A Different God?

[Gray]

Instead of trying to harmonize the accounts, why not start using the first and best, primary account? Human memory is notoriously malleable. But where we have earlier, more reliable texts, why not make use of them?

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So no reason to go to all that hard work to learn a new language to read an author's original words?  There seem to me few things harder to do than learn a new language.

Straw man.

Joseph Smith wrote English.

Russell McGregor reads English.

Please try and stay focused.

[Russell C McGregor]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Instead of trying to harmonize the accounts, why not start using the first and best, primary account? Human memory is notoriously malleable. But where we have earlier, more reliable texts, why not make use of them?

Because, as I pointed out above, all of Joseph's personal accounts are primary accounts. Being earlier does not automatically mean more reliable, and the earliest account has ambiguities which anti-Mormons, like Consig, exploit to their maximum polemical advantage.

A more complete account is better than a less complete one.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

If there is one LORD/YHWH, how can the Father and the Son both be YHWH?

How can your Bishop also be a High Priest?  How can an Apostle also be an Elder?
 

[Russell C McGregor]

9 hours ago, consiglieri said:

You have put your finger on the problem, Russ.

When you have to work too hard to "understand" a text, it is a sure sign you are almost certainly reading it against of the intent of the author.

Really?

I'm reading Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur right now. Have you ever tried it?

Your "sure sign" is a sure sign of your own comprehensive lack of information.

9 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Let this be a lesson to you. 

Oh, it is!

[Russell C McGregor]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That makes absolutely no sense.

It makes perfect sense to someone who thinks skimming is all the effort anyone should ever put into reading.

 

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

How can your Bishop also be a High Priest?  How can an Apostle also be an Elder?
 

Exactly. You understand this issue. To see "the Lord" describes both the Father and the Son. 

To me the whole thing is not a big deal. I think JS was just a little reticent to tell others about the whole vision - and I think understandably so. 

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Then what do you make of that contradiction?

Please be specific.  

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Then what do you make of that contradiction?

Are you serious?  Here is a teenager who is concerned about his own salvation.  During those difficult times he sometimes thinks, hopes that he can find the true church.  Other times, in despair, he concludes during "the war of words" that it does not exist.

I spoke with a professional antiMormon about this, and he admitted, "No big deal."

 If you want to hang your hat on this, that JS was a liar, feel free to quote me that this is a genuine contradiction.

Edited April 20, 2016 by cdowis

[halconero]

On 2016-04-19 at 11:02 AM, consiglieri said:

Straw man.

Joseph Smith wrote English.

Russell McGregor reads English.

Please try and stay focused.

False equivalency. Now, it's not my expertise, as I went down another anthropological path, but the fieldsof semiotics and linguistic anthropology demand that even within the same language we look at temporal, political, socio-religious, and of course, linguistic contexts. The English spoken by Joseph Smith Jr, while a mutually intelligible dialect of the English language, does have historical linguistic discrepancies and a context which demands we understand both.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

False equivalency. Now, it's not my expertise, as I went down another anthropological path, but the fieldsof semiotics and linguistic anthropology demand that even within the same language we look at temporal, political, socio-religious, and of course, linguistic contexts. The English spoken by Joseph Smith Jr, while a mutually intelligible dialect of the English language, does have historical linguistic discrepancies and a context which demands we understand both.

And taking all of that together, we will find that when Joseph refers to one Lord appearing, it actually means two?

[halconero]

29 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And taking all of that together, we will find that when Joseph refers to one Lord appearing, it actually means two?

Absolutely.

Considering the audience, the intent of the discourse, and the foci addressed therein we can determine what influenced him to refer to that.

[halconero]

30 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And taking all of that together, we will find that when Joseph refers to one Lord appearing, it actually means two?

For the same reasons we can determine the "why" behind Paul's vehement opposition to circumcision in Galatians and his mild apathy/mild approval of it in Romans.

Context is everything.

[Guest]

On April 1, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Steve Noel said:

I am reading Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what he writes about evangelicals. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). 

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

His comment might have been better stated, that we may become like him. Over 1'000's of years. Many scolors embraced by evangelicals have stated so without fear. And did so without blowback. All by Billy Graham who was called an apostate for saying he liked Mormons and believed they would be saved. So many Evangelicals dispise us all, and have created many websites to attack all that we are.

[boblloyd91]

17 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

His comment might have been better stated, that we may become like him. Over 1'000's of years. Many scolors embraced by evangelicals have stated so without fear. And did so without blowback. All by Billy Graham who was called an apostate for saying he liked Mormons and believed they would be saved. So many Evangelicals dispise us all, and have created many websites to attack all that we are.

I never heard that before about Billy Graham regarding his opinions about us. When did he make those comments?

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

I never heard that before about Billy Graham regarding his opinions about us. When did he make those comments?

About 10 to 15 years ago in an interview...when I pointed out years ago on a board that attracts our faith, as well as many others. Some said things like, "I used to love him so much, but that is over". Or comments like how, "he has bought into a lie and now a servant of Satan". Others tried to attribute it to old age, because how could someone has done so much for God, now speak such lies. Such is the sad state of affairs in the world of Evangelical apologetics...no one is going to heaven but those who believe as we do. Not to mention the Calvinism sweeping through such Churches, that God has already decieded who will be saved who he will, and that their is no such thing as "Free Will", and if not chosen, we cannot accept Christ, because we can't. So all who do are responding to "irresistible Grace", and are doing so not by choice, but by a loving force. It is a heartbreaking doctrine where we are little more than puppets, by the way not a doctrine Billy Graham believed, he believed that all who desire to come unto Christ will be accepted. John Calvin who came up with this doctrine even had anabaptist who opposed this doctrine drowned in the sea. Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant movement, when the Jews would not accept it, wrote such hateful and damning writings, that Hitler used them to justify the Holocauste, the killing of 6,000,000+ Jews. Thankfully their a great many Christians and denominations who reject Calvinism. Try googling "Billy Graham-Mormons" and see if you can find the interview. Billy Graham is a great man...growing up, we watched him every time he was on the TV. Probably who the first sermons I ever gave was in or at the Baptist pulpit, but God led me to a Mormon pulpit...something I will doing this Sunday with my wife also. Anyway, hope you will find it. 

Bill (Papa) Lee

[cdowis]

On 4/21/2016 at 4:43 PM, consiglieri said:

And taking all of that together, we will find that when Joseph refers to one Lord appearing, it actually means two?

There is ONE God.  Read John 17:19-23 and Revelation 3:2, as well as the Testimony of the Three Witnesses.

Now, the Father introduced His Son to Joseph Smith,and Joseph Smith's interaction was exclusively with the Son after that introduction.  Christ has many names, one of which is Lord.

Bottom line -->> whether there were one individual or two, it does not matter since "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

Edited April 22, 2016 by cdowis

[consiglieri]

On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 2:43 PM, Russell C McGregor said:

Because, as I pointed out above, all of Joseph's personal accounts are primary accounts. Being earlier does not automatically mean more reliable, and the earliest account has ambiguities which anti-Mormons, like Consig, exploit to their maximum polemical advantage.

A more complete account is better than a less complete one.

Earlier accounts are always considered to more reliable unless there is a good reason for believing otherwise.

The ambiguities in the earlier account exist primarily because you are determined to force it to line up with subsequent accounts.

In other words, for you to accept the official version, you are forced to argue there are ambiguities in the first version.

Necessity is the mother of invention. 

 

[consiglieri]

7 minutes ago, cdowis said:

There is ONE God.  Read John 17:19-23 and Revelation 3:2, as well as the Testimony of the Three Witnesses.

Now, the Father introduced His Son to Joseph Smith,and Joseph Smith's interaction was exclusively with the Son after that introduction.  Christ has many names, one of which is Lord.

Bottom line -->> whether there were one individual or two, it does not matter since "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

You are making a different mistake than Russ.

Your mistake is making a theological argument in the context of discussing a historical event.

See: Brian Hales.

[cdowis]

13 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You are making a different mistake than Russ.

Your mistake is making a theological argument in the context of discussing a historical event.

 

when Joseph refers to one Lord appearing, it actually means two? 

You asked a question... well it actually was not a question, but a clever trap worthy of the scribes and Pharasees.  Obviously you are disappointed that I did not fall into this rhetorical trap.  If I answer yes, you blast away, if I answer no, the same response.

Joseph Smith used a certain title to address a personage/ entity, and you pretended to ask to whom this title applies -- is this one or two.  That is a theological question because the answer is yes and no, theologically speaking.

Nice try, but I've already been down this road.  Just another day at the office, my friend.

But I admire your skill at rhetorical garbage.

Edited April 22, 2016 by cdowis

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, cdowis said:

when Joseph refers to one Lord appearing, it actually means two? 

You asked a question, and the answer lies within the realm of theology.  It was actually not a question, but a trap, and you are disappointed that I did not fall into the trap.

Joseph Smith used a certain title to address a personage/ entity, and you pretended to ask to whom this title applies -- is this one or two.  That is a theological question because the answer is yes and no, theologically speaking.

Nice try, but I've already been down this road.  Just another day at the office, my friend.

If you actually look at the document, you will see Joseph Smith defines "Lord" as Jesus Christ.

Here are the relevant words the "Lord" says in the 1832 account:

. . . behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world . . .

Now that we know that, within the context of the language being used in the document itself, Joseph Smith used "Lord" to denote Jesus Christ, we are better able to understand what he meant when he described the vision as follows:

 

. . . I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in (the) attitude of calling upon the Lord (in the 16th year of my age) a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the (Lord) opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph (my son) thy sins are forgiven thee . . .

 

There is no reference to anybody other than "the Lord" in this account, and it is "the Lord" whom Joseph saw.

And "the Lord" is defined as Jesus Christ by the account itself.

It is clear Joseph Smith is describing seeing one person, and that person was "the Lord," meaning Jesus Christ.

Apologists are quick to say that just because Joseph Smith said he saw Jesus doesn't mean he didn't see God the Father, too.

While strictly true, it is hard to consider the appearance of a second glorified being standing beside Jesus as an incidental detail that slipped Joseph's mind in writing the 1832 account.

 

 

[cdowis]

I cannot help you.

[Russell C McGregor]

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Earlier accounts are always considered to more reliable unless there is a good reason for believing otherwise.

The ambiguities in the earlier account exist primarily because you are determined to force it to line up with subsequent accounts.

That's false.

Imagine, just for a moment, that you know how honest people think.

When we see multiple accounts of the same event from the same participant, the default presumption is that the source is telling the truth in all instances.

If that isn't the case, it will soon become apparent.

But people routinely assume that everyone else is just as honest or dishonest as they are. (Which explains why you automatically assume anyone who says anything you don't believe is lying.)

This is just human nature, but it doesn't get us any closer to what actually happened.

The presumption of honesty in in historiography is the only safe starting point. As I said, if it is faulty, that will soon become apparent; but to take the opposite tack, and assume that the narrator is lying from the get-go, makes all sources equally worthless. It's a very convenient blank cheque (or check) that gives the critic untrammelled freedom to imagine that exactly what he wants is what happened, but it's not what real students of history do.

And besides all that, it is profoundly hypocritical for someone who thinks all of Joseph's First Vision accounts are equally false to so piously pretend to think that the briefest and most ambiguous one -- IOW, the most polemically useful one -- is the most reliable.

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

In other words, for you to accept the official version, you are forced to argue there are ambiguities in the first version.

You are projecting your own insincerity again.

I'm not "forced" to do anything. The ambiguities are present in the text.

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Necessity is the mother of invention. 

Well you'd know about that.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

If you actually look at the document, you will see Joseph Smith defines "Lord" as Jesus Christ.

That's false. Of course.

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Here are the relevant words the "Lord" says in the 1832 account:

. . . behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world . . .

 

Which as you perfectly well know (and directly contrary to what you assert) is not a definition.

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Now that we know that, within the context of the language being used in the document itself, Joseph Smith used "Lord" to denote Jesus Christ, we are better able to understand what he meant when he described the vision as follows:

 

. . . I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in (the) attitude of calling upon the Lord (in the 16th year of my age) a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the (Lord) opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph (my son) thy sins are forgiven thee . . .

 

There is no reference to anybody other than "the Lord" in this account, and it is "the Lord" whom Joseph saw.

And "the Lord" is defined as Jesus Christ by the account itself.

It is clear Joseph Smith is describing seeing one person, and that person was "the Lord," meaning Jesus Christ.

This "conclusion" might actually mean something, if not for the fact that you don't believe Joseph's First Vision even happened.

I don't know if you even believe there is a God, but it's apparent you don't believe that He appeared to Joseph.

However, that's not a conclusion at all. It's merely the object of your agenda.

Those who actually have a dog in this fight -- those who are attempting to discuss the question in good faith, IOW -- require more than the glib, flippant word games you are offering.

"Lord" is a title, not a name. Jesus used it of the Father. There's no valid reason why Joseph couldn't too.

How many lords are in this passage, Consig?

Psalms 110:
1 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Take your time.

 

12 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Apologists are quick to say that just because Joseph Smith said he saw Jesus doesn't mean he didn't see God the Father, too.

While strictly true, it is hard to consider the appearance of a second glorified being standing beside Jesus as an incidental detail that slipped Joseph's mind in writing the 1832 account.

Straw man.

As you know.

Or are you merely trolling the forum, yet again?
 

[cdowis]

13 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I apologize for being so dismissive.  After sleeping on it, let's see what you got.

 

If you actually look at the document, you will see Joseph Smith defines "Lord" as Jesus Christ.

OK, Jesus Christ is "Lord".  Now what?

snip

There is no reference to anybody other than "the Lord" in this account, and it is "the Lord" whom Joseph saw.

And "the Lord" is defined as Jesus Christ by the account itself.

OK, JS is talking about the appearance of Christ to him.  I see where you are going, but let's continue.

It is clear Joseph Smith is describing seeing one person, and that person was "the Lord," meaning Jesus Christ.

It is clear that Joseph Smith saw at least one person, the Lord, or Jesus Christ.

Apologists are quick to say that just because Joseph Smith said he saw Jesus doesn't mean he didn't see God the Father, too.

And this logic is flawless.  In other accounts, JS made it clear that he saw both the Father and the Son.  So far, I see no contradiction (again, I refer you to the dictionary on the definition of that word.  I DO see a difference in specific details among those accounts.

While strictly true, it is hard to consider the appearance of a second glorified being standing beside Jesus as an incidental detail that slipped Joseph's mind in writing the 1832 account.

I cannot help you.  Only you have control over your thoughts and assumptions.

 

Edited April 23, 2016 by cdowis