Book Recommendation

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

................................................................

Did someone already post the Mouw and Mosser article with the subtitle "Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?". That is a classic in the LDS/Evangelical debate/discussion (use whichever term you prefer  ).

You meant Owen and Mosser.

[flameburns623]

Steve Noel: some random scattered thoughts:

First, thanks for the thread, as it has helped me add to my To-Read lists.

Second: everyone I have ever talked to about the LDS Church has cautioned that while reading about Mormonism can both broaden and deepen one's understanding of the LDS faith, it is the acquisition of a personal revelation, of a "testimony", which is extremely difficult for an Evangelical to wrap their minds around.

A lot of times Evangelicals think of the Bible in terms of "plenary, verbal inspiration": the words of Scripture, at least in the "autographs" were pretty well dictated by God to the various amenuensis or scribes: right down to grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and strikeovers. I am oversimplifying, but that is the rudimentary outline of the popular Evangelical approach to Scripture.

And, moreover: Evangelicals see Scripture as an INFALLIBLE and INERRANT revelation of God to humanity.

Some Ev's would qualify that word and speak of Scripture as "infallible as it pertains to faith and morals", while others speak of it as inerrant on mundane historical matters as well. 

But in any case: Evangelicals see the Scriptures as an objective, external resource for the discovery of Divine Truth. Theology is the discipline employed to systematize and explicate that Truth.

This approach evolved among conservative Protestants in the late 19th century as a response to rationalism, skepticism, and scientism: earlier Protestants had favored speaking of Scripture as "reliable" or "sufficient unto salvation". There was less emphasis on smoothing-out paradoxical passages or much thought about it's historical accuracy.

When Ingersoll and other skeptics began to hold Scripture to ridicule, and when Biblical criticism seemed to be undermining the credibility of the Bible, arguing for Scripture as a "plenary, verbal, and inerrant" text made it seem more invulnerable to critics.

This is how the Fundamentalist Movement began, by articulating certain specific "fundamentals" about how Scripture can be said to be "inspired". 

Some Mormons--especially "Chapel" Mormons-- seemingly use and read the Latter-Day canon not much differently than do most Evangelicals, particularly in Sunday services. Public services are geared to help even the most tender of faiths to grow and to be edified.

A lot of the kind of approaches you see on this forum, or in certain other LDS internet venues, does not take place during Sacrament Meeting or Sunday School, and scarcely ever in Melchizedek Priesthood meetings.  

I don't know if LDS high school seminary classes or other Church educational quorums explore such matters in a more speculative or abstract way: I sense not. The LDS leadership favor a faith-affirming approach over a faith-challenging one.

My guess is that many LDS (especially converts) are vulnerable to anti-Mormon attacks precisely because they tend to think of Mormonism along the same track as Evangelicals think of Protestant Christianity.

Michael Ash makes that case in the early chapters of Shaken Faith Syndrome, the book I suggested earlier.

And a lot of the apologetic work both here and in Ash's book are directed more to helping a person reshape how they think of Scripture:  those who insist on a fundamentalist approach are more likely to suffer cognitive dissonance and drop away from the LDS faith.

As a convert to Mormonism whose earliest pre-LDS faith had been either fundamental Protestantism, or conservative Roman Catholicism, that was certainly one of my own vulnerabilities.

Point is, however, that the "head knowledge" gleaned from reading about Mormonism is good and useful and worthwhile: but it is not the bedrock of Truth for most Latter-Day Saints. That is gained from personal testimony, personal revelation.

Ev's like to try to refute that approach as pure subjectivism.

But Mormons respond two ways: first, that if God is real, if He is all-good, if He will not give His children stones when they ask for fish: then the Holy Ghost is at least as reliable as the Holy Bible.

And second: many LDS point out that the Bible is not nearly as unassailable as Evangelicals often assume. Post-modernism argues that at root, all complex systems of thought begin with highly subjective presuppositions.

Ev's often make excessive claims that archaeology and history "prove" the reliability of the Bible: modern critics of Scripture have devoted whole websites showing why this is not true.

Nor can an appeal to the Bible settle many of the deep divisions among even Evangelicals over issues such as human free will versus Divine sovereignity; the cessation of "sign gifts" such as glossolalia versus the perpetuation of those gifts; eschatology; and so forth.

Latter-Day Saints feel, therefore, that a personal testimony acquired through sincere heartfelt prayer is just as sound an approach to truth as a rigorous study of systematic dogmatics.

To segue to a third area: I would point out that the contemporary situation is not all that different from what Joseph Smith faced. There were early critics of the Bible, early Christian infidels assailing the Faith; and unending quarrels among the sectarians.

A fellow named Dan Vogel, (not always well liked here), has argued that JS did not arrive at his solution to doubt and religious confusion through personal revelation in a vacuum. There was a culture of "seekers" in early 19th century America who felt that something needed to happen to restore Christianity to it's primitive roots.

Some of those "Restorationists" responded to the revelations of Joseph Smith and thus was born the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Others took the lead of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, et. al. and this led to the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ denominations.

I have read in an article, somewhere, that some elements of this "Restorationist Movement" remained unaffiliated, and gave birth both to Adventist sects and to the "Latter Rain Movement" of Pentecostalism and the Charismatics.

So, your own Assembies of God tradition draws to some measure from the same wellsprings which inspired Joseph Smith.

That said: Mormonism is a peculiar thing: it is at once a religion, a template for living, and a unique subculture.

It's closest analogues are Catholicism and Judaism. It is not so ethnic as Judaism, but there is still a wide latitude for what it means to be either a believing Jew or a believing Mormon.

Judaism also shares with Mormonism a high degree of equality among believers (though Judaism has a professional clergy).

Like Catholicism, there is a strong sense of respect for authority. One is much more likely to be disciplined in the LDS Church for saying or acting in ways which undermine the authority of the. Quorum of the Twelve and/or the Prophet than for doubt or a somewhat unique rationalization of some tenet of faith.

A Catholic must BOTH adhere to the fundamentals of the Creeds AND respect their religious superiors.

 That can be overstated: the details of what one believes can have a deleterious effect on one's good standing as a Mormon. 

And the LDS Church does not require blind obedience to General Authorities: hence, the Adam God doctrine and Blood Atonement have never been part of the Mormon credo.

But the Catholic emphasis on creed and dogma; and upon professional interpreters of the same,  set the RCC and the CoJCoLDS apart.

Being a faithful Latter-Day Saint, then, does not involve nearly so much devotion to doctrine as other Christian faiths. It involves, at once, a personal testimony obtained from the Holy Ghost through prayer; then, a lifestyle of increasing holiness; and finally, a respectful affect toward the leadership.

These define Mormonism more than do articles, publications, or books. 

Hope this ramble is of some interest.

Edited March 31, 2016 by flameburns623
Typos and random errors

[Steve Noel]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And what theory of truth do you subscribe to then?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Truth is relative to a context.  Scientific truth is not the same as spiritual truth.  Science cannot prove that Jesus is the savior yet both are true.  So is that relative truth?

In fact Alma 32 teaches that truth is what is "sweet" to us- that is something like the pragmatic theory of truth insofar as Pragmatism is a theory of truth

I am no philosopher, but I hold to the correspondence theory of truth. I believe truth is objective, absolute and universal. That being said I am not likely to argue very far with you on this as it gets over my head pretty quickly.

[Steve Noel]

3 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Steve Noel: some random scattered thoughts:

First, thanks for the thread, as it has helped me add to my To-Read lists.

Second: everyone I have ever talked to about the LDS Church has cautioned that while reading about Mormonism can both broaden and deepen one's understanding of the LDS faith, it is the acquisition of a personal revelation, of a "testimony", which is extremely difficult for an Evangelical to wrap their minds around.

A lot of times Evangelicals think of the Bible in terms of "plenary, verbal inspiration": the words of Scripture, at least in the "autographs" were pretty well dictated by God to the various amenuensis or scribes: right down to grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and strikeovers. I am oversimplifying, but that is the rudimentary outline of the popular Evangelical approach to Scripture.

And, moreover: Evangelicals see Scripture as an INFALLIBLE and INERRANT revelation of God to humanity.

Some Ev's would qualify that word and speak of Scripture as "infallible as it pertains to faith and morals", while others speak of it as inerrant on mundane historical matters as well. 

But in any case: Evangelicals see the Scriptures as an objective, external resource for the discovery of Divine Truth. Theology is the discipline employed to systematize and explicate that Truth.

This approach evolved among conservative Protestants in the late 19th century as a response to rationalism, skepticism, and scientism: earlier Protestants had favored speaking of Scripture as "reliable" or "sufficient unto salvation". There was less emphasis on smoothing-out paradoxical passages or much thought about it's historical accuracy.

When Ingersoll and other skeptics began to hold Scripture to ridicule, and when Biblical criticism seemed to be undermining the credibility of the Bible, arguing for Scripture as a "plenary, verbal, and inerrant" text made it seem more invulnerable to critics.

This is how the Fundamentalist Movement began, by articulating certain specific "fundamentals" about how Scripture can be said to be "inspired". 

Some Mormons--especially "Chapel" Mormons-- seemingly use and read the Latter-Day canon not much differently than do most Evangelicals, particularly in Sunday services. Public services are geared to help even the most tender of faiths to grow and to be edified.

A lot of the kind of approaches you see on this forum, or in certain other LDS internet venues, does not take place during Sacrament Meeting or Sunday School, and scarcely ever in Melchizedek Priesthood meetings.  

I don't know if LDS high school seminary classes or other Church educational quorums explore such matters in a more speculative or abstract way: I sense not. The LDS leadership favor a faith-affirming approach over a faith-challenging one.

My guess is that many LDS (especially converts) are vulnerable to anti-Mormon attacks precisely because they tend to think of Mormonism along the same track as Evangelicals think of Protestant Christianity.

Michael Ash makes that case in the early chapters of Shaken Faith Syndrome, the book I suggested earlier.

And a lot of the apologetic work both here and in Ash's book are directed more to helping a person reshape how they think of Scripture:  those who insist on a fundamentalist approach are more likely to suffer cognitive dissonance and drop away from the LDS faith.

As a convert to Mormonism whose earliest pre-LDS faith had been either fundamental Protestantism, or conservative Roman Catholicism, that was certainly one of my own vulnerabilities.

Point is, however, that the "head knowledge" gleaned from reading about Mormonism is good and useful and worthwhile: but it is not the bedrock of Truth for most Latter-Day Saints. That is gained from personal testimony, personal revelation.

Ev's like to try to refute that approach as pure subjectivism.

But Mormons respond two ways: first, that if God is real, if He is all-good, if He will not give His children stones when they ask for fish: then the Holy Ghost is at least as reliable as the Holy Bible.

And second: many LDS point out that the Bible is not nearly as unassailable as Evangelicals often assume. Post-modernism argues that at root, all complex systems of thought begin with highly subjective presuppositions.

Ev's often make excessive claims that archaeology and history "prove" the reliability of the Bible: modern critics of Scripture have devoted whole websites showing why this is not true.

Nor can an appeal to the Bible settle many of the deep divisions among even Evangelicals over issues such as human free will versus Divine sovereignity; the cessation of "sign gifts" such as glossolalia versus the perpetuation of those gifts; eschatology; and so forth.

Latter-Day Saints feel, therefore, that a personal testimony acquired through sincere heartfelt prayer is just as sound an approach to truth as a rigorous study of systematic dogmatics.

To segue to a third area: I would point out that the contemporary situation is not all that different from what Joseph Smith faced. There were early critics of the Bible, early Christian infidels assailing the Faith; and unending quarrels among the sectarians.

A fellow named Dan Vogel, (not always well liked here), has argued that JS did not arrive at his solution to doubt and religious confusion through personal revelation in a vacuum. There was a culture of "seekers" in early 19th century America who felt that something needed to happen to restore Christianity to it's primitive roots.

Some of those "Restorationists" responded to the revelations of Joseph Smith and thus was born the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Others took the lead of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, et. al. and this led to the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ denominations.

I have read in an article, somewhere, that some elements of this "Restorationist Movement" remained unaffiliated, and gave birth both to Adventist sects and to the "Latter Rain Movement" of Pentecostalism and the Charismatics.

So, your own Assembies of God tradition draws to some measure from the same wellsprings which inspired Joseph Smith.

That said: Mormonism is a peculiar thing: it is at once a religion, a template for living, and a unique subculture.

It's closest analogues are Catholicism and Judaism. It is not so ethnic as Judaism, but there is still a wide latitude for what it means to be either a believing Jew or a believing Mormon.

Judaism also shares with Mormonism a high degree of equality among believers (though Judaism has a professional clergy).

Like Catholicism, there is a strong sense of respect for authority. One is much more likely to be disciplined in the LDS Church for saying or acting in ways which undermine the authority of the. Quorum of the Twelve and/or the Prophet than for doubt or a somewhat unique rationalization of some tenet of faith.

A Catholic must BOTH adhere to the fundamentals of the Creeds AND respect their religious superiors.

 That can be overstated: the details of what one believes can have a deleterious effect on one's good standing as a Mormon. 

And the LDS Church does not require blind obedience to General Authorities: hence, the Adam God doctrine and Blood Atonement have never been part of the Mormon credo.

But the Catholic emphasis on creed and dogma; and upon professional interpreters of the same,  set the RCC and the CoJCoLDS apart.

Being a faithful Latter-Day Saint, then, does not involve nearly so much devotion to doctrine as other Christian faiths. It involves, at once, a personal testimony obtained from the Holy Ghost through prayer; then, a lifestyle of increasing holiness; and finally, a respectful affect toward the leadership.

These define Mormonism more than do articles, publications, or books. 

Hope this ramble is of some interest.

Thank you for taking the time to write this. I would not agree with some of the ways you have described evangelical beliefs here, but I get your point. In my limited exposure to LDS people I have found this to be true. Thanks.

[flameburns623]

30 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Thank you for taking the time to write this. I would not agree with some of the ways you have described evangelical beliefs here, but I get your point. In my limited exposure to LDS people I have found this to be true. Thanks.

Wait.

I'm no longer LDS. Since 2009.

Nor am I a trained scholar.

I doubtless erred somewhere in that monster of a post.

Wait till one of our erudite hosts gets ahold of my post. 

[Kevin Christensen]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

62 years?  But you look so young in that photograph, Kevin.

Truth be told, the photo is from 2009, taken in the second floor of a cafe in Montreal, though not much has changed except I've lost another few pounds.  I remember the great line in "The Mormon Murderers" about you can't trust Mormons because their health code makes them "look younger than they really are."

Thanks,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I am no philosopher, but I hold to the correspondence theory of truth. I believe truth is objective, absolute and universal. That being said I am not likely to argue very far with you on this as it gets over my head pretty quickly.

Ok, you got it. No problem.

But unfortunately that means you need evidence for beliefs like Jesus died for your sins.  You have no proof for such things, so that position is not tenable.  I will not get into it with you.  The reason we end up arguing with atheists is because they believe in the correspondence theory.  "Relativism" is the only hope for a reasonable Christian theology, and can actually be a way to convert atheists because they understand relativism.

I won't get into the philosophy, but the bottom line is that Evangelicals are converted to Christ in the same way Mormons are converted to Mormonism.  Imagine Billy Graham giving an altar call, after a long sermon.  Those who come forward are reacting because the spirit has told them that they should come forward.  At some point during prayer or whatever the circumstances, they are convinced that Jesus is the Christ, and know that in their hearts, not in their heads.

The spiritual truths of the Bible cannot be deduced from their historical accuracy or lack thereof.  You could have been a witness to the crucifixion- as many in Jerusalem were- and not be converted.  Historical accuracy is irrelevant to spiritual conversion.  All you might have seen is another criminal being crucified- how do you get from there to the knowledge that that person died for your sins and you are therefore forgiven?  Reason and the correspondence theory gets you nowhere.

At some point one has to admit that the spirit has testified to them that they are saved and THAT is the source of knowledge of the truth of Christianity.

That is not the correspondence theory.

Just so you understand more about our beliefs, it makes no sense to us that a merciful God would send so much of the world's population to hell for a lack of knowledge that Jesus even exists.  Our plan takes that into account and effectively gives everyone a "second chance" to learn the gospel- in the afterlife.  If you want the kernal that makes us different- THAT is it.

That "second chance is what it is all about.  That gives us the temple, and much more.  Also our definitions of "salvation " differ- we are virtually universalists precisely because of the "second chance".  We cannot see the logic of a loving God burning his children in hell forever.

If you can explain that, you will do better than anyone else has.  

Edited March 31, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Truth be told, the photo is from 2009, taken in the second floor of a cafe in Montreal, though not much has changed except I've lost another few pounds.  I remember the great line in "The Mormon Murderers" about you can't trust Mormons because their health code makes them "look younger than they really are."

Thanks,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Having met you at the Fair conference, I can "testify" that you look just like your avatar!

And of course I look just like my avatar as well.  

Edited March 31, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Wait.

I'm no longer LDS. Since 2009.

Nor am I a trained scholar.

I doubtless erred somewhere in that monster of a post.

Wait till one of our erudite hosts gets ahold of my post. 

I thought the post hit it right on

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You meant Owen and Mosser.

Yes, I did. Thank you.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Just so you understand more about our beliefs, it makes no sense to us that a merciful God would send so much of the world's population to hell for a lack of knowledge that Jesus even exists.  Our plan takes that into account and effectively gives everyone a "second chance" to learn the gospel- in the afterlife.  If you want the kernal that makes us different- THAT is it.

I would say there is a second part to the kernel and that is how we define God's relationship to mankind.  In our faith, there is no inherent gap between creature and Creator that will never be bridged because man's nature and God's nature are distinct even if God is gracious enough to share many of his attributes with his creation; for LDS, even though God is way beyond our mortal, limited understanding, man and God are on the same path (because God has guided us to be on it), are the same family (because God is the Father of our spirits), the same type of being.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, mapman said:

I'm not sure, but I think that the majority of Mormons in the 21st century are more comfortable with this way of looking at things, probably mostly because this way requires less personal initiative to go investigating things.

I love what else you said, but I may disagree here...depending on what you mean by less personal initiative.

I see those who are more comfortable with the idea of clearly defined doctrine and teachings to follow place their focus on attempting to do what is right with as little error as possible; error in their view resulting in harm to themselves and others and an unnecessary distancing from God.  Concrete, well defined ideas and rules/commandments give protection to oneself and others. Such a contrast might be compared to those who think of commandments as following the form of the Ten Commandments and then even perhaps like the Jews defining specifics so that commandments would not be broken, either intentionally or unintentionally.  Contrast this with how the "Two Greatest Commandments" are described by simply loving God and our neighbour and then being told how to do this not through rules, but parables.

LDS generally approach obedience to God's commandments through a combination of the two (and probably more, nothing regarding humanity is ever that simple), but many do favour more concrete, more rules to define the path (which is not a bad thing imo, whatever works for people to help them seek out God) because they see it as God's will for us to do these things while others view commandments more as exploration tools as in obedience leads us to greaterunderstanding of the world God has placed us in as well as God's love and grace for us and thus they reveal to us God's will.

Not sure if the third paragraph is more confusing or helpful.

[mapman]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I love what else you said, but I may disagree here...depending on what you mean by less personal initiative.

I see those who are more comfortable with the idea of clearly defined doctrine and teachings to follow place their focus on attempting to do what is right with as little error as possible; error in their view resulting in harm to themselves and others and an unnecessary distancing from God.  Concrete, well defined ideas and rules/commandments give protection to oneself and others. Such a contrast might be compared to those who think of commandments as following the form of the Ten Commandments and then even perhaps like the Jews defining specifics so that commandments would not be broken, either intentionally or unintentionally.  Contrast this with how the "Two Greatest Commandments" are described by simply loving God and our neighbour and then being told how to do this not through rules, but parables.

LDS generally approach obedience to God's commandments through a combination of the two (and probably more, nothing regarding humanity is ever that simple), but many do favour more concrete, more rules to define the path (which is not a bad thing imo, whatever works for people to help them seek out God) because they see it as God's will for us to do these things while others view commandments more as exploration tools as in obedience leads us to greaterunderstanding of the world God has placed us in as well as God's love and grace for us and thus they reveal to us God's will.

Not sure if the third paragraph is more confusing or helpful.

What I was thinking of is that it seems to me (maybe I'm wrong) that many LDS don't have the time/energy/motivation to go looking into many things beyond what is taught in church or assumed by our culture. I feel like it is easier to believe in what you already believe than to try to deal with incorporating additional ideas and deal with the dissonance that often happens as a result. Hopefully that makes sense!

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that many LDS stick with what they understand to be God's commandments because therein is safety. Looking into the world for inspiration can be confusing and lead to errors, and is thus feared as being dangerous. I think this definitely happens as well. It's not really the way that I approach things, but I think that this approach works well for a lot of people.

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

If you are looking for a Mormon Doctrine, you'll get the April 2016 edition through General Conference this weekend. That version will be valid at least until October 2016.

Just remember that not everything you hear in Conference is "Mormon Doctrine", although some of it might be.  You just have to figure out which is which. 

As far as I can tell, most LDS base their judgement on whether they agree with what is being taught, but there may be other methodologies as well.

[RevTestament]

On 3/30/2016 at 3:33 PM, Steve Noel said:

I am a member of the Assemblies of God (A/G) denomination. When this denomination (they don't like that term, they prefer "fellowship") formed in 1914 their intention was to not have creeds or formal doctrinal statements. This didn't last long as ministers in the denomination started teaching that Jesus was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Today these folks are known as "Jesus only," "Oneness Pentecostal," or "Apostolic Pentecostal"  churches. In response to this the A/G formulated their "16 Fundamental Truths" as a general rule of fellowship. This caused those who were teaching falsehoods about God to leave the fellowship. 

Isn't there a similar situation in Mormonism? Can one be considered a Mormon and believe that Jesus is the Father?

I am going to try to help you out here cuz you seem a very sincere fellow, & I kinda like u.

Being a convert my struggle to understand "mormonism" has  taken at least one turn. If you wish to understand LDS Christianity through the Lord's eyes, my best advice echoes some you have already received by some such as Rodheadlee, and that is to read the scriptures. Like in any other faith, the scriptures are open to some interpretation, and I find I sometimes interpret them differently than others, as do others here. I do not always agree with the "official line." If you wish a good summary of what the "official line" has been over the decades, I feel Bruce McKonkie's "Mormon Doctrine" really does an admirable job at that. Just know that it has never been accepted as an "official version of doctrine." I have already said I interpret things differently than others, and I will give some examples here at the risk of annoying someone or perhaps confusing you. Mormon Doctrine says that Jesus died on this earth for the sins of everyone on prior earths and subsequent earths. I believe this is based on the statement of some general authority which is in turn based on a scripture from Moses 1 I believe (Pearl of Great Price) which says

32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.

 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son Icreated them, which is mine Only Begotten.

. I view "the Son" as a calling or an office which is made by covenant, and thus is "unique" in the priesthood - there are many high priests, but there is only one "begotten/unique Son." That doesn't mean there has never been another Son in my view. So to answer your last question. I believe the Bible tells us the Son will be the Father, and in some ways already is. He is the Father's official legal agent. He is the Father's official inheritor as Isaiah makes clear. What all this means is that I do not believe Jesus atoned on this earth for the sins of those on other planets. Nor do I believe Jesus did away with sacrifice as taught in the modern Church. Else He would not have told Peter to "follow me." Nor do I believe other statements made by various authorities such as God married Mary, etc. If one believes men are fallible, as I do, I chalk up such inaccurate interpretations to the fallibility of men.  So why do I remain in Church led by fallible men (in my view) - because I have a firm testimony that it is His church, and He will correct those things which need to be corrected for the sake of our salvation. At the risk of appearing self-righteous, I will say that not only early Christian attempts to understand the nature of God but also LDS attempts have not been correct. The thing is, LDS haven't made creeds saying this is what you have to believe about God or we are gonna kick you out like the early Roman state church did with the Nicene Creed which made a terrible error in my view by declaring the Son to be begotten before all ages/worlds rather than on a day when God told Him this day I have begotten thee as the Bible says. I believe God hides some things, and only made them manifest in His Son. They are otherwise not plainly manifest to men - as I hope I have made clear with my ramblings here.   Anyway I hope I have helped answer your questions.

Cheers 

Edited April 1, 2016 by RevTestament

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I would say there is a second part to the kernel and that is how we define God's relationship to mankind.  In our faith, there is no inherent gap between creature and Creator that will never be bridged because man's nature and God's nature are distinct even if God is gracious enough to share many of his attributes with his creation; for LDS, even though God is way beyond our mortal, limited understanding, man and God are on the same path (because God has guided us to be on it), are the same family (because God is the Father of our spirits), the same type of being.

Yep- agreed.  And the nature of the fall, which we see as necessary to the progression of mankind.

[hope_for_things]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

I would say there is a second part to the kernel and that is how we define God's relationship to mankind.  In our faith, there is no inherent gap between creature and Creator that will never be bridged because man's nature and God's nature are distinct even if God is gracious enough to share many of his attributes with his creation; for LDS, even though God is way beyond our mortal, limited understanding, man and God are on the same path (because God has guided us to be on it), are the same family (because God is the Father of our spirits), the same type of being.

Can I pick your brain on this God relationship to man concept.  I'm trying to figure out what I believe about God or how I conceive God.  As an orthodox Mormon I saw God as a glorified man just as the Lorenzo Snow couplet states.  Now, I'm not sure what I believe about God, but I find an anthropomorphic God to be limiting God in some ways.  I like the way you stated that the Mormon view closes the gap between creator and creation, that sounds really good.  However, I also conceive of God as somehow a part of everything in this vast universe and my mind doesn't want to put God into the form of a glorified man, and then just leave him there. (or to assign a gender to God for that matter)    

Perhaps God could be BOTH what you suggest, which is a heavenly parent, a companion, and a friend that knows us intimately and personally, as well as a magnificent ineffable power that transcends space and time and our puny mind's abilities to comprehend.  It seems like that is the kind of God that much of scripture describes to me and that also resonates with my observations on life.  I think Joseph and other prominent Mormons over the years have had these kinds of concepts floating around.  I find it unfortunate that the conversations about God in our current chapel Mormonism have distilled all of the diversity of thought and scripture over the years into a simplified answer about the nature of God as if we can package God up and sell him on Amazon.  

[RevTestament]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Can I pick your brain on this God relationship to man concept.  I'm trying to figure out what I believe about God or how I conceive God.  As an orthodox Mormon I saw God as a glorified man just as the Lorenzo Snow couplet states.  Now, I'm not sure what I believe about God, but I find an anthropomorphic God to be limiting God in some ways.  I like the way you stated that the Mormon view closes the gap between creator and creation, that sounds really good.  However, I also conceive of God as somehow a part of everything in this vast universe and my mind doesn't want to put God into the form of a glorified man, and then just leave him there. (or to assign a gender to God for that matter)    

Perhaps God could be BOTH what you suggest, which is a heavenly parent, a companion, and a friend that knows us intimately and personally, as well as a magnificent ineffable power that transcends space and time and our puny mind's abilities to comprehend.  It seems like that is the kind of God that much of scripture describes to me and that also resonates with my observations on life.  I think Joseph and other prominent Mormons over the years have had these kinds of concepts floating around.  I find it unfortunate that the conversations about God in our current chapel Mormonism have distilled all of the diversity of thought and scripture over the years into a simplified answer about the nature of God as if we can package God up and sell him on Amazon.  

I know you didnt ask me, but I will hazard an answer - at least partial. Read Exodus about where God says no man can see Him and live, and yet allows Moses to see His "back parts." How about making us in His image? As the Father of spirits does that only mean spiritual? I rather believe He didn't make our spirits at all. He is the Father of spirits to all those who follow the plan at some point or other - apparently not for those who follow Satan. I believe He breathes our spirits into our bodies as they are formed, and that Gen 2 and Ecclesiastes teach this. 

So is the Father limited to a body - I would say not. Is he called YHWH? Deuteronomy says so. What does that say about Him? In Hebrew letters it says "behold the nail, behold the hand." I believe the name means something like "I am life, the Word." Jesus told us to follow Him because He did all things of the Father, and His words are Life... 

This is why I believe it is important to understand the Hebrew and get away from the traditional English interpretation "LORD" as it really doesn't tell us anything about who He is....

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I know you didnt ask me, but I will hazard an answer - at least partial. Read Exodus about where God says no man can see Him and live, and yet allows Moses to see His "back parts." How about making us in His image? As the Father of spirits does that only mean spiritual? I rather believe He didn't make our spirits at all. He is the Father of spirits to all those who follow the plan at some point or other - apparently not for those who follow Satan. I believe He breathes our spirits into our bodies as they are formed, and that Gen 2 and Ecclesiastes teach this. 

So is the Father limited to a body - I would say not. Is he called YHWH? Deuteronomy says so. What does that say about Him? In Hebrew letters it says "behold the nail, behold the hand." I believe the name means something like "I am life, the Word." Jesus told us to follow Him because He did all things of the Father, and His words are Life... 

This is why I believe it is important to understand the Hebrew and get away from the traditional English interpretation "LORD" as it really doesn't tell us anything about who He is....

Thanks, appreciate the thoughts.  I'm not sure what the author of Exodus 33 is trying to express with that scripture about seeing the back of God, was this supposed to be literal or figurative?  Realizing that Exodus was written centuries after Moses would have lived, also recognizing their isn't any historical evidence of the Moses figure and also that the story of Moses was likely influenced by Babylonian myths of Sargon, what should I take from that one scripture?  

As for YHWH, that is one of many concepts for God in the bible.  I like to look at these concepts although I don't find any one opinion about God to be authoritative.  I also recognize that the bible contains the perceptions of a multitude of different authors over many thousands of years and that these concepts are so various and contradictory that its a wonder that any religion can distill a clear and coherent concept of deity from the alphabet soup of scripture.   

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, appreciate the thoughts.  I'm not sure what the author of Exodus 33 is trying to express with that scripture about seeing the back of God, was this supposed to be literal or figurative?  Realizing that Exodus was written centuries after Moses would have lived, also recognizing their isn't any historical evidence of the Moses figure and also that the story of Moses was likely influenced by Babylonian myths of Sargon, what should I take from that one scripture?   

Perhaps nothing if that is your belief. I happen to believe the story of Moses fairly literally. I have an opinion on where the Exodus went, where Mount Sinai really is, etc. IMHO too much detail is given of place names, etc for it to have been made up by some later scribe. I believe "the author" or person who wrote it down was probably Joshua. That doesn't mean there wasn't a little later "redacting" like in the name of Pi-Rameses so the people continued to know the places the books talked about. Perhaps if you saw the many consistent events in Egyptian history and Canaanite history, you would perhaps be more open to the story of Moses. I plan to be finished with just such a chronology in a year or so if you are interested. That doesn't mean that I take all the prior "events" as literally as presented in the Bible - for instance I don't believe the story of Adam and Eve is meant to be a literal or temporal creation story with an actual tree with edible fruit, etc. I rather see the story as the introduction of the Word into the world.

Going back to the Father. There are other things which tell me He has a corporeal body of some sort. When the OT tells us about YHWH you have pierced me  - is it possible that both the Father and the Son can say that - both being YHWH? What did Jesus mean when He said He would shortly "show you plainly of the Father?" Is it possible that Jesus did indeed do everything He had seen the Father do and do likewise - including laying down His life? Was He following the Father? These things strongly imply that the Father has had a body.

I believe the problem mainly stems from Jesus trying to teach the Jews that rote obedience wasn't worshiping a God of spirit - that He wants to be worshiped in spirit, and addressed as a fellow spirit. ie John 4. Jesus goes on to say in Chp 5 that no one has seen His "shape" at any time. I dont believe Jesus was making a statement in John 4 about the Father's ontological being. He was trying to teach His followers how to truly and effectively pray to the Father in spirit - as the Father of spirits. 

 

Quote

As for YHWH, that is one of many concepts for God in the bible.  I like to look at these concepts although I don't find any one opinion about God to be authoritative.  I also recognize that the bible contains the perceptions of a multitude of different authors over many thousands of years and that these concepts are so various and contradictory that its a wonder that any religion can distill a clear and coherent concept of deity from the alphabet soup of scripture.  

I don't find the concepts contradictory at all. Perhaps you would be willing to start a thread about those questions you have. The Bible uses a lot of symbolism, which frankly people often don't understand, so making sure you first understand it I believe will relieve a lot of those contradictions you believe are apparent. I actually believe that the consistency found in the Bible after coming through as many mouths as it has, is a strength of the Bible, and shows it really has one divine composer unlike books such as the Koran where we are asked to believe the contradictions coming from one man...

Anyway, I for one will enjoy discussing such things with you, and I believe it will help keep me sharp...

Cheers

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I don't find the concepts contradictory at all. Perhaps you would be willing to start a thread about those questions you have. The Bible uses a lot of symbolism, which frankly people often don't understand, so making sure you first understand it I believe will relieve a lot of those contradictions you believe are apparent. I actually believe that the consistency found in the Bible after coming through as many mouths as it has, is a strength of the Bible, and shows it really has one divine composer unlike books such as the Koran where we are asked to believe the contradictions coming from one man...

Anyway, I for one will enjoy discussing such things with you, and I believe it will help keep me sharp...

Cheers

Thanks Rev I appreciate your responses and helping me think about things.  I've still got a lot to learn.  Please make sure to let us know about your upcoming work, I look forward to learning more.  I'll think about starting a new thread on some of these subjects.  Still working through my faith journey and concepts of God is an important piece of that.  I'm also looking forward to reading John Turner's new book titled "The Mormon Jesus: A biography".  I think it will show some interesting insights on the evolution of Mormon doctrines about God.  

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can I pick your brain on this God relationship to man concept.  I'm trying to figure out what I believe about God or how I conceive God.  As an orthodox Mormon I saw God as a glorified man just as the Lorenzo Snow couplet states.  Now, I'm not sure what I believe about God, but I find an anthropomorphic God to be limiting God in some ways.  I like the way you stated that the Mormon view closes the gap between creator and creation, that sounds really good.  However, I also conceive of God as somehow a part of everything in this vast universe and my mind doesn't want to put God into the form of a glorified man, and then just leave him there. (or to assign a gender to God for that matter)    

Perhaps God could be BOTH what you suggest, which is a heavenly parent, a companion, and a friend that knows us intimately and personally, as well as a magnificent ineffable power that transcends space and time and our puny mind's abilities to comprehend.  It seems like that is the kind of God that much of scripture describes to me and that also resonates with my observations on life.  I think Joseph and other prominent Mormons over the years have had these kinds of concepts floating around.  I find it unfortunate that the conversations about God in our current chapel Mormonism have distilled all of the diversity of thought and scripture over the years into a simplified answer about the nature of God as if we can package God up and sell him on Amazon.  

Thanks for this post, it correlates to what I feel as well.  I have waffled to God being omnipotent, to a physical being and omnipotent, if that's possible.  I think we need to be careful, and not limit Him.  Why couldn't He be spirit in heaven and come down as the physical being and suffer for our sins..as the EV state?  I just don't see Him with the dozens of wives like some of our former prophets and apostles saw him.  But I admit sometimes I have a hard time believing at all.  But then when you look at the world and it's creations, that are as minuscule as a flea.  You realize that something is behind it.    

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can I pick your brain on this God relationship to man concept.  I'm trying to figure out what I believe about God or how I conceive God.  As an orthodox Mormon I saw God as a glorified man just as the Lorenzo Snow couplet states.  Now, I'm not sure what I believe about God, but I find an anthropomorphic God to be limiting God in some ways.  I like the way you stated that the Mormon view closes the gap between creator and creation, that sounds really good.  However, I also conceive of God as somehow a part of everything in this vast universe and my mind doesn't want to put God into the form of a glorified man, and then just leave him there. (or to assign a gender to God for that matter)    

Perhaps God could be BOTH what you suggest, which is a heavenly parent, a companion, and a friend that knows us intimately and personally, as well as a magnificent ineffable power that transcends space and time and our puny mind's abilities to comprehend.  It seems like that is the kind of God that much of scripture describes to me and that also resonates with my observations on life.  I think Joseph and other prominent Mormons over the years have had these kinds of concepts floating around.  I find it unfortunate that the conversations about God in our current chapel Mormonism have distilled all of the diversity of thought and scripture over the years into a simplified answer about the nature of God as if we can package God up and sell him on Amazon.  

Agreed.  He is all of those things and none of them.  But seeing him as Our Father is the best paradigm for humanity, I am totally convinced.  It is the only "truth" we are capable of understanding about him.  Like the theory of relativity, it's the best we've got going at the moment.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for this post, it correlates to what I feel as well.  I have waffled to God being omnipotent, to a physical being and omnipotent, if that's possible.  I think we need to be careful, and not limit Him.  Why couldn't He be spirit in heaven and come down as the physical being and suffer for our sins..as the EV state?  I just don't see Him with the dozens of wives like some of our former prophets and apostles saw him.  But I admit sometimes I have a hard time believing at all.  But then when you look at the world and it's creations, that are as minuscule as a flea.  You realize that something is behind it.    

All we have is human words and human language which automatically means we make a mess of statements like these.  It's all just words, poetry. We are doing the best we are capable of, but the best we have doesn't come close.  But it's all we have with our puny brains

[Calm]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Can I pick your brain on this God relationship to man concept.  I'm trying to figure out what I believe about God or how I conceive God.  As an orthodox Mormon I saw God as a glorified man just as the Lorenzo Snow couplet states.  Now, I'm not sure what I believe about God, but I find an anthropomorphic God to be limiting God in some ways.  I like the way you stated that the Mormon view closes the gap between creator and creation, that sounds really good.  However, I also conceive of God as somehow a part of everything in this vast universe and my mind doesn't want to put God into the form of a glorified man, and then just leave him there. (or to assign a gender to God for that matter)    

Perhaps God could be BOTH what you suggest, which is a heavenly parent, a companion, and a friend that knows us intimately and personally, as well as a magnificent ineffable power that transcends space and time and our puny mind's abilities to comprehend.  It seems like that is the kind of God that much of scripture describes to me and that also resonates with my observations on life.  I think Joseph and other prominent Mormons over the years have had these kinds of concepts floating around.  I find it unfortunate that the conversations about God in our current chapel Mormonism have distilled all of the diversity of thought and scripture over the years into a simplified answer about the nature of God as if we can package God up and sell him on Amazon.  

I see our mortals forms as being a very small faction of what we are and can become.  I like to use the analogy of the white mice from Hitchhiker's Guide that turned out to be hyperintelligent and powerful pandimensional beings that our awareness saw as...white mice.  A more common analogy is the book Flatlanders, the difference being we see ourselves as points when we really are lines and polygons and learning to be circles and the sphere that God is (or more likely he is what looks like a sphere in three dimensions while existing in many more.  

And I don't how we speak of God as a simplified answer because it has attached to it (whether people are aware or not) the To Be Continued... referred to elsewhere (this thread or another) by Ralph iirc.