Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[pogi]

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

1.

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

He became tired.

 

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)

 

As in He was unfulfilled or premature at one point?  You mean that God has not always been fulfilled but that he needed to become fulfilled?  It is interesting that God's destiny, in your mind, was change -spirit became flesh.

 

In this particular case and usage, "became" is a verb WITH object - flesh.

Edited December 19, 2014 by pogi

[mass168]

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).

I'm sorry it felt that way.. I told you I really did feel mislead while being an investigator. 

[pogi]

I'm sorry it felt that way.. I told you I really did feel mislead while being an investigator. 

 

An investigator that read all the way to Moroni 8:18?  Or are you really just one of those EV's jumping on the 8:18 bandwagon out saving souls?  Who is being misled here?

[JLHPROF]

An investigator that read all the way to Moroni 8:18?  Or are you really just one of those EV's jumping on the 8:18 bandwagon out saving souls?  Who is being misled here?

 

Just another evangelical taking scripture out of context...

 

Mormon speaking says:

 

17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.

18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.

 

So of the plain old dictionary meanings of unchangeable whichever one we use should be related to God's lack of partiality and his characteristic to be merciful to all his children.

 

1. Liable to change; capricious; fickle: changeable weather.

2. Being such that alteration is possible: changeable behavior.

3. Varying in color or appearance when seen from different angles: changeable silk.

 

Common sense would tell you this scripture refers to #1 - capricious, fickle.  That is the definition that relates to his fairness which is the topic of the chapter.  It refers to his being bound by law to be just and merciful and to his being a God of order, not subject to whims.

 

Also, common sense would likewise tell you that a truly omnipotent being couldn't be unable to accomplish #2 - an inability to change anything about himself.

 

Simply put, there is absolutely NO conflict between Moroni 8:18 and the doctrines of the King Follett Discourse.  At least, not for those able to read a verse in context of the chapter.

 

It's either that or Mormon didn't know what he was talking about...he's as fallible as any other man I suppose. 

[Mars]

The horse is dead.

/thread

[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.

It appears you are correct, I might be a modalist of some sort, I really wasn't expecting that. I will still be looking more into it. It appears at first glance though that I wasn't asserting the most heretical part of it at least, wherein they say that God could only be one of the forms at a time, so he would have to change modes to become the Son. I was saying that he can invade our consciousness in any number of ways at a given time. The picture that comes to my mind is someone with three arms reaching out and touching you with all of them at the same time.. But I digress.

 

That's a thought. Another thought is Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie ; neither the son of man, that he should repent : hath he said , and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken , and shall he not make it good. So, #confusion or something. 

[Calm]

You might want to check out a video called St Patrick's bad analogies. It covers the most common interpretations of the Trinty and demonstrates one of the problem with creeds....the creeds not allowing you to explore scripture and decide on your own witness what is the nature of God, but instead the creeds have been used by some of those who endorse them to say this you may believe and no more...even if the boundary prevents you from ever understanding it. Otoh, those who reject the creeds are allowed to go straight to God to learn from him without the possibility of God's teaching being labeled heretic because someone else has understood it differently in their very human way.

" I might be a modalist of some sort"

If you are a modalist, it is those creeds that make you a heretic, box you in.

Edited December 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

"God is not a man, that he should lie ; neither the son of man, that he should repent : hath he said , and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken , and shall he not make it good. So, #confusion or something. "

In your belief (do you have creeds?) if I understood you correctly, please correct if wrong, you believe all are fully God, substance is not divided. Jesus is fully God, Jesus is fully man...therefore God is indeed a man by scripture.

Perhaps it means something else than you thought.
 
"they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven"

 

Does this refer to Christ, if so how can he be the Son of Man and "neither the son of man"?

Edited December 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[mass168]

"God is not a man, that he should lie ; neither the son of man, that he should repent : hath he said , and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken , and shall he not make it good. So, #confusion or something. "

In your belief (do you have creeds?) if I understood you correctly, please correct if wrong, you believe all are fully God, substance is not divided. Jesus is fully God, Jesus is fully man...therefore God is indeed a man by scripture.

Perhaps it means something else than you thought.

 

"they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven"

 

Does this refer to Christ, if so how can he be the Son of Man and "neither the son of man"?

I do belong to a denomination that subscribes to a creed. It is not probably quite the same box you think of it as being though. In my experience, EV's are first and foremost bound by scripture. If I see something demonstrated to be true from scripture, I don't care what the creed says about it, except to compare and see why they are different. The way to view creeds is that they summarize a lot of the extremely tough thinking that needs to be done on many aspects of the faith. A creed is similar to the articles of faith, if you will. If you disagree with the creed, you are most likely misinformed. This rule has exceptions just like any other. I am not at this time stating that my view of the trinity is one of these exceptions. I am saying that my creed is confusing to me in this regard because it uses the word "person" to decribe God, when the Bible speaks very clearly about him having attributes that are nothing like those of any person I know.

 

You are correct those two verses are kind of confusing when taken together, to my explanation of the trinity. I will have to think hard about how they fit with everything else I said so far. Please remember that I openly admitted the trinity is the doctrine that came closest to making me think Christianity is full of it in general. So it doesn't surprise me that I find another angle to consider. That said, I would really like to hear how you explain these particular verses with your LDS worldview.

 

One point I have been trying to make all along in this conversation, is that the BOM cannot be read in the exact same manner as the Bible, based on how it came into being. I think there is no room allowed in the BOM to read in any other meaning to the words and phrases than exactly what they say. Why? Joseph did not understand the language on the plates, it was by supernatural power that the words came to his mind, so that he could then speak them to a scribe, in English. This eliminates almost any problems of translation that are inherent in the Bible. There was no searching around for words that "kind of" conveyed the true cultural and lingual meaning of the Greek, Hebrew, etc. The words that came to him were the precise words that God wanted us to have. The BOM was all one work by one person, not based on the incredible gamut of manuscripts the Bible was. It also came to us through far fewer generations of copy than the Bible did. This eliminates a great many scribal errors and other problems with consistency that could arise.

 

I'm not making a statement that is on the same level as the article of faith with regard to the Bible's accuracy. I believe God has the power to protect His word and convey it accurately to those whom he will. What I am saying, is that if you are going to make some kind of statement about reading a different meaning into a verse, or having a language barrier problem, it must be with the Bible, and not the BOM. 

Edited December 20, 2014 by mass168

[mass168]

the creeds not allowing you to explore scripture and decide on your own witness what is the nature of God, but instead the creeds have been used by some of those who endorse them to say this you may believe and no more...even if the boundary prevents you from ever understanding it. 

I really don't think this is true in general. If you ask any pastor of any denomination, which takes precedence, the creed or the Bible? You will get an extremely one sided answer. 

[Calm]

And yet the reality is the creed is used to explain the Bible in most cases, not the Bible to explain the creed.

 

It is like in my view saying one loves one's spouse most but then worrying more about what friends think than to the spouse.

 

It makes sense to me if there is revelation or some other sacred form of connection from God that one uses to help understand scripture such as LDS use revelation and spiritual witness.  It doesn't make sense to me if the creeds are man's explanation and not actual revelation though.  Why should I use man's reasoning to tell me of God's Word when I can go straight to God.

Edited December 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

One explanation:  LDS believe that Man of Holiness is one of the titles of the Father.  Thus the Son has the title of the Son of Man.  OTOH, he is not a son of a typical mortal man, but a son of God the Exalted Man, the Man of Holiness and thus unlike other sons of sinful mortal men, he does not lie, etc.

 

There are other explanations, but that is the first I heard and so it is the one that comes back to me even if my brain is halfway turned off and hopefully turned off all the way soon (early family gettogether tomorrow, must take night time meds a couple of hours early so I will be walking upright by 9ish so don't expect anything insightful tonight and if it sounds strange, check with someone less drugged on the board…this stuff makes me loopy and very, very forgetful…besides having the letters come off the screen or page and do a line dance…in rainbow colour no less.

 

add-on:  now I am checking…anything to avoid cleaning out the tub…I see my memory is still sharp enough and it appears to be the mainstream LDS interpretation:

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/son-of-man

 

A title that Jesus Christ used when speaking of himself (Luke 9:22; 21:36). It meant the Son of the Man of Holiness. Man of Holiness is one of the names of God the Father. When Jesus called himself the Son of Man, it was an open declaration of his divine relationship with the Father. This title is found frequently in the Gospels. Latter-day revelation confirms the special meaning and sacredness of this name of the Savior (D&C 45:39; 49:6, 22; 58:65;Moses 6:57).

 

Edited December 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

What I am saying, is that if you are going to make some kind of statement about reading a different meaning into a verse, or having a language barrier problem, it must be with the Bible, and not the BOM. 

If we were attempting to convince people based on their own assumption that the Bible is the only scripture God has ever given mankind, you might have a point…and in discussions with others who only believe in the Bible as scripture we might choose to do so.  But if we are trying to explain our own beliefs then it makes more sense to demonstrate how we came to them and not neglect the Word of God we believe we have just so others are comfortable and will accept it as possible.

 

It would be foolish to try and attempt to prove someone wrong by using something they don't accept as authoritative, but then when I ask questions, I am not trying to prove someone wrong, I am just asking why they think a certain way given certain parameters that don't look in line with a belief as far as I can tell.

 

I have discovered that many, most in fact, beliefs are very coherent when judged on their own premises and all faiths are screwed up when judged by other faiths' premises.  Reasonableness and coherency is not of course a proof of truth, but I see if as necessary to at least some extent.

Edited December 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I think there is no room allowed in the BOM to read in any other meaning to the words and phrases than exactly what they say.

 

You need to study the various theories about how the text was given to JS.  We are not required to believe in "God breathed" text in the sense that God put every word into Joseph's head himself without any input from Joseph and that every word that was on the plate was put into their authors' head exactly as God wanted it so there is no variation permitted.

 

Brigham Young said sometime after Joseph died or not that long before it, I forget which, that if the BoM was revealed to Joseph in that time, it would have been a different book and if he himself translated it, it would be yet another version.  So a prophet who was very close to Joseph understood the translation as something less than rigid or set in stone.

 

Also in English, many, many words have multiple meanings….even if the words were exactly what God wanted, we would still have to have the Spirit in order to understand them.  "Face value" is never enough without context and other stuff.

 

For example, this is an answer to a question I got a while back:  100

 

This is exactly what I mean and exactly how I want to write it and is accurate, numbers work a bit better that way.  Please tell me what I mean by this, what is the face value of my answer.

 

Good luck.

Edited December 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[mass168]

If we were attempting to convince people based on their own assumption that the Bible is the only scripture God has ever given mankind, you might have a point…and in discussions with others who only believe in the Bible as scripture we might choose to do so.  But if we are trying to explain our own beliefs then it makes more sense to demonstrate how we came to them and not neglect the Word of God we believe we have just so others are comfortable and will accept it as possible.

 

It would be foolish to try and attempt to prove someone wrong by using something they don't accept as authoritative, but then when I ask questions, I am not trying to prove someone wrong, I am just asking why they think a certain way given certain parameters that don't look in line with a belief as far as I can tell.

 

I have discovered that many, most in fact, beliefs are very coherent when judged on their own premises and all faiths are screwed up when judged by other faiths' premises.  Reasonableness and coherency is not of course a proof of truth, but I see if as necessary to at least some extent.

All this is why I really do attempt to understand the LDS perspective as much as possible. Is the picture I painted of the BOM translation not accurate? Honest question.. 

[mass168]

And yet the reality is the creed is used to explain the Bible in most cases, not the Bible to explain the creed.

True. But that's only because the reverse process was used to come up with the creed in the first place. It was created with hundreds of years of thought and input to come to conclusions about the right way to think about things, based on scripture. Have you ever read one? Did you notice all the scripture references contained below each idea? 

[mass168]

One explanation:  LDS believe that Man of Holiness is one of the titles of the Father.  Thus the Son has the title of the Son of Man.  OTOH, he is not a son of a typical mortal man, but a son of God the Exalted Man, the Man of Holiness and thus unlike other sons of sinful mortal men, he does not lie, etc.

 

There are other explanations, but that is the first I heard and so it is the one that comes back to me even if my brain is halfway turned off and hopefully turned off all the way soon (early family gettogether tomorrow, must take night time meds a couple of hours early so I will be walking upright by 9ish so don't expect anything insightful tonight and if it sounds strange, check with someone less drugged on the board…this stuff makes me loopy and very, very forgetful…besides having the letters come off the screen or page and do a line dance…in rainbow colour no less.

 

add-on:  now I am checking…anything to avoid cleaning out the tub…I see my memory is still sharp enough and it appears to be the mainstream LDS interpretation:

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/son-of-man

Did you notice in this "proof" there is no discussion whatsoever of the original language? How did they conclude that it "meant Son of the Man of Holiness?" We'll never know. 

[mass168]

You need to study the various theories about how the text was given to JS.  We are not required to believe in "God breathed" text in the sense that God put every word into Joseph's head himself without any input from Joseph and that every word that was on the plate was put into their authors' head exactly as God wanted it so there is no variation permitted.

 

Brigham Young said sometime after Joseph died or not that long before it, I forget which, that if the BoM was revealed to Joseph in that time, it would have been a different book and if he himself translated it, it would be yet another version.  So a prophet who was very close to Joseph understood the translation as something less than rigid or set in stone.

 

Also in English, many, many words have multiple meanings….even if the words were exactly what God wanted, we would still have to have the Spirit in order to understand them.  "Face value" is never enough without context and other stuff.

 

For example, this is an answer to a question I got a while back:  100

 

This is exactly what I mean and exactly how I want to write it and is accurate, numbers work a bit better that way.  Please tell me what I mean by this, what is the face value of my answer.

 

Good luck.

I have studied them quite a bit. Not that I study perfectly, but the picture that emerged to me was exactly what I described. The Church enjoys paintings of Smith poring over the plates as if he is involved in some act of study/translation. The reality based on eyewitnesses paints quite a different picture. Many say the plates were not even within visual range while he dictated to a scribe. 

[JLHPROF]

Did you notice in this "proof" there is no discussion whatsoever of the original language? How did they conclude that it "meant Son of the Man of Holiness?" We'll never know. 

 

Perhaps additional revelation helped cement their understanding:

 

"There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer—"Son Ahman—the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Angloman. This revelation goes on to say that Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman, and Ahman, showing that the angels are a little lower than man."

[mass168]

Perhaps additional revelation helped cement their understanding:

 

"There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer—"Son Ahman—the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Angloman. This revelation goes on to say that Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman, and Ahman, showing that the angels are a little lower than man."

I meant the original Greek. It's fine to go through all this pure language, but in the end if you explain all this and still have a disagreement with the Greek, you still have a problem. 

[Tacenda]

Perhaps additional revelation helped cement their understanding:

"There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer—"Son Ahman—the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Angloman. This revelation goes on to say that Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman, and Ahman, showing that the angels are a little lower than man."

Is this where Adam-ondi-Ahman came from?

[Bobbieaware]

Is this where Adam-ondi-Ahman came from?

Is this where Adam-ondi-Ahman came from?

Adam-Ondi-Ahman is mentioned in D&C 78, less than two years after the organization of the Church. And the great council that was held there is found in the Book of Moses, revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith in 1831.

[telnetd]

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

 

Genesis said "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil".

Is this an argument that Adam had become a god?

 

Gail

[JLHPROF]

Genesis said "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil".

Is this an argument that Adam had become a god?

 

Gail

 

The various interpretations of "ondi" lend credence to that...

[Stone holm]

Telnetd, isn't the real question in the quote what is meant by "us"?