Lachoneus Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 This is a good link from sunstone on the evolution of the doctrine Jesus=Jehovah https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/044-36-44.pdf Kirlan's paper is deeply flawed. Better is Watson's two part paper. http://www.eldenwatson.net/5Jehovah1.htm http://www.eldenwatson.net/6Jehovah2.htm
MorningStar Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I am most anxious to distance myself from Isaiah 14: 11-20 1 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. So, when the talk begins about our being exalted, and being Gods, I get really nervous, not at all at peace. It is impossible to ignore John 1, however.Ellen, have you read these scriptures in Romans? 16 The Spirit itself beareth awitness with our bspirit, that we are the cchildren of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; aheirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we bsuffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. And in Revelation: 21 To him that aovercometh will I grant to bsit with me in my cthrone, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 1
mbh26 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.”12 Joseph was brought up in Protestantism and was probably inculcated with the trinity doctrine like everyone else in his community right? So surely he believed at one time in his life in the Trinitarian doctrine? Why did Joseph report only seeing one being in his first two accounts of the first vision? Since he did only report one being in the vision, how can Joseph honestly say he always said Jesus and God the Father were distinct personages? http://www.annuitech.com/ms/ftp/Jim/ComparisonChart.pdf
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Can anyone provide the Mormon basis for Jesus as God of the OT?In many places...he first introduces himself ad JEHOVAH, and just speak as the "Lord God almighty. Also reach the Book of Moses in the Pearl of great price, chapter. There are many more.
Cold Steel Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Although there is not yet evidence to support it, if we think of solar systems making up galaxies and galaxies making up the universe, it's almost inescapable that our universe sits in the midst of other universes. So what if there are trillions of universes within the Cosmos and that there are billions or trillions of these cosmoses? Where does it stop? It wasn't so long ago that we thought of the Milky Way as being all there is.We need to expand our minds as to what may be out there; and to me it makes no sense to think that God has no peers or kin. Or that He's one of a kind and that He created matter and everything that's not Him. And this is where the LDS church differs from the rest of Christianity. Lucifer did not fall because he wanted to be like God. He wanted to supplant God and he was willing to rebel to get it.
teddyaware Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Joseph was brought up in Protestantism and was probably inculcated with the trinity doctrine like everyone else in his community right? So surely he believed at one time in his life in the Trinitarian doctrine? Why did Joseph report only seeing one being in his first two accounts of the first vision? Since he did only report one being in the vision, how can Joseph honestly say he always said Jesus and God the Father were distinct personages? http://www.annuitech.com/ms/ftp/Jim/ComparisonChart.pdfJust in case you are unaware of this, the trinity of traditional Christianity teaches the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three distinct personages. Mormons often confuse so called Modalism or Sabellianism (one personage in three manifestations) with the trinity of historical Christianity. The reason why I believe Joseph Smith, when he said he always taught there are three personages in human form, is because the earliest publicized LDS scriptures teach the same thing. Read the following I recently posted on another thread: 'Joseph Smith did not believe in a trinity with an immaterial, disembodied and "totally other" God the Father. In the very first Chapter of the Book of Mormon, God the Father is a being in the form of a man who sits upon a throne. Non-LDS Christians do not believe the personage of the Father has the form of a man...8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.So in the first chapter of the Book of Mormon, completed before the Church was actually organized, God, Christ and the twelve apostles are shown as separate and distinct personages of human form. After all, how could Lehi have seen God sitting on throne unless He had form.In addition, in the Book of Moses, given during the first year of the Church's existence, we read:"35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren." (Moses 7)So here God refers to Himself as a Man of Holiness and a Man of Counsel with hands and eyes, and this in the very earliest days of the Restoration!Also, the Prophet Joseph Smith's own testimony contradicts your idea...“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.”12“That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)There is strong reason to believe the prophet spoke the truth when he made the above declaration.' Edited January 7, 2014 by teddyaware 1
Kevin Christensen Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Another important approach that reads the Book of Mormon in context is Brant Gardner's 2003 FAIR Presentation on Mormonism, Monotheism, and Mormon's Book." http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2003-fair-conference/2003-monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book Before reading Barker's The Great Angel in 1999, I found Kirtland's essay fairly persuasive. Not since. I'd also link to my 2001 Occasional Paper on the topic, but the Maxwell Institute hasn't got it up at the moment. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Pittsburgh, PA
Calm Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) My b.i.l. is a cop, and was telling us about an investigator class thing?Took a minute to figure out that you meant a different type of investigator class than I was thinking...thought the banana dude was a prank, lol.Perhaps it was more like he had that experience and only after contemplating it over the next five years did he start to realize that he saw two beings rather than one. Is that more in line with current apologetics, just curious?Since the Trinitarians doctrine is three persons, one being this logic doesn't work. It might if he had been taught modalism...does anyone know how common it was in his area and time or of it was seen as a heresy as it is with most Protestant faiths these days.Kevin, is this the right one?http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/16/2/S00004-5176ac935b13a4Christensen.pdf Edited January 7, 2014 by calmoriah
mbh26 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Just in case you are unaware of this, the trinity of traditional Christianity teaches the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three distinct personages. Mormons often confuse so called Modalism or Sabellianism (one personage in three manifestations) with the trinity of historical Christianity. Thanks I was unaware of that.
teddyaware Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Thanks I was unaware of that.You're welcome. In fact, Modalism is considered a heresy in almost all non-LDS churches.This misunderstanding by Latter-day Saints is very common. It must be said, though, that in the earliest days of the Restored Church, Mormonism was already at variance with the trinity of historical Christianity, because both the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great price describe God as a Man even before the earthly incarnation of Christ. Edited January 7, 2014 by teddyaware
mbh26 Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 We need to expand our minds as to what may be out there; and to me it makes no sense to think that God has no peers or kin. Or that He's one of a kind and that He created matter and everything that's not Him. And this is where the LDS church differs from the rest of Christianity. It really is a shame that Joseph Smith was martyred so young. The sunstone article says that he was still making progress learning and revealing many more truths about this.
mfbukowski Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Have you ever heard of The Book of Mormon?Oh yeah that's a just brilliant reply without any references. I am sure that helped a lot. What exactly was the purpose of you actually sitting and typing that?
theplains Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Can anyone provide the Mormon basis for Jesus as God of the OT? "Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world" (3 Nephi 11:14). Regards,Jim 1
mfbukowski Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) I am most anxious to distance myself from Isaiah 14: 11-20 1 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. So, when the talk begins about our being exalted, and being Gods, I get really nervous, not at all at peace. It is impossible to ignore John 1, however.Unfortunately it appears no one has even tried to answer your question here so let me give it a try. We are all in the process of becoming- we are all progressing. Even Heavenly Father progresses still- as we learn, he does not progress in knowledge or wisdom or powers, but the does progress through his children, as indeed all of us do if we are old enough to understand that. As we glorify God's name, and as we add to his kingdoms and glories, he progresses through us. Perhaps an analogy would be that as we grow old, we do less in the world, but in a sense, we grow and progress through our children and grandchildren's achievements. So progression is something we all do, in stages, from line upon line, precept upon precept, lesson upon lesson. It is the natural order of the universe. But Satan wanted to skip steps. He wanted to have God's glory "RIGHT NOW". He wanted God's glory FOR HIMSELF immediately. He did not want to earn it, he did not want to progress line upon line, he just wanted in effect to steal God's glory and have it NOW. THAT was his sin, I think. It wasn't that wanting to become like his Father was bad- that is the natural order- that we learn and grow though a lifetime- through eternity- and continue becoming greater in wisdom forever until, like God, we know all there is to know and can do all that can be done. But Satan wanted it NOW- without progressing through the steps necessary. Jehovah on the other hand wanted to give his Father the glory. He wanted to do his father's will. He wanted to imitate his Father in every detail. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. Satan had made his choice, and so he fell, and this is what Isaiah is talking about in this verse. Satan's sin was not wanting to become like his Father- that is the natural order. His sin was wanting, essentially, to steal his Father's glory for himself, right now. He was expelled from heaven and became God's adversary. The great lesson in the story is that we cannot short-circuit progression. We must learn and progress line by line in our wisdom and understanding. This is true in all things, and is even true here on earth psychologically and in every other way. Kevin C, on this board often posts the "Perry Scheme of Cognitive Growth" which actually is a scientific study which bears this principle out. We all grow line upon line. The scriptures say that even Jesus grew "from grace to grace"John 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. and this is explained in D&C 93 11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us. 12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; 13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; 14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.Luke 2:39-40 39When they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city of Nazareth. 40The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him. I hope that helps! Edited January 7, 2014 by mfbukowski 2
Kevin Christensen Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Joseph was brought up in Protestantism and was probably inculcated with the trinity doctrine like everyone else in his community right? So surely he believed at one time in his life in the Trinitarian doctrine? Why did Joseph report only seeing one being in his first two accounts of the first vision? Since he did only report one being in the vision, how can Joseph honestly say he always said Jesus and God the Father were distinct personages? http://www.annuitech.com/ms/ftp/Jim/ComparisonChart.pdfSee Matthew Brown's FAIR Presentation here: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-revised-or-unaltered-joseph-smiths-foundational-stories n the introductory remarks of JS 1832 Joseph Smith outlined precisely how he was about to proceed in the narration of his history. He mentioned that the very first incident associated with his “marvelous experience” in the Restoration was that he received “the testimony from on high.” Because of the formatting of the introductory paragraph and the structure of the text which follows it, it can be concluded with a marked degree of certainty that this testimony was connected with the First Vision. The question to ask, then, is, What was the “testimony from on high” that Joseph Smith received during the First Vision? This question is easily answered by referring to another First Vision recital given by the Prophet in November 1835. There he states that one of the two personages who appeared unto him testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. In JS 1838 (which is the First Vision narrative now published in the Pearl of Great Price) we learn that one of the personages testified to Joseph using the following words, “This is my beloved Son.” We may comfortably conclude from this documentary evidence that the “testimony from on high” of JS 1832 is equivalent to the phrase spoken by God the Father in JS 1838. Therefore, we may safely say that when Joseph Smith wrote the 1832 account of the First Vision the appearance of God the Father was definitely in his mind—because he obliquely refers to it. It seems that he did not make an explicit mention of this part of the story simply because he had chosen to use the apostle Paul’s experience as the main framework for that portion of his narrative—and Paul only saw Jesus Christ.There is also the issue that in the 1832 MS, there is a spot where "Lord" is written as an insert above a line where a word for divinity is obviously missing. If that insert had been "God" we'd have no controversy. At least as far back as Allen's 1970 Improvement Era essay on the First Vision accounts, he made the suggestion that the account at that point uses the same title for two beings. "I was filled with the spirit of god and the ^Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me" http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Joseph_Smith,_Jr./First_Vision_accounts/1832 FWIW Kevin Christensen Pittsburgh, PA 1
rpn Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I don't picture God seeking after glory, and I don't think planning to have all that They have is seeking after glory --- it requires that childlike heart. Counterintuitive to how mortals may view power, but consistent I think with how They do.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) I think he means this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20130701153118/http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6 Not sure why the new MI site doesn't have their Occasional Papers series up yet. Hopefully they rectify that soon.That's the one I was thinking of. Thanks Nevo. The chapter on "Looking Before and After the Exile" is the one where I have the most on the Jesus as Yahweh identification. The MI site has been in a bit of flux over the past weeks. They did finally add an Alphabetical Selection index for authors, which makes it a lot easier get to what you need. I do hope they get the Occasional Papers online properly. Kevin Christensen Pittsburgh, PA Edited January 7, 2014 by Kevin Christensen 1
jana at jade house Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Just in case you are unaware of this, the trinity of traditional Christianity teaches the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three distinct personages. Mormons often confuse so called Modalism or Sabellianism (one personage in three manifestations) with the trinity of historical Christianity. I can tell you as the Nicene Creed of circa 325 was taught in the 50's in the Roman church it was confusing and muddled.The Trinity was somehow three somethings in one but I never thought about them as people per se until I came into LDS doctrine. Since the trinity explanation of the 50's was unexplanable, most common Catholics accepted the "divine mystery" dodge. It was my darling LDS sis in law who made me take a hard look at Jesus'baptism event and see all three separate beings were there; not bound together like some divine participants in a three legged race but separate defined individuals. It was a watershed moment. 2
teddyaware Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) I can tell you as the Nicene Creed of circa 325 was taught in the 50's in the Roman church it was confusing and muddled.The Trinity was somehow three somethings in one but I never thought about them as people per se until I came into LDS doctrine. Since the trinity explanation of the 50's was unexplanable, most common Catholics accepted the "divine mystery" dodge. It was my darling LDS sis in law who made me take a hard look at Jesus'baptism event and see all three separate beings were there; not bound together like some divine participants in a three legged race but separate defined individuals. It was a watershed moment.Strange as it may seem, Catholics and Protestant apologists will use the same scriptures Latter-day Saints use, such as the ones you mention that speak of the Lord's baptism, to prove that Modalism (one person in three manifestations) is a false doctrine. I actually watched a debate on TV once where this happened. It was a debate between traditional Trinitarians and Modalists, and one would think he was listening to LDS missionaries as the traditional Trinitarians made their points. But even though traditional Christianity and Mormonism agree that there are three persons and not one in the trinity, that, for the most part , is where the similarity ends. Edited January 8, 2014 by teddyaware 1
mbh26 Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Thanks for the link Kevin, still working on reading it all.
mfbukowski Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I can tell you as the Nicene Creed of circa 325 was taught in the 50's in the Roman church it was confusing and muddled.The Trinity was somehow three somethings in one but I never thought about them as people per se until I came into LDS doctrine. Since the trinity explanation of the 50's was unexplanable, most common Catholics accepted the "divine mystery" dodge. It was my darling LDS sis in law who made me take a hard look at Jesus'baptism event and see all three separate beings were there; not bound together like some divine participants in a three legged race but separate defined individuals. It was a watershed moment. Absolutely. Essentially that is why I left Catholicism.
JLHPROF Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 and I am nearly positive it was taught by Joseph Fielding Smith even before that. I am assuming you mean Joseph F. Sr, but that still dates to the turn of the 1900s. Prior to that time the Church had other teachings and Christ as Jehovah wasn't the accepted doctrine until then. So who knows, we may have a new doctrine in another 50 years.
Recommended Posts