Book Recommendation

[RevTestament]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Rev I appreciate your responses and helping me think about things.  I've still got a lot to learn.

As do we all, and you are quite welcome friend.

Quote

 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.  

Actually, most of it on the exodus and ancient Egypt is mostly finished, and I might be willing to share it with you privately(it is lengthy), if you are willing to share your impressions on it. It may help me finish it. I don't know anything about Turner's new book so can not comment specifically, but I did enjoy Skousen's "Days of the Living Christ" - I recommend those although they do not get into any theological issues concerning the nature of God per se. Be sure to let us know your thoughts on Turner's book.

[Calm]

Tried to edit the above but can't so here is the upgraded version:

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.  Only God is the pandimensional being and we are still just white mice who God is working on expanding our being to be able to become one with his, thus someday we too will be much, much more than white mice and in fact are now, but just not aware of it and thus that is our current reality.

A more common analogy used by others 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 see how we speak of God as a merely 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.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours 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.    

Sometimes I think of God not as a person at all, but more as a force or a substance kind of like the Force in Star Wars.  I found reading some of Orson Pratt's imaginations about God to be interesting, he had some pretty fun disagreements with Brigham on this subject over the years.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Tried to edit the above but can't so here is the upgraded version:

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.  Only God is the pandimensional being and we are still just white mice who God is working on expanding our being to be able to become one with his, thus someday we too will be much, much more than white mice and in fact are now, but just not aware of it and thus that is our current reality.

A more common analogy used by others 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 see how we speak of God as a merely 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.

Thanks Calm.  Very interesting.  I need to re-read Hitchhiker's guide again, read it in high school and I'm sure I'll get a lot more out of it now.   

We are so limited as mortal humans.  On one hand our minds are so amazingly complex its miraculous just how our bodies and minds work.  On the other hand we are so limited and our five senses can only perceive a fraction of what is out there in the universe.  I love science fiction and Christopher Nolan's Interstellar was an instant favorite for me.  I'm reading a book by Kip Thorne titled "The Science of Interstellar", he's a scientist that helped craft much of the science around the movie to ensure it has a basis in actual scientific theory.  It's a fascinating book that's explaining a lot of the most current theories about physics, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. and I'm just loving it.  

A couple years ago my wife and I visited the Natural History Museum in NYC and I watched the IMAX movie with deep space images from the Hubble telescope.  The whole experience was awe inspiring to me, and I had a spiritual experience while watching that movie a powerful one similar to spiritual experiences I've had connected to Mormonism.  I'm not sure what God is, but I found God as I witnessed images from millions of light-years away from earth and contemplated the majesty of the vastness of our universe.  

[Steve Noel]

I thought this was interesting from LDS scholar Stephen Robinson:

"By and large the LDS do not worry as much about orthodoxy within their own community as do Evangelicals, though there is such a thing as LDS orthodoxy. In the short run, LDS orthodoxy is defined by the Standard Works of the Church (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) as interpreted by the General Authorities of the Church - the current apostles and prophets. In the long run the church depends on the cumulative study of Scripture by its individual members to ensure that doctrine is correctly understood and taught within the Church. Unfortunately, where the members disregard this responsibility, there is no systematic theology, no sophisticated and definitive creed, no lengthy catechism, no network of professional theologians to back them up. In these cases "speculative" or "popular" theology can overgrow scriptural orthodoxy. It is one drawback of having a nonprofessional clergy." (How Wide the Divide?, p.15, emphasis his)

Edited April 1, 2016 by Steve Noel

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I thought this was interesting from LDS scholar Stephen Robinson:

"By and large the LDS do not worry as much about orthodoxy within their own community as do Evangelicals, though there is such a thing as LDS orthodoxy. In the short run, LDS orthodoxy is defined by the Standard Works of the Church (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) as interpreted by the General Authorities of the Church - the current apostles and prophets. In the long run the church depends on the cumulative study of Scripture by its individual members to ensure that doctrine is correctly understood and taught within the Church. Unfortunately, where the members disregard this responsibility, there is no systematic theology, no sophisticated and definitive creed, no lengthy catechism, no network of professional theologians to back them up. In these cases "speculative" or "popular" theology can overgrow scriptural orthodoxy. It is one drawback of having a nonprofessional clergy." (How Wide the Divide?, p.15, emphasis his)

For what it's worth I would disagree with Robinson here.  I am not familiar with the context, so perhaps I am missing elements of that- I don't know.  Certainly that is a strong possibility considering Robinson's view of the importance of vocabularies and the way they mold our thinking.  Incidentally, if you like Robinson, notice that this indeed is what he is saying as his overall position- so I certainly would agree with him on that point.  It is an important point, and important that LDS agree on and understand that much of our problem  in communication with EV folks is indeed difference in language.

But Joseph wanted it just as it is.  He did not want a professional clergy for precisely the reasons Robinson laments.  There are no "correct interpretations" where there is no  one to arbitrate such matters, and that is the way it is supposed to be.  We are a living church with an open canon, and that was the plan all along.

The idea of fixed and immutable "truth" is from the Greeks as I have said repeatedly and it cannot be consistent with a God who hears and answers prayers.  Just as every child is different, within broad parameters of decency, every person needs to grow and develop as they see fit, and our church is designed this way for precisely this reason.

Edited April 1, 2016 by mfbukowski

[salgare]

On 3/30/2016 at 8:04 PM, Steve Noel said:

What LDS book (apart from the Bible and the LDS Scriptures) would you recommend to an evangelical wanting a good understanding of the LDS faith? Preferably not something too basic. 

B.H. Roberts ... The Truth, The Way, The Light

For pre-correlated gospel topics (old school).  B.H. is likely the most knowledgeable theologian on the Doctrine taught by Joseph Smith.  He was Church historian and President of the 70's.  He wrote all of the lesson manuals for the quorum of the 70's through all the early to mid 1900's (see Seventies Course In Theology his multi volume teaching material).  The Truth, The Way, The Light was his lifetime accumulated knowledge that he wrote at the end of his life, knowing he was soon to go.  He wanted to leave it as the training manual for the 70's after his death.

The First presidency at the time had a few issues with what is in the book and they would not sign it as official teachings of the Church.  He was unwilling to change his understanding/beliefs on these few issues and thus never published the book.  The family having ownership allowed BYU and UoU to publish the book sometime in the 1980's if I remember right.

One of the issues of contention was rather Adam was an Resurrected an (Bh's take) or a Translated man (what the FP wanted him to change it to).  Think Adam God here.

Currently living G.I generation would have been taught this directly.  Baby Boomers who studied a lot would have know this.  Temple Ordinance workers G.I. generation taught these principles word of mouth to younger generations.

once again, this should be a must read for what I understand you are looking for.

Edited April 7, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

On 3/30/2016 at 8:11 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think Gospel Principles is a good place to start.

Example of the Correlated Gospel (geared towards about a jr. high level of milk)

[salgare]

On 3/30/2016 at 10:30 PM, mfbukowski said:

Lol

Notice the answers vary... a tad

Like I said we have no doctrine.  We can't even agree on what books to read.

 

On 3/30/2016 at 8:04 PM, Steve Noel said:

What LDS book (apart from the Bible and the LDS Scriptures) would you recommend to an evangelical wanting a good understanding of the LDS faith? Preferably not something too basic. 

 

On 3/30/2016 at 10:30 PM, mfbukowski said:

Lol

Notice the answers vary... a tad

Like I said we have no doctrine.  We can't even agree on what books to read.

Notice that Mark is what I call a New Mormon (Nuanced Mormon) he swears there is no orthodoxy nor doctrine in the church.  I doubt his would be the majority TBM thinking here.

To understand Mark and Nuanced Mormonism, read this essay of his:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/?s=philosophies&submit=Search

 

 

[salgare]

On 3/30/2016 at 3:06 PM, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for this. I regularly long for more time to read and study. I think I am struggling with this perspective because I equate doctrine with truth. To me saying "we have no doctrine" is tantamount to saying truth is relative.

Actually this is exactly what it is saying.  It's the Nuanced Mormonism where there is no capital "T" Truth (no objective Truth and absolutely no External Truth ), only lower case subjective truth, whatever you personally make of it.

Any of Terryl Givens or his wife's work will be along these lines.

Edited April 7, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

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?

Old school Mormons do believe this .... what father would send his son to suffer so for his plan/creation?

Also, the Mormon standard for personal beliefs is .... believe what ever you want, share it privately, but if you share it publicly you could face Church discipline for apostasy (typically ends in excommunication).  

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, salgare said:

Example of the Correlated Gospel (geared towards about a jr. high level of milk)

Writes the man who's never once set foot in my Gospel Principles class...

[salgare]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Writes the man who's never once set foot in my Gospel Principles class...

wow, you mind read that one wrong.  Does you're personal attack on me also indicate that you disagree that this is a correlated document?  Why don't you just try addressing my statement as to how/why you find it true or false. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 minutes ago, salgare said:

Does you're personal attack on me also indicate that you disagree that this is a correlated document?  Why don't you just try addressing my statement as to how/why you find it true or false. 

Why see a 'personal attack' where none was intended?

The point I disagree with is specifically this: 'geared towards about a jr. high level of milk'. I teach from the GP manual every Sunday, and I find it incredibly 'meaty'.

[salgare]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Why see a 'personal attack' where none was intended?

The point I disagree with is specifically this: 'geared towards about a jr. high level of milk'. I teach from the GP manual every Sunday, and I find it incredibly 'meaty'.

One man's milk is another mans meat I suppose. 

[Tsuzuki]

On 3/30/2016 at 7:04 PM, Steve Noel said:

What LDS book (apart from the Bible and the LDS Scriptures) would you recommend to an evangelical wanting a good understanding of the LDS faith? Preferably not something too basic. 

People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture, by Terryl Givens

http://www.amazon.com/People-Paradox-History-Mormon-Culture/dp/0195167112/

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, salgare said:

One man's milk is another mans meat I suppose. 

Indeed.

In my Gospel Principles class this past Sunday, we read out Matthew 16:15-17:

Quote

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Then we read out portions of some of the historical creeds, including the following passage from the Chalcedonian Creed, adopted in AD 451:

Quote

We all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis.

I feel reasonably confident that the Christian thinkers who promulgated this creed in the fifth century saw these words as somehow more 'meaty' than Peter's rather simple 'milk'. I beg to differ, but as you said, one man's meat ...

[Maedros]

On 3/30/2016 at 4:04 AM, Steve Noel said:

What LDS book (apart from the Bible and the LDS Scriptures) would you recommend to an evangelical wanting a good understanding of the LDS faith? Preferably not something too basic. 

Lectures on Faith by Joseph Smith Jr - its best for them to read what the prophet himself taught, I think.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Maedros

[salgare]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

...

You do realize that Mormonism is way way behind the curve on Biblical Studies right?  BYU does not even play in this field.  We would likely need to boot the KJV to even get started and that is never going to happen.

And how does a discussion on the Chalcedonian Creed, adopted in AD 451: relate to the meat doctrines of Mormon Theology?

Sounds like you are all over GBH's mainstreaming plans ... keep up the good work!

Edited April 7, 2016 by salgare

[Hamba Tuhan]

Mate, I've read over what you posted above and tried to make sense of it, but I sincerely have no idea what you're on about or how it relates to the topic at hand. I'm sorry.

[RevTestament]

Steve I would also highly suggest reading the writings of Joseph Smith, and reading his last sermon, known as the King Follet Sermon. There are a couple different versions of it because there were about 5-6 guys trying to take notes on it, and none of them really had a good shorthand. So putting them together seems to give the most complete picture of that sermon.

The Lord said He had given the oracles to Joseph Smith, and I see that he really did have a good understanding of them. IMHO the King Follet Sermon closes some of the earlier unanswered questions about the nature of our spirits and the preexistence, etc. So although it is not officially included in the church canon, I consider it to be almost all essentially scripture.

[Steve Noel]

Well I got a little money for my birthday and I just ordered two books from Amazon. I got LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference and Wrestling with Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity. I was also able to pick up Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling from my local library. Since joining the board I have been working my way through How Wide the Divide?. I am almost finished. Robinson has given me a lot to think about. I am on my final two weeks of school so my reading may be limited for a while. I have to turn in a rough draft of my research paper on interpreting Genesis 1 and I haven't even started.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Steve Noel

[boblloyd91]

5 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Well I got a little money for my birthday and I just ordered two books from Amazon. I got LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference and Wrestling with Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity. I was also able to pick up Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling from my local library. Since joining the board I have been working my way through How Wide the Divide?. I am almost finished. Robinson has given me a lot to think about. I am on my final two weeks of school so my reading may be limited for a while. I have to turn in a rough draft of my research paper on interpreting Genesis 1 and I haven't even started.

As someone who went through grad school and had to write several research papers you're a brave man! However I bet you could find lots of material on Genesis 1, that's a pretty hefty chapter with lots to talk about.

[cdowis]

A book that I highly recommend.  It gives unique insights into the scriptures and doctrines of the church.  It also makes a bold attempt to give a Gospel perspective on various aspects of science. It utterly destroys the arguments of the atheists against the existence of God.

It changes the way we understand reality and the physical world.

Unfortunately I have not yet started to write it, so I can't even give you the title.

Edited April 12, 2016 by cdowis