A Different God?

[salgare]

On 4/1/2016 at 8:54 AM, Steve Noel said:

Thank you for sharing these links.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

remember anything you read that was published by the Church post 1980ish was correlated (written by Church employees, signed by the FP), Remember to check out Daymon Smith's Dissertation information on this topic of correlation.

As you got a feel in the book suggestion thread ... there are several groups of individuals that you might find in any given ward on a Sunday

Pre-correlation believers (typically G.I. generation and studied Baby Boomers)

Correlated Mormons (later Baby Boomers)

New Order Mormons (Cafeteria or Middle Way, typically Baby Boomers or later generations trapped in serious consequences if found unfaithful)

New Mormons (Given, MFB - relative truthers, nuanced.  I assume geared towards millennials and later).

So your desire to study faithful believers, you would need to study all the above groups and understand there interactions and inter relationships.

Edited April 7, 2016 by salgare

[Tsuzuki]

On 4/1/2016 at 7:46 PM, JLHPROF said:

To say we believe in different Gods is to imply there is more than one God of the Bible/Christianity to believe in.
It's not the same as if we believed in Shiva.

Actually, the Hindu Trimurti (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) shares the same idea space as the Christian Trinity/Godhead, so if there is one God, then Shiva is also one of His names.

This is especially applicable to Mormonism, which teaches that all cultures once had the true gospel. So yes, Mormons do believe in Shiva (or they should, if they want to be consistent with their claims). They simply have a different view of Shiva, just as they have a different view of the Christian Trinity.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Tsuzuki

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, Tsuzuki said:

Actually, the Hindu Trimurti (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) shares the same idea space as the Christian Trinity/Godhead, so if there is one God, then Shiva is also one of His names.

This is especially applicable to Mormonism, which teaches that all cultures once had the true gospel. So yes, Mormons do believe in Shiva (or they should, if they want to be consistent with their claims). They simply have a different view of Shiva, just as they have a different view of the Christian Trinity.

It would more accurate to say we worship the most High God of the Bible, We believe we all can become Gods in our own right but always be servants of the Most High God. TTBOMK Shiva is just one of the some 2000 different aspects of God. None of which is higher than the next.  

[Steve Noel]

5 hours ago, salgare said:

Steve,

This is a good example of milk verses meat.  JLHProp is a loyal TBM.  He is an old schooler (like myself).  I would suggest you ask him about the Hierarchy of Gods, Adam God, The God Head as role titles verses actual individuals, etc. these are meat doctrines, which because of there distaste to the world have been buried by the correlated gospel, and even later by the "main streaming" which Gordon B. Hinckley spent much effort on in his final years as president.  These old school truths are held by a good number of the Baby Boomer generation who were in the know, but correlation milk and New Mormonism is much more palatable to the main stream and the post baby boomer generations.

 

Are there any books or articles you can direct me to that go into this change you've been mentioning? It seems to explain a lot. Many of the older Evangelical criticisms of Mormonism seem to be directed at the pre-correlated teachings.

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, danielwoods said:

I know the LDS view is this is used to say that God has a physical body. The problem (well one problem) that I see is that God said that his image is both male and female together. In his image he made them. 

So for me this indicates that the context of his image is that it isn't physical at all.

 

Of course, I would say that at this point God was creating only Adam.  This may allow, if we are reading literally, that God was only addressing the creation of Adam.  Eve was created fro m Adam's rib.  If so, I don't see the issue of confusion you are addressing.  Your limitation of being created in God's image and likeness to the characteristics of humanity has a greater problem with the carnal nature of man - though he may be created to look like him, he sure does not act like him.  In fact, the whole purpose of creation was to provide an opportunity for man to decide who he will follow God or not. 

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Are there any books or articles you can direct me to that go into this change you've been mentioning? It seems to explain a lot. Many of the older Evangelical criticisms of Mormonism seem to be directed at the pre-correlated teachings.

I am unaware of any good books, blogs or essays that have tracked this.  I used to get very upset about Truth changing as claimed by the Church.  Some of us critics (other board I suggested) felt betrayed by the Church as we saw the old teachings flushed down the "Memory Hole".  This change is rapidly accelerating, including the Church's "Transparency" in the last 16 years as the internet moved into every modern home with a vengeance and those Evangelical and anti-Mormon lies were proving to be the meat (truth) and the Church needed to flush as much as possible down the Memory Hole, main stream and duck and cover on what would not flush (i.e. the essays).

[thesometimesaint]

Salgare:

I don't know how old you are, but it is unlike you were even on this world when the Church instituted the Priesthood Correlation Committee in 1908.

Edited April 7, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

I am unaware of any good books, blogs or essays that have tracked this.  I used to get very upset about Truth changing as claimed by the Church.  Some of us critics (other board I suggested) felt betrayed by the Church as we saw the old teachings flushed down the "Memory Hole".  This change is rapidly accelerating, including the Church's "Transparency" in the last 16 years as the internet moved into every modern home with a vengeance and those Evangelical and anti-Mormon lies were proving to be the meat (truth) and the Church needed to flush as much as possible down the Memory Hole, main stream and duck and cover on what would not flush (i.e. the essays).

Salgare, do you work in politics?  Your ability to spin is admirable.  If you don't work in politics then it should be your next field of endeavor.  Such a calm, forked tongue, yet after reading your words one realizes you have said nothing of fact and are left with a sour taste.  

[flameburns623]

What

Is

"Correlation"

???

[salgare]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Salgare, do you work in politics?  Your ability to spin is admirable.  If you don't work in politics then it should be your next field of endeavor.  Such a calm, forked tongue, yet after reading your words one realizes you have said nothing of fact and are left with a sour taste.  

Storm, I know its easy to attack the individual when you have nothing of value to add to or detract from my statement.  You have basically called me a liar, would you please identify the spins/falsehoods in my statement?

[salgare]

18 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Salgare:

I don't know how old you are, but it is unlike you were even on this world when the Church instituted the Priesthood Correlation Committee in 1908.

I suggested to Steve that he check out mormon stories interview with Daymon Smith ... You and Flameburns would be well to do the same:

149-152: LDS Anthropologist Daymon Smith on Post-Manifesto Polygamy, Correlation, the Corporate LDS Church, and Mammon

Note at that time that Daymon was an active member of the Church (liberal for sure, NOM maybe).  To my knowledge he still is.

Edited April 7, 2016 by salgare

[Storm Rider]

31 minutes ago, salgare said:

Storm, I know its easy to attack the individual when you have nothing of value to add to or detract from my statement.  You have basically called me a liar, would you please identify the spins/falsehoods in my statement?

Sure, easy enough to clarify my point - your spin of it to alledging I called you a liar is in itself a misrepresentation or a lie - you choose whatever makes you feel good.  You stated above, "I used to get very upset about Truth changing as claimed by the Church.  Some of us critics (other board I suggested) felt betrayed by the Church as we saw the old teachings flushed down the "Memory Hole".  This change is rapidly accelerating, including the Church's "Transparency" in the last 16 years as the internet moved into every modern home with a vengeance and those Evangelical and anti-Mormon lies were proving to be the meat (truth) and the Church needed to flush as much as possible down the Memory Hole, main stream and duck and cover on what would not flush (i.e. the essays)."

My point was that there is nothing, NOTHING factual about anything you said.  You provided your spin, your opinion and nothing more.  Spinning - the avoidance of facts and dressing opinion up as it there is some real value associated with your opinion:  It is also interesting how you attack everyone that calls you on your schtick, first by misrepresentation of actual words in the hopes of directing the topic away from your own edits to another topic that has nothing to do with what has been said or anything else.  

All in all it is a good effort and you are to be commended for using such tactics as well as you do.  I assume that the majority of the time it meets your objectives.  I guess I am just not a good player for your tactics.  Enough about that, getting back to the topic.  If you have some facts to share, chime in, but keep the spin to a minimum. 

[Steve Noel]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Salgare, do you work in politics?  Your ability to spin is admirable.  If you don't work in politics then it should be your next field of endeavor.  Such a calm, forked tongue, yet after reading your words one realizes you have said nothing of fact and are left with a sour taste.  

Storm

From what I can ascertain, the way salgare is describing what's been going on in Mormonism is similar to how many Evangelical critics (anti-Mormon writers from the LDS perspective) have described the difference between past and current Mormonism (e.g. James White & Bill McKeever). Are you familiar with any resources (articles, books, audios, etc.) that cover this from a different perspective? I did read or hear an LDS scholar giving a different perspective than what salgare is saying here, but I can't remember where it was at. I will try to find it and share it later.

[salgare]

 

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

Storm

From what I can ascertain, the way salgare is describing what's been going on in Mormonism is similar to how many Evangelical critics (anti-Mormon writers from the LDS perspective) have described the difference between past and current Mormonism (e.g. James White & Bill McKeever). Are you familiar with any resources (articles, books, audios, etc.) that cover this from a different perspective? I did read or hear an LDS scholar giving a different perspective than what salgare is saying here, but I can't remember where it was at. I will try to find it and share it later.

The following is an interesting thread that sheds some light on this struggle across the spectrum of TBM where the "B" is the changing spectrum.  Poor sister Oscarson is crying out for Orthodoxy, a growing silent cry as the G.I and baby boomers grow old and die off.  Note how some here are giving her a three-cheers, desiring solid orthodox doctrine which is quickly slipping away to the extreme opposite of preaching of no doctrine, no orthodoxy.

The Church is walking a very thin line here, keeping the current base of those born or raised by old school parents to transition if needed to a brave new world.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67352-sister-oscarsons-talk/

[salgare]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Sure, easy enough to clarify my point - ... 

Storm, Please do me a favor so I don't have to actually include it in every post. In your mind prepend the following words at the start of all my posts: "In my opinion, based on my 60 years of experience, ...."

I'll do you the same favor as anything that you have offered up here so far is nothing but your opinion as well.

So we have an object observer, Steve,  I've presented to him my opinion based on following Mormonism very closely for many a moon, how about countering with your on topic opinion or some facts that dispute what I have said instead of simply declaring them wrong?

[flameburns623]

What

Is

"Correlation"

???

[consiglieri]

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 9:56 PM, Bernard Gui said:

You may wish to read two authoritative declarations by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles on these issues before you make further comments...

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

It looks like the Origin of Man is a declaration by only the First Presidency. 

Because it does not include the Twelve Apostles, it would not be considered authoritative under the new and more rigorous standard promoted by the LDS Church.

 

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, danielwoods said:

I know the LDS view is this is used to say that God has a physical body. The problem (well one problem) that I see is that God said that his image is both male and female together. In his image he made them. 

So for me this indicates that the context of his image is that it isn't physical at all.

 

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Sounds pretty physical to me. 

If God abides in solely a spirit form, why does He say that anyone who sees Him must die? Can you see invisible spirits? What is God's concern here?

13 hours ago, danielwoods said:

God states he's not a man. That's not deceptive its direct description.

God's attributes are described as "like" this or that human trait, but since we already know that God is not a man, these comparisons help us understand who God is. He is like us, but is so much more than we could ever imagine. 

As I recall God said something like "God is not a man that he should lie." That sentence has a modifying statement. Even some very "orthodox" debaters I have met have noted that, and said it is quite possible that God can have a physical form since He can do what He wants. A modern equivalent would be for me to defend myself by saying "I am not a man who would lie". That doesnt mean I am not a man, but that I am not the type of man who would lie. Further, I don't believe God is a mortal man. Although He has made us in his image, as you note this applies to male and female - so in other words we may look somewhat like Him with hands, feet etc, but that does not infer that He has a mortal human anatomy with  cells which need food, DNA, etc...

Anyway there is as much or more in the Bible to tell us God has a physical form, than He does not. This does not mean to me that He is limited to a physical form, but YHWH does seem to indicate that His hands are pierced etc. 

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

What

Is

"Correlation"

???

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-forty-three-an-era-of-correlation-and-consolidation?lang=eng

[salgare]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-forty-three-an-era-of-correlation-and-consolidation?lang=eng

wow, the correlated answer covered all the way up to 1964!

As Paul Harvey used to say ... "And now for the rest of the story"  ... see mormon stories

[salgare]

Steve,

Here is a good example of current day "correlation"

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/elder-poelmans-most-famous-speech/

The guy gives an incredible General Conference talk over the pulpit to the world.  It failed correlation horribly after the fact, so they edited his talk for him and made him re-tape the video portions that needed fixed.

I wonder if sister Oscarson submitted her talk to correlation before hand, perhaps she is in hot water for speaking of orthodoxy?

 

Edited April 7, 2016 by salgare

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, salgare said:

 so they edited his talk for him and made him re-tape the video portions that needed fixed.

 

Notquite:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Censorship_and_revision/Ronald_E._Poelman_in_1984

"Elder Poelman voluntarily edited his talk when he learned that some "fundamentalist" Mormons were using his address as justification for their beliefs. The re-recording was intended for distribution to the world-wide Church, and was not an effort to hide the fact that changes had been made."

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Storm

From what I can ascertain, the way salgare is describing what's been going on in Mormonism is similar to how many Evangelical critics (anti-Mormon writers from the LDS perspective) have described the difference between past and current Mormonism (e.g. James White & Bill McKeever). Are you familiar with any resources (articles, books, audios, etc.) that cover this from a different perspective? I did read or hear an LDS scholar giving a different perspective than what salgare is saying here, but I can't remember where it was at. I will try to find it and share it later.

Hello Steve, I know Bill McKeever.  To be frank, I don't spend a lot of time studying the works of critics.  In my life I have found there is so much positive things to study that spend a lot of time reading books or documents that are trying to build faith, build holiness.  

The reality of Church history, Church teaching, etc. is that there was never a monolithic "teaching".  There has always been a spectrum; it was not black and white.  When I read or hear critics who try to paint the history of church teaching in black and white I tend to shut-off.  Their work has little appeal because I understand that their position is agenda driven rather than truth driven.  Make sense?

I take the same approach to people - if I am going to invest time in something then I need to enjoy it.  If someone wants to yammer on and on about how terrible "X" is without making any effort to improve their lives I don't have time for it.  

[salgare]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Notquite:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Censorship_and_revision/Ronald_E._Poelman_in_1984

"Elder Poelman voluntarily edited his talk when he learned that some "fundamentalist" Mormons were using his address as justification for their beliefs. The re-recording was intended for distribution to the world-wide Church, and was not an effort to hide the fact that changes had been made."

Sure, of course not ... oh and pay special attention as to what the edit was

[halconero]

15 hours ago, danielwoods said:

I know the LDS view is this is used to say that God has a physical body. The problem (well one problem) that I see is that God said that his image is both male and female together. In his image he made them. 

So for me this indicates that the context of his image is that it isn't physical at all.

 

There's been some interesting interpretations of this over time. Many Early Christians and Jews noticed that the Genesis 1 account differs significantly from the Genesis 2 account (Elohim vs Jehovah creating, 6 day creative period vs 1 day creative period, simultaneous creation of male and female vs male first, female second, etc). Some believed that God created an androgynous Heavenly Adam who was later divided in the Mortal Adam, reflecting the (what they imagined to be) sexless state of deity. Of course, even in androgyny it tended towards masculinity, with femininity being seen as a divergence from the masculine androgynous ideal.

Others, such as Philo of Alexandria, reasoned that the Image of God was actually a title for the Word of God, and a separate being. God was Divine Reason, holding the universe together in perfect form and immaterial. His Image was his Shadow and Word, and the intermediary between God and the material universe. Humanity was not created as a reflection of God, but after the Image of God, or the shadow His reason. This was eventually adapted into Thomasine, Johannine Christianity with Jesus being identified as Philo's divine Word/Logos.