What's Up With The Trinity

[David Waltz]

Hi Rory,

 

Thanks much for the kudos...it is so good to learn that at least some of the folk participating in this thread are understanding my musings.

 

To add a bit more, I cannot help but think that of the "God-nature" and "one generic divine nature" terminology utilized by Dr. Paulsen to describe how the Father, Son and HG are "one God", is pretty much the same thing that the Church Fathers meant when they utilized "God from God, Light from Light" and, of course, homoousian terminology to describe how the Father and Son are "one God".

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[ChristKnight]

Hi Rory,

 

Thanks much for the kudos...it is so good to learn that at least some of the folk participating in this thread are understanding my musings.

 

To add a bit more, I cannot help but think that of the "God-nature" and "one generic divine nature" terminology utilized by Dr. Paulsen to describe how the Father, Son and HG are "one God", is pretty much the same thing that the Church Fathers meant when they utilized "God from God, Light from Light" and, of course, homoousian terminology to describe how the Father and Son are "one God".

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

 

I completely agree, and have said such things many times, thanks!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Rory,

 

Thanks much for the kudos...it is so good to learn that at least some of the folk participating in this thread are understanding my musings.

 

To add a bit more, I cannot help but think that of the "God-nature" and "one generic divine nature" terminology utilized by Dr. Paulsen to describe how the Father, Son and HG are "one God", is pretty much the same thing that the Church Fathers meant when they utilized "God from God, Light from Light" and, of course, homoousian terminology to describe how the Father and Son are "one God".

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

It is interesting then that people try to put God in numerically one box. Not so sure that One refers to a number as people seem to think. There is 1 God.  Or they are One God.

 

Under classical definitions of nature, I think I agree.

[mfbukowski]

I completely agree, and have said such things many times, thanks!

Well I guess I will agree with you three Catholics on this one.

 

Now if we call this one nature "Christ-Nature" thereby including man's nature to become Christ like, then we will be on to something.

 

God and man are made one in Christ.

 

I think that would fly for all.

 

Base it all on John 17.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17&version=KJVLook especially at verse 11. 

Edited July 9, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Sorry teeny device, hard to post . But look at John 17:11, and the whole chapter.

[saemo]

I know for a surety that man has inherited a divine nature from the Father of our spirits, but in this fallen state the divine nature is utterly powerless to save us, only living faith in Christ and His atonement can do that.

 

But believe me, you are going to have a very hard sell around here trying to get the Latter-day Saints to deny their testimonies of the doctrine that God is the literal Father of our spirits -- reason being that it is such an ennobling and powerfully motivating principle to believe that at the core of who we are is something divine. The very thought that God is the literal Father of our spirits thrills the soul and gives us hope for dynamic spiritual growth through our Saviour. Like substances attract and "light cleaveth unto light," and it is a most sublime thought to realize that God is not a total stranger to us, but that we are his dearly beloved children, cherished members of His family (it's important to understand the reason why fallen humans often respond so positively and dynamically to the Gospel message is because even in our fallen state there is a preexisting divine light within us (our spirit) that recognizes the truth when it is presented with power).

 

I'll say it again, you are going to have a very tough sell. For who wouldn't want to believe that God is our literal Father and that He loves us with an undying love because in a very literal sense we are His eternally beloved children?

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chaste

neth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? (Hebrews 12)

 

All the best...

 

Addendum: Is it not true that even you as a Catholic must acknowledge all humans are born with some aspect of the divine nature? I say this because the Bible teaches us that Christ "is the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." So even in the fallen state, before conversion, the light of Christ exists within our consciences, clearly demonstrating that God has not left earthbound man utterly devoid of the divine light, else why in our fallen state do we respond to that light when we se it? If all there is wretched darkness within us, why do we recognize the light?

Hi, Jesus is the only begotten of the father. We are created, not begotten.

It is a false dichotomy you present, in an idea that God can only love you if you are begotten. Certainly, that is not Christian doctrine. God loves us, unconditionally and perfectly and that love is not diminished because we are created. Quite the opposite, God created us because of His love. He didn't create us and then say, I can't love you.

 

Catholic doctrine is, our souls are made in the divine image of God. We do not have a divine nature, and are made by grace what we are not by nature. We are sons and daughters of God by adoption.

Edited July 9, 2014 by saemo

[teddyaware]

Hi, Jesus is the only begotten of the father. We are created, not begotten.

It is a false dichotomy you present, in an idea that God can only love you if you are begotten. Certainly, that is not Christian doctrine. God loves us, unconditionally and perfectly and that love is not diminished because we are created. Quite the opposite, God created us because of His love. He didn't create us and then say, I can't love you.

 

Catholic doctrine is, our souls are made in the divine image of God. We do not have a divine nature, and are made by grace what we are not by nature. We are sons and daughters of God by adoption.

Hi there,

 

That's fine. You continue to believe the spirit of man is not the literal offspring of God and I will continue to believe the spirit of man is the literal offspring of God.

 

A question,

 

1) As a consequence of man being created in God's image, do you believe this image of God spiritually impacts man in a positive way prior to his coming unto Christ and receiving saving grace at His hand? If the answer is yes, please list some of the ways men are positively spiritually impacted by the image of God prior to coming unto Christ and receiving His saving grace. ... I'm simply curious to know. 

In furtherance of our dialogue, I quote the following from the Epistle to the Hebrews:

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, (Hebrews 2)

The above verse says both Christ (he that sanctifieth) and men (they who are sanctified) are all of one.

 

More questions,

 

1) To whom or what is the word one referring in this verse?

 

2) If you are able to define the whom or what the word "one" is referring, what does the author mean when he says both Christ and men spoken of are all of (that) one (person or thing)?

 

3) If you are able to define the whom or what the word one is referring, why does that one (person or thing) cause Christ to call the men spoken of as brethren rather than children?

Edited July 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[saemo]

A question,

 

1) As a consequence of man being created in God's image, do you believe this image of God spiritually impacts man in a positive way prior to his coming unto Christ and receiving saving grace at His hand? If the answer is yes, please list some of the ways men are positively spiritually impacted by the image of God prior to coming unto Christ and receiving His saving grace. ... I'm simply curious to know.

 

Probably just easier for me to quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

MAN: THE IMAGE OF GOD

1701 "Christ, . . . in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, makes man fully manifest to himself and brings to light his exalted vocation."2 It is in Christ, "the image of the invisible God,"3 that man has been created "in the image and likeness" of the Creator. It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine image, disfigured in man by the first sin, has been restored to its original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God.4

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the unity of the divine persons among themselves (cf. chapter two).

1703 Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul,5 the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7

1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."8

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil."9 Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.

 

In furtherance of our dialogue, I quote the following from the Epistle to the Hebrews:

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, (Hebrews 2)

The above verse says both Christ (he that sanctifieth) and men (they who are sanctified) are all of one.

 

More questions,

 

1) To whom or what is the word one referring in this verse?

Jesus and humanity, or if you like, heaven and earth. In context of Hebrews, it is teaching of Jesus, our High Priest, who has joined heaven and earth by His perfect, and priestly, sacrifice.

 

2) If you are able to define to whom or what the word "one" is referring, what does the author mean when he says both Christ and men are all of (that) one (person or thing)?

Referring to, as I said, the joining of heaven and earth, of the Father and humanity.

 

3) If you are able to define to whom or the what the word one is referring, why does that one (person or thing) cause Christ to call them brethren rather than children?

We all have one origin, God, and so we are brethren, joined to the Father through Jesus Christ (God Incarnate).

It is God, His Word made Incarnate, who restored our broken state (the fall), no other could do it. If that were not so, then the priestly offerings of the chosen of God, Israel, would have been sufficient for their salvation, and ours.

Edited July 10, 2014 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

Catholic doctrine is, our souls are made in the divine image of God. We do not have a divine nature, and are made by grace what we are not by nature

Logically, I think this distinction could be collapsed- it makes no difference.  The bottom line is that we are of a nature to be SUSCEPTIBLE to grace.  That is part of what we are!

 

Yes of course we must overcome the natural man- but the very commandment to do so presumes we are CAPABLE to do so.  So it is already in our "nature" to have the ability to become more than we are at birth.  We cannot keep commandments we are incapable of doing.  We cannot walk through walls as Jesus in his resurrected state could, but yet his human body was capable of doing that after he had sufficient grace to be raised to that point.

 

So here we have a tacit admission, I think, that part of human nature itself is the ability to grow beyond our "natural capabilities" and become more than we are.

 

Yes we are "made by grace what we are not by nature" but that is BECAUSE our nature INCLUDES the ability to be raised by grace. 

 

So in "counting natures" it is not as if we have 2 natures- one the "natural man" without grace and the other "raised by grace nature"- we have one nature capable of being raised by grace- and indeed to godhood.

 

For practical purposes it doesn't matter if we are "children" by adoption or by "nature".   Even we humans do not make the distinction with our own adopted children- why should God?

 

There is only one nature- human nature which is capable of being raised to "Christ nature".

[teddyaware]

Probably just easier for me to quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

MAN: THE IMAGE OF GOD

1701 "Christ, . . . in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, makes man fully manifest to himself and brings to light his exalted vocation."2 It is in Christ, "the image of the invisible God,"3 that man has been created "in the image and likeness" of the Creator. It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine image, disfigured in man by the first sin, has been restored to its original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God.4

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the unity of the divine persons among themselves (cf. chapter two).

1703 Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul,5 the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7

1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."8

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil."9 Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.

 

Jesus and humanity, or if you like, heaven and earth. In context of Hebrews, it is teaching of Jesus, our High Priest, who has joined heaven and earth by His perfect, and priestly, sacrifice.

 

Referring to, as I said, the joining of heaven and earth, of the Father and humanity.

 

We all have one origin, God, and so we are brethren, joined to the Father through Jesus Christ (God Incarnate).

It is God, His Word made Incarnate, who restored our broken state (the fall), no other could do it. If that were not so, then the priestly offerings of the chosen of God, Israel, would have been sufficient for their salvation, and ours.

Thanks for the response. By reading what you posted, it appears the Catholic Church believes that as a consequence of man being created in the image of God, even unconverted humans inherently possess a portion of God's truth and light. So as I understand thus far, it appears a portion of God's light exists within each man, even before conversion; and since the light of God is eternal, a portion of that which is eternal in nature exists within every man.

With regard to the points made in the second portion of your post, I mostly agree.

How would the Catholic Church interpret the following verse from the same chapter of Hebrews?

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2)

 

[saemo]

How would the Catholic Church interpret the following verse from the same chapter of Hebrews?

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2)

It is a description of the Incarnation. Put in context of our liturgy, these are the scripture readings for the Feast of the Presentation.

Reading 1 MAL 3:1-4

Responsorial Psalm PS 24:7, 8, 9, 10

Reading 2 HEB 2:14-18

Gospel LK 2:22-40

And a homily by Pope John Paul II.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19970202_en.html

[saemo]

Thanks for the response. By reading what you posted, it appears the Catholic Church believes that as a consequence of man being created in the image of God, even unconverted humans inherently possess a portion of God's truth and light. So as I understand thus far, it appears a portion of God's light exists within each man, even before conversion; and since the light of God is eternal, a portion of that which is eternal in nature exists within every man.

It is Catholic doctrine that the soul is the image of God. The soul is not eternal, like God, but is created and immortal.

The part I quoted from then CCC is called "natural law", that is, God created us for Him, and God is there for us. One of my favorite scriptures is, You will be my people and I will be your God. (paraphrasing). So we are naturally ordered towards God, because that is how God created us. The Holy Spirit never ceases calling all to Jesus Christ, who is God that became Man. Let those who are willing to hear.

Edited July 10, 2014 by saemo

[Logan Alexander]

The discussion has already gone by this but I just wanted to reply quickly.

 

I don't see how the 8th article of faith states that.  The 8th article of faith is specifically about translation or transmission.  I'm talking about the original intent of the authors.  We know that the apostles contradicted themselves in at least one instance (circumcision) and it apparently took heated discussions and an assembly to come to an agreement.  So I don't see why we must accept that they would use complimentary views of "theos".

 

This is untenable according to your 8th article of faith. If you hold scripture to be "true" as your article of faith states it, then the only contradiction that can be in scripture is due to poor translation. You cannot hold that the original intent of the NT authors is all true (as your 8th article of faith states) and simultaneously affirm that they contradict themselves. This is what I am getting at. 

 

And no, I do not believe Paul contradicted himself in Acts 16:3/Galatians 5:2. The first is a matter of evangelism (becoming all things to all people, look at the context of acts 16:3) and the other is a matter of justification (what is essential to being the people of god).

[Logan Alexander]

Logically, I think this distinction could be collapsed- it makes no difference.  The bottom line is that we are of a nature to be SUSCEPTIBLE to grace.  That is part of what we are!

 

Yes of course we must overcome the natural man- but the very commandment to do so presumes we are CAPABLE to do so.  So it is already in our "nature" to have the ability to become more than we are at birth.  We cannot keep commandments we are incapable of doing.  We cannot walk through walls as Jesus in his resurrected state could, but yet his human body was capable of doing that after he had sufficient grace to be raised to that point.

 

So here we have a tacit admission, I think, that part of human nature itself is the ability to grow beyond our "natural capabilities" and become more than we are.

 

Yes we are "made by grace what we are not by nature" but that is BECAUSE our nature INCLUDES the ability to be raised by grace. 

 

So in "counting natures" it is not as if we have 2 natures- one the "natural man" without grace and the other "raised by grace nature"- we have one nature capable of being raised by grace- and indeed to godhood.

 

For practical purposes it doesn't matter if we are "children" by adoption or by "nature".   Even we humans do not make the distinction with our own adopted children- why should God?

 

There is only one nature- human nature which is capable of being raised to "Christ nature".

 

You need to read Pauline literature more - he emphasizes over and over again the two natures.

 

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." Rom 7:4-6

 

"Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator." Colossians 3:9-10

 

"to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness." Ephesians 4:22-24

 

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:14-16

 

There is the person who's nature has been raised by grace, there is the person who's nature has not been raised by grace. You might substitute heart for nature here if you have an issue with the vocabulary.

 

God definitely makes it a particular point that we are not children by nature:

 

"and you were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."

 

"But to all who believed in him, who believed in his name, he gave them the right to become children of god." (John 1:9). The greek word ginomai here also implies something that was not previously present (sonship). Same word used for "the word became flesh and tabernacled among us."

 

It matters because God himself in scripture makes that distinction - thus we should to. 

[mfbukowski]

You need to read Pauline literature more - he emphasizes over and over again the two natures.

 

Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." Rom 7:4-6

 

"Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator." Colossians 3:9-10

 

"to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness." Ephesians 4:22-24

 

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Corinthians 2:14-16

 

There is the person who's nature has been raised by grace, there is the person who's nature has not been raised by grace. You might substitute heart for nature here if you have an issue with the vocabulary.

 

God definitely makes it a particular point that we are not children by nature:

 

"and you were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."

 

"But to all who believed in him, who believed in his name, he gave them the right to become children of god." (John 1:9). The greek word ginomai here also implies something that was not previously present (sonship). Same word used for "the word became flesh and tabernacled among us."

 

It matters because God himself in scripture makes that distinction - thus we should to.

Thanks for the reply, but did you read my post?

I have no disagreement with what you say. As I see it, these scriptures verify my points.

But you still do not understand our position on the Bible. We are not sola scriptura. Joseph re-defined the scriptures as a prophet himself.

Paul was not "God himself"- he was a man like us who was raised up as an apostle of the Lord. We also have apostles today.

[Logan Alexander]

As usual they construct a straw man and demolish it in their minds.  This thread proves they are not interested in real dialogue.

 

They started it, now where are they?

 

Again, it is merely a point about how it is a little inconsistent to say that the scriptures are true and then say the biblical authors contradicted themselves. Not be harsh, but it is simply nonsense. Don't put up a straw man by accusing others of a straw man.

 

I was hospitalized for 30 hours.

[mfbukowski]

This is untenable according to your 8th article of faith. If you hold scripture to be "true" as your article of faith states it, then the only contradiction that can be in scripture is due to poor translation. You cannot hold that the original intent of the NT authors is all true (as your 8th article of faith states) and simultaneously affirm that they contradict themselves. This is what I am getting at. 

 

And no, I do not believe Paul contradicted himself in Acts 16:3/Galatians 5:2. The first is a matter of evangelism (becoming all things to all people, look at the context of acts 16:3) and the other is a matter of justification (what is essential to being the people of god).

You do not understand the 8th article of faith. You are not listening to us at all. You are creating a straw man and then pretending to knock it down.

Joseph was in the process of "re-translating" the Bible, adding passages, and amplifying others. The Book of Mormon was written by direct revelation and so was the Book of Abraham. Joseph didn't even have the plates in front of him while he "translated". None of these were "translations" in the usual sense.

Before you try to "correct" us, you really need to learn something about Mormonism if you want to make relevant criticisms.

You will not learn what we believe at Biola, I can promise you that.

[Logan Alexander]

Thanks for the reply, but did you read my post?

I have no disagreement with what you say. As I see it, these scriptures verify my points.

But you still do not understand our position on the Bible. We are not sola scriptura. Joseph re-defined the scriptures as a prophet himself.

Paul was not "God himself"- he was a man like us who was raised up as an apostle of the Lord. We also have apostles today.

 

I understand you are not sola scriptura but you at least affirm scripture as an authority, if not the authority. I was just expressing why I believe we should make the distinction - which of course comes from sola scriptura (I almost said that at the end of my last post).

I do believe Paul spoke for God himself, as would be consistent with what I believe about inspiration. 

 

Question: how would you describe joseph smiths redefinition of the scriptures?

[mfbukowski]

Again, it is merely a point about how it is a little inconsistent to say that the scriptures are true and then say the biblical authors contradicted themselves. Not be harsh, but it is simply nonsense. Don't put up a straw man by accusing others of a straw man.

 

I was hospitalized for 30 hours.

I am sorry to hear that- I hope you are doing better. I could come and give you a blessing if you like.

The bible is "true" insofar as it is interpreted correctly.  Yes it says "true" EDIT- I MEANT "TRANSLATED"  but that is not what it means.

 

Telling me what I believe and what the church believes is really not a wise way to proceed.  Shall I tell you what you believe and then pretend to show inconsistencies?  Read the rest of the thread and address what has already been said.

Edited July 10, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I understand you are not sola scriptura but you at least affirm scripture as an authority, if not the authority. I was just expressing why I believe we should make the distinction - which of course comes from sola scriptura (I almost said that at the end of my last post).

I do believe Paul spoke for God himself, as would be consistent with what I believe about inspiration. 

 

Question: how would you describe joseph smiths redefinition of the scriptures?

Not sure what you mean.

 

He took his impressions of what he thought God wanted him to say, and filtered it through his mind and cultural milieu and wrote what came to his mind.  That is what scripture is.  We cannot project our impressions of what was thought in an alien culture so far distant in time and space.

 

Do you know the concept of "presentism" where we impose our culture and time on others?  It is inescapable.  We cannot possibly know what those words "really meant" to those ancient tribesmen who heard the words

[Logan Alexander]

You do not understand the 8th article of faith. You are not listening to us at all. You are creating a straw man and then pretending to knock it down.

Joseph was in the process of "re-translating" the Bible, adding passages, and amplifying others. The Book of Mormon was written by direct revelation and so was the Book of Abraham. Joseph didn't even have the plates in front of him while he "translated". None of these were "translations" in the usual sense.

Before you try to "correct" us, you really need to learn something about Mormonism if you want to make relevant criticisms.

You will not learn what we believe at Biola, I can promise you that.

 

I do not learn what LDS believe because of Biola.

 

I learn because I have hung out with Bob Millet. I have had lunch with Elder Nash and Elder Gay, two members of the quorum of the 70.  I learn because I have had dinner with the head of Church History at BYU 4 times (Richard Bennett), and other BYU professors from the Ancient Scripture department. I learn because I have been to temple square countless times. I learn because I lived in Utah. I learn because I have met with over 20 missionaries. I learn because I have hung out with BYU students on their campus and talked to them. I learn because I have read the BoM. I learn because I read Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I learn because I have been to general conference and heard your elders and prophet speak. That is how I learn what LDS history and theology is.

 

I do not mean to brag. I just ask that you please don't accuse me of a straw man or hearsay.

[mfbukowski]

Every conference report can be regarded as "scripture"- we get new scripture twice a year.

[mfbukowski]

I do not learn what LDS believe because of Biola.

 

I learn because I have hung out with Bob Millet. I have had lunch with Elder Nash and Elder Gay, two members of the quorum of the 70.  I learn because I have had dinner with the head of Church History at BYU 4 times (Richard Bennett), and other BYU professors from the Ancient Scripture department. I learn because I have been to temple square countless times. I learn because I lived in Utah. I learn because I have met with over 20 missionaries. I learn because I have hung out with BYU students on their campus and talked to them. I learn because I have read the BoM. I learn because I read Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I learn because I have been to general conference and heard your elders and prophet speak. That is how I learn what LDS history and theology is.

 

I do not mean to brag. I just ask that you please don't accuse me of a straw man or hearsay.

Brag?  Not at all.

 

I am surprised then you still do not understand it.  Honestly- the 8th article is not inconsistent- the measure of truth is Alma 32. 

[Logan Alexander]

I am sorry to hear that- I hope you are doing better. I could come and give you a blessing if you like.

The bible is "true" insofar as it is interpreted correctly.  Yes it says "true" EDIT- I MEANT "TRANSLATED"  but that is not what it means.

 

Telling me what I believe and what the church believes is really not a wise way to proceed.  Shall I tell you what you believe and then pretend to show inconsistencies?  Read the rest of the thread and address what has already been said.

 

In all my dealings with mormons, from BYU professors to bishops to laymen, to the quorem of the 70 - no one has ever used the 8th article of faith in regards to "interpreting." I have unanimously heard it used as a reference to bible translation, much like what we see in the follett discourse where joseph deals not with interpretational issues but translational issues  (yes i know there are canon issues I am just using it as an example of what I think Joseph himself meant, as seems evident from something he did in his life). At least I myself find you unique in this regard.

[mfbukowski]

In all my dealings with mormons, from BYU professors to bishops to laymen, to the quorem of the 70 - no one has ever used the 8th article of faith in regards to "interpreting." I have unanimously heard it used as a reference to bible translation, much like what we see in the follett discourse where joseph deals not with interpretational issues but translational issues  (yes i know there are canon issues I am just using it as an example of what I think Joseph himself meant, as seems evident from something he did in his life). At least I myself find you unique in this regard.

Well there you go then.

 

You know better than I do.  Have a good evening.  All those folks think the 8th article of faith is inconsistent then, I guess. Golly I don't know why they are still members do you?

 

I guess you converted them, right?

 

Learn something new every day.