often wrong in a multitude of ways., I also say so.

I am consistent, Beast. You on the other hand are not.

I am very consistent within my framework of mostly ignorance. I rarely get Mormon doctrine wrong.

You get an "F" here for incoherent composition.

That's okay, you're not my teacher.

It is not clear what you are saying, and for all I know that is intentional -- or perhaps you actually think in such a disorganized and inconsistent manner.

Isn't it grand that "God" understands each of us intimately then? My "salvation" does not depend on being coherent to anyone. But I think the trouble is with you, since the greatest majority of the time other people don't seem to have too much trouble understanding what I am saying.

Let's see if I understand what you are saying that I said:

A. a muddle in scriptures & doctrine as taken by Mormonism? (does this suggest that the Bible and Mormonism are in cahoots?)

Yes, but only if "in cahoots" means Mormonism's interpretation of the Bible.

B. they (the muddle of scriptures & doctrine as taken by Mormonism) assert that God the Father has a body, but the Son does not

DID not, before his earthly sojourn.

C. they assert that the angel of the Lord has a body and can wrassle and cause lameness

No, the scriptures a la Mormon style, do not say that the angel that wrestled Jacob could have been from the presence of God and also have a physical body with which to wrestle a physical mortal.

D. the Son gets his physical body upon being born as a mortal, which adds to the muddle and limitations placed upon God (by who?)

No, the scriptures a la Mormon style, do not say that Christ's physical, glorified body is a muddle or limitation, they state that a glorified body is kept always and forever. But other religious concepts outside of Mormonism do not impose any such limitation on God, so they must, being more infinite and incomprehensible in scope, be more true than a doctrine which states (without stating any exceptions) that God is "limited" to keeping his mind inside a physical body no matter what.

E. all this requires legions of speculations offered as explanations (man-made dogma)

Yes, making sense out of conflicting doctrinal statements definitely requires a plethora of speculations; see the "translated man" speculation already alluded to above.

F. instead, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple

The "gospel" is simple because it is God saving man through faith and repentance.

G. yet, God is infinite.

There is nothing simple about an Infinite Being, or THE Infinite Being, not from the perspective of a creation (sapient notwithstanding) of that Necessary Cause, that exists inside of creation (space-time) and has not the capacity to behold the whole mind of God.

You clearly want to have it both ways: the simplicity of the Gospel versus the inifinity of God.

I don't see the problem. I offered the "gospel of Christ" above in a very short sentence.

The simplicity of the Gospel cannot be comprehended, but only apprehended.

The concept of the "gospel" is simple, as is the concept of infinity, but the "method" is God Itself, so it cannot be comprehended.

Dogmatic definitions of God versus the infinity of God.

Yes, dogmatic (exclusive assertions) about God cannot be true, only the greatest concept possible to imagine, and even that is not so much as a beginning of what/who God Is.

Exclusive definitions of God versus the infinity of God.

Rhetorically stating the same thing.

Greater truth about God comes from affirmation of the infinity of God.

Absolutely true.

It seems clear to me from this only that you accept a version of "God" which is non-anthropomorphic and unbiblical. ...Yes, God, or "God" is far more than anthropomorphic concepts and is also unbiblical. I never said that "God" Is not biblical. There is not anything which "God" Is not....

From this it is clear to me that you do not understand Mormon doctrine, although you seem vaguely familiar with a yokelized and shallow version of it.

At the same time, you are in thrall to the God of the philosophers, and haven't a clue as to what the Bible says (you make consistently false statements about the content of the Bible), which leads you to falsely declare that Mormon interpretation of the Bible is somehow illicit. The only accurate statement you make is to admit that you speak from a position of ignorance.

[bcuzbcuz]

Question about Mark S. Smith's arguments for El, not Yahweh, as the God of the Exodus. He lists 4 reasons:

1. Two verses in Num 23-24 identify El as the one of freed Israelites from Egypt.

2. The name El appears 3x more frequently than Yahweh in the poems of Num 23-24

3. The older patriarchal narratives have a preponderance of El mentions.

4. Egyptian names like Moses and Phineas indicate there was a Levitical priesthood in Egypt.

Does anyone one know what (4) has to do with El being the God of the Exodus? I don't get it.

I would stick with your Egyptian name roots for a minute. Seeing as how there is/are no physical refernces to the Exodus from Egypt, at all, then the Egyptian roots for the names given are a key factor.

For example, while Exodus claims there were 600,000 soldiers and their families who left Egypt, Egypt at the supposed time of the Exodus shows no signs of having lost half of its population. A column of 600,000 soldiers, marching ten abreast, would have formed a column 150 miles long, and then you have to include all the wives and children following after them. You could have seen such a column from space.

So whether the God name is El or JHWH doesn't matter. The whole story is a myth.

[Hamilton Porter]

I would stick with your Egyptian name roots for a minute. Seeing as how there is/are no physical refernces to the Exodus from Egypt, at all, then the Egyptian roots for the names given are a key factor.

For example, while Exodus claims there were 600,000 soldiers and their families who left Egypt, Egypt at the supposed time of the Exodus shows no signs of having lost half of its population. A column of 600,000 soldiers, marching ten abreast, would have formed a column 150 miles long, and then you have to include all the wives and children following after them. You could have seen such a column from space.

So whether the God name is El or JHWH doesn't matter. The whole story is a myth.

You have it completely backwards. Whether it actually happened is irrelevant. The question is, who is the God of the Exodus tradition? Were El and Yahweh worshiped as two distinct deities? Was Exodus and Abraham Abraham two distinct myths fused into one? Atheists often have difficulty when they interpret the Bible literally, which debilitates them from tracing important theological development.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Hamilton Porter

[Questing Beast]

Nope, I mean ordinary people going through their mortal rite of passage who have been called to serve as messengers. Moses, Taliesin...

No, I meant any angels like that? Fabulous enough to make someone seeing them assert that they had "seen the face of God"? Only glorified, heavenly beings, not mortals who have gone through some "rite of passage". Jacob would not mistake a mere mortal for "the face of God"....

[Questing Beast]

From this it is clear to me that you do not understand Mormon doctrine, although you seem vaguely familiar with a yokelized and shallow version of it.

At the same time, you are in thrall to the God of the philosophers, and haven't a clue as to what the Bible says (you make consistently false statements about the content of the Bible), which leads you to falsely declare that Mormon interpretation of the Bible is somehow illicit. The only accurate statement you make is to admit that you speak from a position of ignorance.

Share some of this clarity you assert about my understanding, or rather lack of it, of Mormon doctrine. I've lived my entire life in the Salt Lake valley, was BIC and raised by 100% active parents. I never "sinned" grievously or went through a teenage rebellion phase. I never missed a Sunday meeting except that I'd sometimes skip my SS class, and I positively loathed MIA, but never "sluffed" seminary (yeppers, we're all yokels around these here parts). You are almost in a category of One, in my life's experience, who repeatedly asserts that I know almost nothing about the doctrines of the LDS faith, or the scriptures, and that I "speak from a position of ignorance".

I can't be "in thrall to the god of the philosophers" because I have never studied any philosophy. Nor am I ignorant of what the Bible "says". Perhaps you need to point to what I said that the Bible "says" that is incorrect instead of simply repeating that assertion without calling me on it specifically.

Is it fair to call for a "CFR", to point to specific things that I have said that you find to be examples of this vast ignorance I am in the grip of? Just pick one, quote it verbatim and in context, then go to the scriptures, the prophets, the teachings otherwise of the Church's curriculum and show how mistaken I am.

In this specific context, of this thread, I have made several examples of how the doctrine of the LDS faith is "muddled" by what JS taught, subsequent to the BoM (and I'd add the 1832 First Vision account); the point being, by me, that the ensuing muddle requires that even presidents of the Church speculate in order to answer the muddle. Whereas the venerable religions of the Middle East do not have to do anything of the sort, since they never limited "God" to always being physically tabernacled, asserted that spirit beings cannot physically touch mortals, or divided "El" and "YHWH" into two separate people, etc....

(edit to add second paragraph)

Edited May 13, 2013 by Questing Beast