Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[Mars]

Ok fair enough, I suppose.. What you haven't done though is give any rational justification for what I said. Unless by rational you mean throwing out the dictionary and saying that an unchangeable being is changeable. It's plain and precious, and it's right there for me to read.  How can I not understand it as well as you? I'm seriously dying to understand that. 

 

Bwaha - Moroni 8:18 seems to be a new tactic the Evangelical community is trying.  Google 'Moroni 8:18' and you'll see what I mean, folks.

 

So God is unchangeable.  He got mad, but then He changed His mind with Pharaoh!  God originally wanted Isaac sacrificed, but changed His mind!  God originally wanted animal sacrifice, and the name Jesus nor Christ appears anywhere in the OT, so a ton of Jews got a little miffed with these followers of Jesus of Nazareth when they began to co-opt Jewish Scriptures, beginning to claim that God actually now wants us to sacrifice a broken heart and a contrite spirit instead of an animal and fulfill Mosaic law.  God can't change, you silly Christians!

 

So God can change His mind.

 

God can change.

 

'But wait, that's not the same as His entire nature changing from sinful person to Perfect Supreme Being!'

 

Yeah, I get that.  But it hopefully demonstrates that a face value reading of Moroni 8:18 doesn't mean that Mormons are by and large foolish enough to ignore the twisted inconsistencies of their own Scripture.  We're not that stupid, brother.

We see our divine potential as being one day made perfect with God.  That we are made joint heirs, as Romans 8 puts it.  I know, I know, you probably think we don't understand Romans 8 properly.  But that's how we see it.  That we trip up on clumsy language trying to explain how an eternal being such as God relates to our small expanse of existence - not that we cease to exist after death nor were suddenly brought into existence at birth, but functionally speaking, mortality is all we have a sure grip on for the moment - that we trip up on the relationship is what provides cannon fodder for Evangelicals to rush in and correct us on our understanding of our own Scripture.

 

I surmise I understand God's nature about as well as my 2 year old understands mine.  As far as my 2 year old is concerned, I have always been there and will always be there.  As far as I'm concerned as a mortal, human being, dependent upon God and His Christ for my salvation, God is God and always has been and always will be.  That is the scope of the Scripture; my mortality.  Moroni's verse 18 is in the middle of talking about God's promises.  He is using his understanding of the nature of hope in salvation to illustrate why children don't need baptism because they could not have sinned.  He's talking about the mechanics of sin, cleanliness, and spiritual responsibility.  Had he begun the chapter talking about God's infinite nature and how God has always existed as such, you may have a point.  But Moroni wasn't talking about how God's metaphysical nature doesn't change, so I don't think you do have a point here.  At least not with how those silly Mormons don't even agree with their own Scripture.

But seriously, man...  I think we're beating a dead horse here.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Mars

[mass168]

Mars: That's actually all very reasonable and some good points. You are correct that I would say the following to it though. 

 

'But wait, that's not the same as His entire nature changing from sinful person to Perfect Supreme Being'

 

And again, a huge part of the problem here for me, is that is not what we're supposed to have to do, mental gymnastics with the BOM. You know what view of it is sold by missionaries and others through being an investigator. They tell us, you don't have to worry about all these different interpretations etc, etc. It is what it is. 

Edited December 18, 2014 by mass168

[Mars]

I don't consider it mental gymanstics, brother.

[Mars]

I'm not, like, pressured by this looming sense of "Oh no!  It's not true!  How can I make it true?!  Oh, if I just uhhh... grab that here, move that there, and solder this, then wire up that and uh...  Spit on that to stick it here then...  Maybe?  Yeah?  OK, whew!  I can keep being Mormon!"

 

That doesn't drive me.  I certainly don't have the best handle on things, and I try to figure things out, but I view that as building on a solid foundation, slowly but surely, and iterating toward the goal of understanding the nature of God.  Mental gymnastics has such a negative connotation.  I get that you see it that way, and I'm cool with that, but you should know that I most certainly don't see it that way.

[Mars]

"sold by missionaries"

 

I mean, seriously, brother.  The language you use to describe what we're doing.

 

Yikes.

 

Edit to add:

 

I'm not offended by it, it doesn't upset me or insult me.  It just tells me what assumptions you're operating under; that we deep down really know that it's a hunk of bull but we're doing it anyway.  At least - this is how it comes across.  Probably true that many other active true blue always believing totally comfortable with all aspects of Church posters on here think differently.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Mars

[mass168]

"sold by missionaries"

 

I mean, seriously, brother.  The language you use to describe what we're doing.

 

Yikes.

 

Edit to add:

 

I'm not offended by it, it doesn't upset me or insult me.  It just tells me what assumptions you're operating under; that we deep down really know that it's a hunk of bull but we're doing it anyway.  At least - this is how it comes across.  Probably true that many other active true blue always believing totally comfortable with all aspects of Church posters on here think differently.

Ok ok, sorry, I suppose it does show off my EV background more than I would like. But ya know, that does kind of highlight a difference between us that might be important. I don't find myself having to change dictionary definitions of English words in my study of the Bible. A lot of times I have to go and read what some Greek or Hebrew scholar said about how the Language translated over, but that is an entirely different problem. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You're welcome.

 

God is the lawgiver. Are your sensibilities not offended when your children disobey your laws? 

Yes, I am so offended that I would burn them in a lake of fire for all of eternity. Wouldn't you?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am fully prepared to back up every single one of those bullets on the Church or I wouldn't have said them, pick your poison? We've already done Moroni 8:18. 

We have? So you think you found the smoking gun in Mormonism. What do you think Moroni 8:18 means? What does unchanging mean? Does it mean he can't change his mind or that he always likes frosted flakes? Or is it that his very nature is unchangeable?

 

Think about this for a min.

[Mars]

Ok ok, sorry, I suppose it does show off my EV background more than I would like. But ya know, that does kind of highlight a difference between us that might be important. I don't find myself having to change dictionary definitions of English words in my study of the Bible. A lot of times I have to go and read what some Greek or Hebrew scholar said about how the Language translated over, but that is an entirely different problem. 

 

Right.

 

Do you feel better?  Got your zing in?

 

I swear before all that is good and green, if I ever throw in the towel with Mormonism, the last place I'm headed is American Evangelicalism.

[Calm]

Ok ok, sorry, I suppose it does show off my EV background more than I would like. But ya know, that does kind of highlight a difference between us that might be important. I don't find myself having to change dictionary definitions of English words in my study of the Bible. A lot of times I have to go and read what some Greek or Hebrew scholar said about how the Language translated over, but that is an entirely different problem.

"individual"="being" in most dictionaries I know....

Anyone can play this game....

Edited December 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[mass168]

"individual"="being" in most dictionaries I know....

Anyone can play this game....

Forgive me, I don't know what this is in reference to? 

[Mars]

@calmoriah

 

I know, right?!

 

I really should bow out.  I have belligerent and numerous offspring and yadda yadda yadd being a good father means they get your time.

[mass168]

Right.

 

Do you feel better?  Got your zing in?

 

I swear before all that is good and green, if I ever throw in the towel with Mormonism, the last place I'm headed is American Evangelicalism.

Alright, it was just a statement about myself. I really don't feel that same tension very often reading the Bible, all I'm trying to say. 

[Calm]

Forgive me, I don't know what this is in reference to?

Does "person"="being" make it more obvious?

[Calm]

@calmoriah

 

I know, right?!

 

I really should bow out.  I have belligerent and numerous offspring and yadda yadda yadd being a good father means they get your time.

Got you some points though....

[mass168]

Does "person"="being" make it more obvious?

Oh it does. I admitted above the trinity was one of my most difficult sticking points. Like I said I think I found an answer for that in my own heart, but I'm sure you don't care to hear. 

[Calm]

So you agree that changing dictionary definitions is necessary to read the Trinty concept into the Bible?

As in "one" is defined as "three"....

Catholic interpretation makes sense to me since they accept Sacred Tradition along with scripture. Protestant not so much, but if that is what they want as their position of faith I am not going to argue they are wrong to accept it though I do not because of my own spiritual witness. But it is only an interpretation that requires assumptions chosen, not imposed by the text itself.

Edited December 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[pogi]

John 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

Shoot!  There is another one of those darned English words that don't fit in with your understanding of "unchangeable" God.  Which words are you going to redefine, "unchangeable" or "became flesh"?

Edited December 19, 2014 by pogi

[mass168]

So you agree that changing dictionary definitions is necessary to read the Trinty concept into the Bible?

As in "one" is defined as "three"....

No I do not, I used to. All of the following is as far as I know:

 

The Bible never says "three Gods" and is never equated to "one God." God is always described as being one God. Yet there are three different names that are applied to FORMS that are God. The Father the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This in itself is not contradictory if you think of God as being one essence, fundamentally and entirely a different essence than humanity. An omnipotent, omnipresent being or essence such as this could choose to manifest himself to us (invade our consciousness, if you will) in any number of different forms. I think God has chosen to do this historically, in three forms, although he could have done 50000. These forms are all essentially and completely God (of a different essence than humanity), so they are not separate in one sense. What makes them separate to our senses is how they invade our reality. Christ invaded in the form of, and was so described in the Bible as a man. The Holy Spirit invaded in the form of tounges of flame, a dove, etc. God the Father actually has not invaded except in the way he is described in the Bible. This is how the scripture can say no one has seen the face of God and it still makes sense. 

 

What threw a wrench into all this for the longest time for me was the use of the word "person" by a lot of classical Christian descriptions. As far as I have seen that term is actually never used in the Bible to describe any one of the forms of God. Person is just a word that someone chose to use long ago in their description from their own understanding, and it caught on. But it is misleading to me personally because I unavoidably think of humans and their limitations when I think of it. 

 

I am not a trained theologian, I could be wrong on any/all of this. I am just telling you what my answer has come to after much personal struggle with the concept. If someone shows me conclusively that the Bible does describe the Father as a person/human for example, I would have to rethink a lot of this. 

[Calm]

I'm sure you don't care to hear.

I might have once. It is one of the things I like most about the board, people sharing their own beliefs. However once someone has demonstrated a preference for proving others wrong over explaining their own beliefs, not so much.

[mass168]

verb (used without object), became, become, becoming.

1.

to come, change, or grow to be (as specified):

He became tired.

 

Shoot!  There is another one of those darned English words that don't fit in with your understanding of "unchangeable" God.  Which words are you going to redefine, "unchangeable" or "became flesh"?  How could God "become flesh", if God is spirit and always has been and always will be an unchangeable spirit being?

Very technically, the first definition "to come" allows this to mean simply the fulfillment of a destiny in my mind. This was Christ's destiny (John 1:1) 

 

Added: Even so, all this was translated from a different language. I do not view these words exactly the same as the BOM for example. These words came through an entirely different process.  

Edited December 19, 2014 by mass168

[Calm]

 

I am not a trained theologian, I could be wrong on any/all of this. I am just telling you what my answer has come to after much personal struggle with the concept.

This sounds like modality which is a heresy for many.

PS: the whole let us make man in our image is a strong argument that God is human.

[mass168]

I might have once. It is one of the things I like most about the board, people sharing their own beliefs. However once someone has demonstrated a preference for proving others wrong over explaining their own beliefs, not so much.

Alright.. Ya know what you're right man, I have been a little aggressive I'm sorry. I will seriously try my best to tone it down. 

[mass168]

This sounds like modality which is a heresy for many.

PS: the whole let us make man in our image is a strong argument that God is human.

I'll have to look into it. 

[JLHPROF]

Alright.. Ya know what you're right man, I have been a little aggressive I'm sorry. I will seriously try my best to tone it down. 

 

I more concerned that you indirectly (although never explicitly) portrayed yourself first as a member having a faith crisis with the Snow Couplet/King Follett teachings when in fact you were an evangelical looking to sneak in the back door with the same old anti-mormon rhetoric.

True you never said you were a member or an EV but after about 3 posts and a misrepresentation of the atonement it didn't feel like a member talking.  Should have guessed.  Not that there's anything wrong with differing views, but all this has been talked to death on the Evangelical/Mormon 100 page thread.

 

Very well played (even if a teeny bit of a violation of the board rules).