Not Feeling Very Mormon Today.

[Robert F. Smith]

Just throwing this out, and I'll not abide any barking or yelling at me. The Sunday school lessons are taking us into very strange and um weird land. Today, I got fed up and left. So now is the time for some of you born hero Mormons to straighten me out. Still a little angry about this and upset, but am studying the scriptures, and will

 

Genesis 1 is clear. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. "

 

John 1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing that was made."

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

In Moses 1 Describes Moses as a Son of God, and with some thought, I can agree with that as Jesus Christ said that those who do his will are Friends, Brothers and Sisters. It is a leap to come to the place where it is clear that Jesus Christ is the God of the OT.

 

I'm not finished with my research on this.

 

And, I do not like feeling forced to buy into this doctrine

There is nothing at all controversial in the claim that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, and virtually all mainstream christian denominations agree on that.  The reasons are summarized at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlAxgDDhryQ .

 

The difference they have with the Mormon point of view is that they see one triune God: one in person, but three in function.  While Mormons see the Godhead (Gottheit) as three separate persons fully united in purpose and power.  That is sometimes called a social Trinity.  See http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/jesus-lord-of-the-old-testament (unfortunately, some mainstream christian concepts are poorly understood here).

 

Since both God the Father and His Son can be found taking direct action in both the OT and NT, it helpful to note here that Jehovah and Elohim are titles and functional epithets, even though many people use them as proper names.  These titles are used more fluidly than most people imagine, and it is correct to observe that the Son acts as the Executive of the Father in carrying out His commands.

[Robert F. Smith]

I thought there was a thread on this General Discussions. Let me check and see. Oh, sorry.

You may be thinking of this http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62498-council-of-the-gods-vs-i-am-in-ancient-hebrew-throught/ .

[EllenMaksoud]

There is nothing at all controversial in the claim that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, and virtually all mainstream christian denominations agree on that.  The reasons are summarized at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlAxgDDhryQ .

 

The difference they have with the Mormon point of view is that they see one triune God: one in person, but three in function.  While Mormons see the Godhead (Gottheit) as three separate persons fully united in purpose and power.  That is sometimes called a social Trinity.  See http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/jesus-lord-of-the-old-testament (unfortunately, some mainstream christian concepts are poorly understood here).

 

Since both God the Father and His Son can be found taking direct action in both the OT and NT, it helpful to note here that Jehovah and Elohim are titles and functional epithets, even though many people use them as proper names.  These titles are used more fluidly than most people imagine, and it is correct to observe that the Son acts as the Executive of the Father in carrying out His commands.

For now, I am at peace with the statement :  These titles are used more fluidly than most people imagine, and it is correct to observe that the Son acts as the Executive of the Father in carrying out His commands. I hope that in time, I am more at ease with the fuller doctrine. This will take much prayer.

[Storm Rider]

Sister, it is not meet that we run before we can walk.  Too often we put undeserved pressure on ourselves and others when what is needed is patience for all. We need not understand all things or find "the" answer to every question. There is great benefit in being able to put those things we don't understand on the shelf to await further light and knowledge. I believe that in time all things will become clear and yet I am certain that mortality will always remain an experience where faith is needed and demanded. 

 

It is okay to walk away at times; that is not a problem. The problem is when we don't turn back. The small stuff is just that and we should never inflate it so that it blocks out the power of the Spirit. We have to choose to have an eye single to his glory rather than always gazing at those things that have no value. 

[teddyaware]

Just throwing this out, and I'll not abide any barking or yelling at me. The Sunday school lessons are taking us into very strange and um weird land. Today, I got fed up and left. So now is the time for some of you born hero Mormons to straighten me out. Still a little angry about this and upset, but am studying the scriptures, and will

 

Genesis 1 is clear. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. "

 

John 1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing that was made."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

In Moses 1 Describes Moses as a Son of God, and with some thought, I can agree with that as Jesus Christ said that those who do his will are Friends, Brothers and Sisters. It is a leap to come to the place where it is clear that Jesus Christ is the God of the OT.

 

I'm not finished with my research on this.

 

And, I do not like feeling forced to buy into this doctrine

Ellen, I think I may now understand the essence of your problem with this doctrine. I can easily imagine a doubter on this point -- such as yourself -- saying, "If God the Father was the God of the patriarchal period, the God of meridian period (when Christ ministered on earth) and the God of our latter-day period, why in the world wasn't God the Father also the God of the Old Testament period (Mosaic dispensation)"?

Well the fact if the matter is that God the Father was as much God during Old Testament times as He is during the New Testament times. During the Old Testament period, God the Father didn't temporarily abdicate His throne and say, "Here Son, I'm resigning my position as Supreme God for a while and putting you at the head... So until I come back, you're going to be the Most High God and I'm out of the picture." This, of course, is utterly untenable and ridiculous. God the Father was the God of the Old Testament, as much as He is the God of the New Testament.

When we say Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament, it simply means God the Father invested His Son with a fullness of His own divine power and authority, and by this means the Father fully equipped His Son to be His Divine Representative and Spokesman to man on earth. And Jesus Christ is still today God the Father's Divine Representative and Spokesman.

Additionally, when we say Jesus Christ was the God of the Old Testament, we are saying the Old Testament period was meant to be a Christ-centered dispensation, not a time divorced from Christ and His doctrines. The Jews by-and-large rejected Jesus Christ, not realizing it was this self-same Saviour who revealed Himself to their Old Testament fathers. But once they do realize it was, in reality, Jesus Christ Himself who spoke to Moses and the fathers, many of these will come unto Christ and be converted.

Bottom Line? God the Father was the ultimate God of the Old Testament period and Jesus Christ was His very active and much involved Divine Representative and Spokesman.

Edited January 20, 2014 by teddyaware

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[thesometimesaint]

Just throwing this out, and I'll not abide any barking or yelling at me. The Sunday school lessons are taking us into very strange and um weird land. Today, I got fed up and left. So now is the time for some of you born hero Mormons to straighten me out. Still a little angry about this and upset, but am studying the scriptures, and will

 

Genesis 1 is clear. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. "

 

John 1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing that was made."

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

In Moses 1 Describes Moses as a Son of God, and with some thought, I can agree with that as Jesus Christ said that those who do his will are Friends, Brothers and Sisters. It is a leap to come to the place where it is clear that Jesus Christ is the God of the OT.

 

I'm not finished with my research on this.

 

And, I do not like feeling forced to buy into this doctrine

 

I was not born in the Church. I converted at the age of 20. Was pretty Agnostic before then.

 

More accurately Moses as a son of God.

 

You don't have to "buy" any doctrine of the Church. Work it out in your own mind. Then ask God.

 

One way to look at, though admittedly not perfect, is that God the Father is the CEO. He makes the decision. God the Son is the COO. He makes sure what the CEO decides gets done.

Edited January 20, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[rpn]

The person who wrote "Mormon Doctrine" was perhaps the best scriptorian among the leaders, barring only his father in law who later became prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith, whom we are studying in RS.   When the book was publshed, President David O Mckay asked a group of the brethren to review it for doctrinal reliability.   As I recall that group identified several hundred doctrinal errors or questions.   The second edition may have been published over objections from the Church President, though there is some dispute about this.   This information did not become known in the church generally until the last ten years or so when Pres. McKay's biography was published.

 

Most of us have heard Elder McConkie's last testimony and have no doubt of his great love for his Savior and his lifelong intentions to follow Him in all things.   But that doesn't mean that the way he figures out everything in the book, is ACTUALLY church doctrine or even the truth.   Elder McConkie famously admitted that he was wrong on a number of things he said about race and the priesthood, in asking that people disregard those teachings.

 

Part of the problem with the book is that it was named "Mormon Doctrine".  I'd venture that it is one of the books that is in the library of 75-90 percent of the homes of people who were members before 1990.   Quotes from it are contained in many of the manuals and writings from 1950's to 1990's and some still remain.  

 

But because we do not know what were the identified objectionable statements, nor whether current knowledge and understandings affect more or different ones, many church members no longer consult the book as an authoritative source.

 

Which isn't to say that the passage to which you were referred might not be entirely correct according to current understanding.  

 

"Jesus the Christ" is similarly a long standing definitive work about our Savior.   But there are parts of it that current bible scholars, medical doctors, and/or scientists would challenge the truth of.   I would absolutely read it, remembering that it was written almost 100 years ago, and if Elder Talmage had known then what he might have known now if he were still alive, he might have changed some things.

 

If the reason that the idea of Jesus being the God of the Old Testament arises from the fearsome reputation of Jehovah, you might want to read what other Christians say about it: 

 

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/god-old-testament-same-god-new-testament-0

 

http://www.rzim.org/a-slice-of-infinity/the-god-of-the-old-testament/

[saemo]

Just throwing this out, and I'll not abide any barking or yelling at me. The Sunday school lessons are taking us into very strange and um weird land. Today, I got fed up and left. So now is the time for some of you born hero Mormons to straighten me out. Still a little angry about this and upset, but am studying the scriptures, and will

 

Genesis 1 is clear. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. "

 

John 1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing that was made."

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

In Moses 1 Describes Moses as a Son of God, and with some thought, I can agree with that as Jesus Christ said that those who do his will are Friends, Brothers and Sisters. It is a leap to come to the place where it is clear that Jesus Christ is the God of the OT.

 

I'm not finished with my research on this.

 

And, I do not like feeling forced to buy into this doctrine

You may find Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho to be of interest.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

[saemo]

The difference they have with the Mormon point of view is that they see one triune God: one in person, but three in function.

Hi, this is modalism, which is a heresy. Edited January 20, 2014 by saemo

[teddyaware]

The person who wrote "Mormon Doctrine" was perhaps the best scriptorian among the leaders, barring only his father in law who later became prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith, whom we are studying in RS.   When the book was publshed, President David O Mckay asked a group of the brethren to review it for doctrinal reliability.   As I recall that group identified several hundred doctrinal errors or questions.   The second edition may have been published over objections from the Church President, though there is some dispute about this.   This information did not become known in the church generally until the last ten years or so when Pres. McKay's biography was published.

 

I've done some research on the portion in bold italic, and a great many of the errors cited were merely editing problems that Apostle Mark E. Peterson, a proficient newspaper editor, pointed out. It's difficult to imagine an LDS scholar of McConkie's caliber actually produced several hundred doctrinal errors in MD. I believe the unsubstantiated and unlikely claim that there were hundreds of such errors is a myth that's been perpetuated by folks who don't appreciate Elder McConkie's style and perspective, so they use this erroneous claim in an effort to play the role of iconoclast.

 

Mind you, I'm not necessarily saying you are among these iconoclasts. It could just be a simple matter of your innocently repeating something you've heard others portray as being true.

Edited January 21, 2014 by teddyaware

[drums12]

That book isn't even sold at the church's bookstore anymore, are you sure you want to read a book that might have wrong doctrine now? The church has discontinued it for a reason. I know David O. McKay wanted it discontinued long ago, he as you know was a prophet. Did someone refer you to that book? They may not know of the problems with that book. There really needs to be a new, more accurate Mormon Doctrine.

CFR.  I've heard things like "Elder McConkie regretted writing the book" and "President McKay disapproved of it" for years.  While I certainly don't agree with all of Elder McConkie's writings, and I believe some of his "doctrine" was personal opinion, most of it is in accord with my understanding of official doctrines.

[Tacenda]

CFR. I've heard things like "Elder McConkie regretted writing the book" and "President McKay disapproved of it" for years. While I certainly don't agree with all of Elder McConkie's writings, and I believe some of his "doctrine" was personal opinion, most of it is in accord with my understanding of official doctrines.

Maybe my words need toning down. Because we've basically said the same thing. But there is your CFR, he only disapproved. How's that? And I agree he did have good stuff too, but if only anyone had listened maybe the book would still be in print minus the inaccurate, or unknown doctrine.

 

http://mormonmatters.org/2009/03/15/why-mormon-doctrine-is-not-mormon-doctrine/

 

I'm listening to a podcast on Mormonstories.org (again) with his nephew, maybe he'll discuss more about it.  I know I got my information somewhere. 

 

http://mormonstories.org/james-mcconkie-family-faith-bruce-mcconkie-and-the-historical-christ/

 

I saw this just now....http://ndbf.net/002k/index.htm In it is someone defending BRM. 

 

There's so much about it, I'm surprised with your CFR to me.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Tacenda

[savedbygrace]

Yes. I am progressing through it all, not looking for an excuse to leave the church or anything. It is a curse to be a questioner; not easily convinced. There was a meeting with the Missionaries, Relief Society President and her husband. It took some time and there is more reading to do. There is a Bruce R McConkie book called "Mormon Doctrine", that I need to read.

Hi Ellen, I don't know that the book you refer to will help you as I believe it has fallen from grace and is no longer in print, why don't you read the early church fathers on this subject. When jesus said ' before Abraham was, IAM' he was claiming to be God, there is no doubt, that is why the Jews were so scandalized and wished to kill him.

[rpn]

 

I believe the unsubstantiated and unlikely claim that there were hundreds of such errors is a myth that's been perpetuated by folks who don't appreciate Elder McConkie's style and perspective,..

Whatever the content, the group appointed by Pres. McKay did identify several hundred things as errors.  I do seem to recall that the list was once available online, so people can determine for themselves how serious or not serious any one was.

Edited January 21, 2014 by rpn

[Tacenda]

Whatever the content, the group appointed by Pres. McKay did identify several hundred things as errors. I do seem to recall that the list was once available online, so people can determine for themselves how serious or not serious any one was.

I saw this list while doing some searches, it was on an exmormon site. When I'm at my computer I can do a c/p, but I think you can probably find it.

[ERayR]

That book isn't even sold at the church's bookstore anymore, are you sure you want to read a book that might have wrong doctrine now? The church has discontinued it for a reason. I know David O. McKay wanted it discontinued long ago, he as you know was a prophet. Did someone refer you to that book? They may not know of the problems with that book. There really needs to be a new, more accurate Mormon Doctrine.

 

Just to note that as a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles apostle McConkie was also a prophet but who said prophets were/are infallible.

[Calm]

I saw this list while doing some searches, it was on an exmormon site. When I'm at my computer I can do a c/p, but I think you can probably find it.

Cut and paste from an anti site without a link might not make mods happy. I would suggest the option I use on iffy calls and tell people the searc terms to find it so they can find it if they want.

[Tacenda]

Cut and paste from an anti site without a link might not make mods happy. I would suggest the option I use on iffy calls and tell people the searc terms to find it so they can find it if they want.

That's probably a good idea. 

[Tacenda]

Whatever the content, the group appointed by Pres. McKay did identify several hundred things as errors.  I do seem to recall that the list was once available online, so people can determine for themselves how serious or not serious any one was.

Try searching: Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine an embarrassment

[teddyaware]

Try searching: Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine an embarrassment

Here's a link to an even-handed and realistic appraisal of the so-called Mormon Doctrine embarrassment.

 

 

ndbf.net/002k/

Edited January 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

I too felt less Mormonish this morning. I took a nap around lunchtime and I am back to my Mormon self.

[Tacenda]

Here's a link to an even-handed and realistic appraisal of the so-called Mormon Doctrine embarrassment.

ndbf.net/002k/

I c/p that link in post #38. I thought it brought up a lot about the "list". And didn't want to link to the actual list from an ex-mormon site. For fear it would get me banned. But the info on that site looked legit.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Tacenda

[teddyaware]

Whatever the content, the group appointed by Pres. McKay did identify several hundred things as errors.  I do seem to recall that the list was once available online, so people can determine for themselves how serious or not serious any one was.

Thanks for this. It's good to know we're trying to be fair.