Josh Khinder Posted December 22, 2017 Posted December 22, 2017 On 12/15/2017 at 11:12 PM, Bobbieaware said: In Lehi’s firtst vision, he sees the Father and the Son as two separate and distinct human personages: 8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. 9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. 10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. 11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read. (1 Nephi 1) Doesn't the Trinity teach the Father and Son are separate and Distinct persons ? E. Calvin Beisner God in Three Persons The Christian Church throughout history has found in order to remain faithful to the teachings of the New Testament regarding the person and work of Christ, it had to affirm at least the following doctrines: The doctrine of the Trinity----that in the nature of the One True God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each fully God, Coequal and Coeternal When we have said these three things, then—that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person—we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness. We may condense this into a somewhat shorter statement, one which is more precise: In the nature of the God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ( or substance ) of the one true God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit p 24 “The Nicene Creed, then, with centuries of theological discussion and controversy behind it, still teaches of the Trinity as the New Testament does: that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while distinct from each other personally, are the same God” p 153 Trinity first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person. (from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.) Homoousios -God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being –Nature [ all Synonyms ] One being. Three persons. In other words, one "what" and three "who"s. There is one being, God. There are three persons: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The distinction is between being and person. One being, three persons. One what, three who's. All the Persons of the Holy Trinity are IDENTICAL IN ESSENCE but DISTINCT IN PERSONS John Ankerberg [Everything You Ever Wanted to know about Mormonism] Page 104-105 1. There is Only One God 2. The Father is God; 3. Jesus Christ, the Son, is God 4. The Holy Spirit is a Person, is eternal and is therefore God 5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1. (n.) The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons as to individuality. “Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (White, James R. “The Forgotten Trinity” (p. 26). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition) Tim tebow's father is a Christian Evangelist and here is his statement on the Trinity We believe God is Trinity, which means that He is one God who has eternally existed in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each one is fully God. God is completely unified in His diversity. All persons of the Trinity are equal , nature, and substance, but they are different in persons. All things are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit. Each person of the Godhead shares all the attributes of God, including eternality, freedom, holiness, righteousness, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, happiness, wisdom, sovereignty, perfection, goodness, and justice, grace, and mercy. God is holy, which means that he is transcendent over creation. He is the source of life. Nothing exists apart from His sustaining power. Matthew 28:18–19; Mark 12:29; John 1:14; Acts 5:3–4; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Hebrews 1:1–3; Revelation 1:4–6. http://www.btea.org/whatwebelieve.asp Hank Hanegraaff, The Complete Bible Answer Book—Collector’s Edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008) While it has become increasingly popular to suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from pagan sources, in reality, this Christian essential is thoroughly biblical. The word “Trinity”—like “incarnation”— is not found in Scripture; however, it aptly codifies what God has condescended to reveal to us about his nature and being. In short, the Trinitarian platform contains three planks: (1) there is but one God; (2) the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; (3) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct. The first plank underscores that there is only one God. Christianity is not polytheistic but fiercely monotheistic. “You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” (Isaiah 43:10, emphasis added). The second plank emphasizes that in hundreds of Scripture passages the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are declared to be fully and completely God. As a case in point, the apostle Paul says that, “there is but one God the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Father, speaking of the Son, says, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and forever” (Hebrews 1:8). And when Ananias “lied to the Holy Spirit,” Peter points out that he had “not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:3–4). The third plank of the Trinitarian platform asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct. Scripture clearly portrays subject/object relationships between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, the Father and Son love one another, speak to each other (John 17:1–26), and together send the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). Additionally, Jesus proclaims that he and the Father are two distinct witnesses and two distinct judges (John 8:14–18). If Jesus were himself the Father, his argument would have been not only irrelevant but also fatally flawed; and if such were the case, he could not have been fully God. It is important to note that when Trinitarians speak of one God they are referring to the nature or essence of God. Moreover, when they speak of persons they are referring to personal self-distinctions within the Godhead. Put another way, we believe in one What and three Who’s. For further study, see James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001). “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Deuteronomy 6:4 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 28:19 https://i.imgur.com/osAmiy2.jpg
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 22, 2017 Author Posted December 22, 2017 48 minutes ago, cdowis said: I cannot agree with your understanding of the doctrinal aspects of this language lesson. Not interested in teaching you calculus, but you might spend a year or two forgetting what the theologians and modern Pharasees say, and then figuring out what Eloheim means, according to prophet. You might also try to gain an understanding what is meant by "inheritance" in the scriptures (see patrimony - undivided estate among all the heirs, and power of attorney -- Heb 1:2, Rom 8:17 (joint heir) check out John 17:19-23, Rev 3:21, Heb 5:8-9, John 5:19 Or you could just read the plain English. It’s straight forward. Honestly, I’m not sure what your up in arms about. I didn’t even say anything that controversial, except that Son Ahman is the greates part of Ahman, which is essentially a quote. Is that the part your taking issue with? Everything else I said is very tame, I thought.
cdowis Posted December 22, 2017 Posted December 22, 2017 45 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: Or you could just read the plain English. It’s straight forward. Honestly, I’m not sure what your up in arms about. I didn’t even say anything that controversial, except that Son Ahman is the greates part of Ahman, which is essentially a quote. Is that the part your taking issue with? Everything else I said is very tame, I thought. Define "Eloheim" according to the prophet's teachings.
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 22, 2017 Author Posted December 22, 2017 10 minutes ago, cdowis said: Define "Eloheim" according to the prophet's teachings. Joseph Smith said in the 1840s that Eloheim signifies the council of Gods, and specified that the head of that council was the Father (see KFD). However, Ahman does not equal the council. The 1832 revelation specifies that Ahman is a “being.” Secondly, in the same period JS was teaching that Eloheim is interpreted as a council, he was teaching that God the Father to whom we pray is named Ahman: “the Great God has a name By wich He will be Called which is Ahman-- also in asking have Referance to a personage Like Adam for God made Adam Just in his own Image Now this a key for you to know how to ask & obtain.” (1841) https://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1841/9Mar41.html
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 22, 2017 Author Posted December 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Josh Khinder said: Doesn't the Trinity teach the Father and Son are separate and Distinct persons ? E. Calvin Beisner God in Three Persons The Christian Church throughout history has found in order to remain faithful to the teachings of the New Testament regarding the person and work of Christ, it had to affirm at least the following doctrines: The doctrine of the Trinity----that in the nature of the One True God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each fully God, Coequal and Coeternal When we have said these three things, then—that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person—we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness. We may condense this into a somewhat shorter statement, one which is more precise: In the nature of the God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ( or substance ) of the one true God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit p 24 “The Nicene Creed, then, with centuries of theological discussion and controversy behind it, still teaches of the Trinity as the New Testament does: that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while distinct from each other personally, are the same God” p 153 Trinity first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person. (from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.) Homoousios -God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being –Nature [ all Synonyms ] One being. Three persons. In other words, one "what" and three "who"s. There is one being, God. There are three persons: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The distinction is between being and person. One being, three persons. One what, three who's. All the Persons of the Holy Trinity are IDENTICAL IN ESSENCE but DISTINCT IN PERSONS John Ankerberg [Everything You Ever Wanted to know about Mormonism] Page 104-105 1. There is Only One God 2. The Father is God; 3. Jesus Christ, the Son, is God 4. The Holy Spirit is a Person, is eternal and is therefore God 5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1. (n.) The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons as to individuality. “Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (White, James R. “The Forgotten Trinity” (p. 26). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition) Tim tebow's father is a Christian Evangelist and here is his statement on the Trinity We believe God is Trinity, which means that He is one God who has eternally existed in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each one is fully God. God is completely unified in His diversity. All persons of the Trinity are equal , nature, and substance, but they are different in persons. All things are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit. Each person of the Godhead shares all the attributes of God, including eternality, freedom, holiness, righteousness, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, happiness, wisdom, sovereignty, perfection, goodness, and justice, grace, and mercy. God is holy, which means that he is transcendent over creation. He is the source of life. Nothing exists apart from His sustaining power. Matthew 28:18–19; Mark 12:29; John 1:14; Acts 5:3–4; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Hebrews 1:1–3; Revelation 1:4–6. http://www.btea.org/whatwebelieve.asp Hank Hanegraaff, The Complete Bible Answer Book—Collector’s Edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008) While it has become increasingly popular to suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from pagan sources, in reality, this Christian essential is thoroughly biblical. The word “Trinity”—like “incarnation”— is not found in Scripture; however, it aptly codifies what God has condescended to reveal to us about his nature and being. In short, the Trinitarian platform contains three planks: (1) there is but one God; (2) the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; (3) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct. The first plank underscores that there is only one God. Christianity is not polytheistic but fiercely monotheistic. “You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” (Isaiah 43:10, emphasis added). The second plank emphasizes that in hundreds of Scripture passages the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are declared to be fully and completely God. As a case in point, the apostle Paul says that, “there is but one God the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Father, speaking of the Son, says, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and forever” (Hebrews 1:8). And when Ananias “lied to the Holy Spirit,” Peter points out that he had “not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:3–4). The third plank of the Trinitarian platform asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct. Scripture clearly portrays subject/object relationships between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, the Father and Son love one another, speak to each other (John 17:1–26), and together send the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). Additionally, Jesus proclaims that he and the Father are two distinct witnesses and two distinct judges (John 8:14–18). If Jesus were himself the Father, his argument would have been not only irrelevant but also fatally flawed; and if such were the case, he could not have been fully God. It is important to note that when Trinitarians speak of one God they are referring to the nature or essence of God. Moreover, when they speak of persons they are referring to personal self-distinctions within the Godhead. Put another way, we believe in one What and three Who’s. For further study, see James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001). “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Deuteronomy 6:4 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 28:19 https://i.imgur.com/osAmiy2.jpg In case you missed the point of this thread, it’s to discuss what JS taught about the nature of God in 1839-1832. This discussion doesn’t represent my personal belief, but a historical approach to JS’ texts. Your posts are off topic and I’d ask you to refrain from posting that here. As all forum members, you are welcome to start your own thread.
pogi Posted December 22, 2017 Posted December 22, 2017 20 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: In case you missed the point of this thread, it’s to discuss what JS taught about the nature of God in 1839-1832. This discussion doesn’t represent my personal belief, but a historical approach to JS’ texts. Your posts are off topic and I’d ask you to refrain from posting that here. As all forum members, you are welcome to start your own thread. He did the same thing on my thread. He trolls every thread with the same posts.
Bobbieaware Posted December 22, 2017 Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Josh Khinder said: Doesn't the Trinity teach the Father and Son are separate and Distinct persons ? E. Calvin Beisner God in Three Persons The Christian Church throughout history has found in order to remain faithful to the teachings of the New Testament regarding the person and work of Christ, it had to affirm at least the following doctrines: The doctrine of the Trinity----that in the nature of the One True God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each fully God, Coequal and Coeternal When we have said these three things, then—that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person—we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness. We may condense this into a somewhat shorter statement, one which is more precise: In the nature of the God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ( or substance ) of the one true God, there are three distinct persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit p 24 “The Nicene Creed, then, with centuries of theological discussion and controversy behind it, still teaches of the Trinity as the New Testament does: that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while distinct from each other personally, are the same God” p 153 Trinity first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person. (from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.) Homoousios -God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being –Nature [ all Synonyms ] One being. Three persons. In other words, one "what" and three "who"s. There is one being, God. There are three persons: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The distinction is between being and person. One being, three persons. One what, three who's. All the Persons of the Holy Trinity are IDENTICAL IN ESSENCE but DISTINCT IN PERSONS John Ankerberg [Everything You Ever Wanted to know about Mormonism] Page 104-105 1. There is Only One God 2. The Father is God; 3. Jesus Christ, the Son, is God 4. The Holy Spirit is a Person, is eternal and is therefore God 5. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1. (n.) The union of three persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to substance, but three persons as to individuality. “Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (White, James R. “The Forgotten Trinity” (p. 26). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition) Tim tebow's father is a Christian Evangelist and here is his statement on the Trinity We believe God is Trinity, which means that He is one God who has eternally existed in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each one is fully God. God is completely unified in His diversity. All persons of the Trinity are equal , nature, and substance, but they are different in persons. All things are from the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit. Each person of the Godhead shares all the attributes of God, including eternality, freedom, holiness, righteousness, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, happiness, wisdom, sovereignty, perfection, goodness, and justice, grace, and mercy. God is holy, which means that he is transcendent over creation. He is the source of life. Nothing exists apart from His sustaining power. Matthew 28:18–19; Mark 12:29; John 1:14; Acts 5:3–4; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Hebrews 1:1–3; Revelation 1:4–6. http://www.btea.org/whatwebelieve.asp Hank Hanegraaff, The Complete Bible Answer Book—Collector’s Edition (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008) While it has become increasingly popular to suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from pagan sources, in reality, this Christian essential is thoroughly biblical. The word “Trinity”—like “incarnation”— is not found in Scripture; however, it aptly codifies what God has condescended to reveal to us about his nature and being. In short, the Trinitarian platform contains three planks: (1) there is but one God; (2) the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; (3) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct. The first plank underscores that there is only one God. Christianity is not polytheistic but fiercely monotheistic. “You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” (Isaiah 43:10, emphasis added). The second plank emphasizes that in hundreds of Scripture passages the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are declared to be fully and completely God. As a case in point, the apostle Paul says that, “there is but one God the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Father, speaking of the Son, says, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and forever” (Hebrews 1:8). And when Ananias “lied to the Holy Spirit,” Peter points out that he had “not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:3–4). The third plank of the Trinitarian platform asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct. Scripture clearly portrays subject/object relationships between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, the Father and Son love one another, speak to each other (John 17:1–26), and together send the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). Additionally, Jesus proclaims that he and the Father are two distinct witnesses and two distinct judges (John 8:14–18). If Jesus were himself the Father, his argument would have been not only irrelevant but also fatally flawed; and if such were the case, he could not have been fully God. It is important to note that when Trinitarians speak of one God they are referring to the nature or essence of God. Moreover, when they speak of persons they are referring to personal self-distinctions within the Godhead. Put another way, we believe in one What and three Who’s. For further study, see James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001). “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Deuteronomy 6:4 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 28:19 https://i.imgur.com/osAmiy2.jpg I have to laugh because you’re one of those people who show up on this board from time to time who think they’re really clever and know so much when, in reality, they really aren’t nearly as clever and knowledgeable as they like to think they are. And by the way, your preachy, overly cut-and-pasted posts aren’t winning you many friends around here. In answer to you post, the Latter-Day Saints believe there are three separate and distinct personages in the Godhead who can converse and interact with each other, just like people do. But we part company with Trinitarians in that we believe the Father has a glorified body of flesh and bone, and so does the Son; but we believe the Holy Ghost is an unembodied Spirit. Further, We believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God but not one being. Rather, we believe they all share in a fullness of the divine nature and are one in the same way the saints are promised they can be one with the Father and the Son. The oneness of the members of the Godhead is no more complicated and mysterious than found the following worlds of explanation that come from Christ himself: 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17) Edited December 22, 2017 by Bobbieaware
Josh Khinder Posted December 22, 2017 Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: I have to laugh because you’re one of those people who show up on this board from time to time who think they’re really clever and know so much when, in reality, they really aren’t nearly as clever and knowledgeable as they like to think they are. And by the way, your preachy, overly cut-and-pasted posts aren’t winning you many friends around here. In answer to you post, the Latter-Day Saints believe there are three separate and distinct personages in the Godhead who can converse and interact with each other, just like people do. But we part company with Trinitarians in that we believe the Father has a glorified body of flesh and bone, and so does the Son; but we believe the Holy Ghost is an unembodied Spirit. Further, We believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God but not one being. Rather, we believe they all share in a fullness of the divine nature and are one in the same way the saints are promised they can be one with the Father and the Son. The oneness of the members of the Godhead is no more complicated and mysterious than found the following worlds of explanation that come from Christ himself: 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17) I would say you are correct we believe God the Father is a personage of Spirit, Jesus a personage of tabernacle and the Holy Spirit a personage of spirit like the Father . Some thing taught by Joseph Smith in the lectures of Faith, when he juxtaposed the two, Three separate and distinct persons ONE GOD or being since there synonyms . Homoousios -God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being –Nature [ all Synonyms ] One being. Three persons. In other words, one "what" and three "who"s. There is one being, God. There are three persons: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The distinction is between being and person. One being, three persons. One what, three who's. Lectures on Faith Lecture Five 2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made…. They are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, being in the form and likeness of man https://i.imgur.com/osAmiy2.jpg Edited December 22, 2017 by Josh Khinder
Bobbieaware Posted December 22, 2017 Posted December 22, 2017 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Josh Khinder said: I would say you are correct we believe God the Father is a personage of Spirit, Jesus a personage of tabernacle and the Holy Spirit a personage of spirit like the Father . Some thing taught by Joseph Smith in the lectures of Faith, when he juxtaposed the two, Three separate and distinct persons ONE GOD or being since there synonyms . Homoousios -God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being –Nature [ all Synonyms ] One being. Three persons. In other words, one "what" and three "who"s. There is one being, God. There are three persons: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The distinction is between being and person. One being, three persons. One what, three who's. Lectures on Faith Lecture Five 2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made…. They are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, being in the form and likeness of man https://i.imgur.com/osAmiy2.jpg The thing you left out is that a more complete picture of the nature of the Godhead was revealed in the Church line upon line, and it wasn’t until the Navoo period of the.Church when it was finally clearly revealed the Father has a spiritual body of flesh and bone. Even so, even now it isn’t considered a contradiction in terms in the LDS Church to refer to the ressurected Christ as a Spirit, in spite of the fact that he has a body of flesh and bone. For example: 26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the SPIRIT of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth. (D&C 93) and... 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening SPIRIT. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. So as you can see, in the scriptures a being with a glorified spiritual body of flesh and bone can be spoken of as being a spirit. It’s off to do some shopping... Edited December 22, 2017 by Bobbieaware
Five Solas Posted December 23, 2017 Posted December 23, 2017 On 12/21/2017 at 11:24 AM, clarkgoble said: Lots of lay people in all religions are surprisingly ignorant of their own beliefs. Talk to the average Evangelical and get them to describe what God is like and 90% of the time you'll get an expression of modalism or tri-theism. So I'm not sure that's a good test. Further the more the obscure the teaching the less they'll recognize it. In this case since the only thing not fairly ubiquitous well known doctrine is the word "Awman" I'm not sure people would be surprised. They might be surprised by the spelling of course. (Usually the spelling is standardized to Ahman such as in D&C 78:20 - and that actually is taught regularly. I teach the 11 year olds and it was part of a lesson in the lesson manual) Although this actually is a better known text than I think you let on. Okay clarkgoble, let's break Smith's revelation down a bit-- * The LDS Heavenly Father is not a he, but an it. ("It is the being which made all things in all its parts") * The LDS Jesus is a part of the LDS Heavenly Father ("greatest of all the parts of Awman") * The LDS Jesus is the godhead ("the godhead of the first born") * Humans are also a part of the LDS Heavenly Father ("the greatest parts of Awman Sons the Son Awman") * The LDS holy ghost has gone AWOL And you would have our readers believe any ensuing confusion from the above is attributable ... wait for it ... is attributable to spelling (Ahman, not Awman, as in D&C 78). That, and you teach these things to 11 year-olds. Forgive my bluntness, but all this really beggars belief. If I were in your shoes, I might try to pivot the conversation and make some comparison to ignorant evangelicals. It's a tried and true tactic around here & sure to keep 'em on your side, cue Jamie Foxx's takedown of Doug Williams (and let youtube be your friend if you missed it and you're not offended by comedians painting-with-all-the-colors, so to speak). Wait a second, that's exactly what you just did! ;0) --Erik PS. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and speculate it's been a *very* long time since you've talked with any self-identifying evangelical Christians about the nature of God. Assuming you ever actually have... ________________________________________________________________ You'll see him in your nightmares, you'll see him in your dreams He'll appear out of nowhere but he ain't what he seems You'll see him in your head, on the TV screen Hey buddy, I'm warning you to turn it off He's a ghost, he's a god, he's a man, he's a guru You're one microscopic cog in his catastrophic plan Designed and directed by his red right hand --Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, 1994
Josh Khinder Posted December 23, 2017 Posted December 23, 2017 5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: The thing you left out is that a more complete picture of the nature of the Godhead was revealed in the Church line upon line, and it wasn’t until the Navoo period of the.Church when it was finally clearly revealed the Father has a spiritual body of flesh and bone. Even so, even now it isn’t considered a contradiction in terms in the LDS Church to refer to the ressurected Christ as a Spirit, in spite of the fact that he has a body of flesh and bone. For example: 26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the SPIRIT of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth. (D&C 93) and... 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening SPIRIT. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. So as you can see, in the scriptures a being with a glorified spiritual body of flesh and bone can be spoken of as being a spirit. It’s off to do some shopping... That is true that the nature of God wasn't revealed to Joseph Smith from the Book of Mormon the way Joseph Smith taught it in his latter years , even thou that doesn't make sense if he was communicating with an omniscient God 2 Nephi 9:20 O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it.
mfbukowski Posted December 23, 2017 Posted December 23, 2017 On 12/20/2017 at 6:31 PM, Five Solas said: Work off of the example I cited from earlier in the thread, clarkgoble--Smith's "Revelation on pure language." Do you think contemporary LDS would recognize it as an expression of their belief? Supposing I stopped an LDS missionary pair in the street (which would be increasingly hard to do in Seattle, as it seems to be getting a lot less attention that it did a decade ago) and read them this "revelation" without telling them it was given to Joseph Smith. Do you think they'd recognize & embrace it's contents? I think they'd just stare at me like I'd lost my mind. And when I disclosed the author as Joseph Smith, I think that would just make them really uncomfortable & that would be the end of our time together. Maybe I'm wrong. But instead of responding with yet another question back to me, kindly tell us how you imagine they'd react. --Erik This is actually an incredibly important teaching that in some ways parallels the OT. Think of the tower of Babel, think of Genesis 1 and God "calling" reality into existence Quote 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. etc.- even on to John 1:1 where Jesus is the "Word" and everything is created by the Word Quote 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made..... 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. I would advise as much study on this as you can get, maybe starting with this thread http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68758-the-book-of-mormons-use-of-the-tower-of-babel-and-the-adamic-language-as-the-power-of-god/?page=2
clarkgoble Posted December 23, 2017 Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Five Solas said: Okay clarkgoble, let's break Smith's revelation down a bit-- * The LDS Heavenly Father is not a he, but an it. ("It is the being which made all things in all its parts") * The LDS Jesus is a part of the LDS Heavenly Father ("greatest of all the parts of Awman") * The LDS Jesus is the godhead ("the godhead of the first born") * Humans are also a part of the LDS Heavenly Father ("the greatest parts of Awman Sons the Son Awman") * The LDS holy ghost has gone AWOL And you would have our readers believe any ensuing confusion from the above is attributable ... wait for it ... is attributable to spelling (Ahman, not Awman, as in D&C 78). That, and you teach these things to 11 year-olds. Forgive my bluntness, but all this really beggars belief. Spelling is indeed the main issue. However the things you raise depend upon there being absolute literalism which I think is dubious. Look at the original document. Note it's a copy of something. Second there are redactions in the text. Third we don't have the original. So we should be careful pushing the level of literalism such that a pronounce takes that level of significance. Second, it doesn't say heavenly father is an it. It says the name of God is Awmen but it isn't clear whether this is God in plural or God in singular. But it doesn't say Father anywhere. That's you making an inference (and likely an incorrect one). It doesn't say Jesus is a part of heavenly father. Rather it says Jesus is a part of God, which is pretty normal contemporary doctrine. (Although we usually express it as godhead rather than god) It doesn't say Jesus "is the godhead." It says, "[Son Ahman] is the greatest of all the parts of Awmen which is the Godhead the first born." That is "Godhead the first born" is Ahman not Jesus. So you're twisting it pretty badly there. I suspect there's a word missing between "Godhead" and "the first born" as that's bad English the way it's phrased. Interestingly Orson Pratt's version of this revelation renders it as "Son Ahman--the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." However I suspect Pratt is doing what you are doing and assuming Ahman is the father rather than the godhead. (Or for Pratt the spiritual aether which is the Spirit which allows the unity of the Godhead) The idea that we are part of God is again a fairly common belief if we are one with God. However again if you look at the text, clearly some words are missing. Here it is in the original copy. Q What is is man. A This signifies Sons Awmen. the human family the children of men the greatest parts of Awmen Sons the Son Awmen It's not clear if it's supposed to be that man signifies Sons Awmen as Christ, or if it's the greatest part of Son Awmen i.e. adopted children of Christ ala Mosiah 15. I suspect there's just some corruption here. But it doesn't in any way shape or form say what you are saying it says. As for the holy ghost being AWOL, again just because something's not focused on doesn't mean he doesn't have a doctrine for it. (I honestly don't understand this argument from silence as implying non-existence) Again though, really nothing new here. It may indicate a teaching similar to what Parley P. Pratt mentions where there's a platonic emanation theory for the creation of human spirits. However it's just not clear enough to be sure that's what parts mean. But I think ascribing the person of the Father to God here is just incorrect. Clearly it's talking about the Godhead. Edited December 23, 2017 by clarkgoble
clarkgoble Posted December 23, 2017 Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: This is actually an incredibly important teaching that in some ways parallels the OT. Think of the tower of Babel, think of Genesis 1 and God "calling" reality into existence etc.- even on to John 1:1 where Jesus is the "Word" and everything is created by the Word I would advise as much study on this as you can get, maybe starting with this thread http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68758-the-book-of-mormons-use-of-the-tower-of-babel-and-the-adamic-language-as-the-power-of-god/?page=2 I'm more dubious about the Babel parallels depending upon how one takes it. I do think the March 9, 1841 minutes suggest it is tied to the temple though. Quoting: "the Great God has a name By wich He will be Called which is Ahman-- also in asking have Referance to a personage Like Adam for God made Adam Just in his own Image Now this a key for you to know how to ask & obtain." It seems to me that in all the versions of this Ahman revelation you have "Ahman" and then mixed with English words. I suspect this is a masonic like keyword. WVS speculates in the footnote there that this is what Joseph is referring to in the notes to Abraham Fac. 2. Fig 3 is described as "Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed." While it's different from the words used now I think that's its main function. i.e. it's something representing the new name of Rev 2:17 that Joseph focuses in on in various places. (Rev 2:17 is also part of Masonic ritual dealing with the adjunct level of Master Mark Mason) I should note that in the Master Mark rite the name is the first letter of each of several words - an acrostic. That said, I do think Genesis 1 is a temple text and not a proper creation text. There are various scholars coming around to that view of late including Evangelical ones. Edited December 23, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
clarkgoble Posted December 23, 2017 Posted December 23, 2017 8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: Joseph Smith said in the 1840s that Eloheim signifies the council of Gods, and specified that the head of that council was the Father (see KFD). However, Ahman does not equal the council. The 1832 revelation specifies that Ahman is a “being.” Secondly, in the same period JS was teaching that Eloheim is interpreted as a council, he was teaching that God the Father to whom we pray is named Ahman: “the Great God has a name By wich He will be Called which is Ahman-- also in asking have Referance to a personage Like Adam for God made Adam Just in his own Image Now this a key for you to know how to ask & obtain.” (1841) https://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1841/9Mar41.html Again I think he's saying this name is much more than you are suggesting. The "this is a key for you to know how to ask & obtain" clearly indicates this isn't just a name. Likewise is the bit about Adam. Note the endowment was introduced a month after this. 1
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 23, 2017 Author Posted December 23, 2017 10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Spelling is indeed the main issue. However the things you raise depend upon there being absolute literalism which I think is dubious. Look at the original document. Note it's a copy of something. Second there are redactions in the text. Third we don't have the original. So we should be careful pushing the level of literalism such that a pronounce takes that level of significance. Second, it doesn't say heavenly father is an it. It says the name of God is Awmen but it isn't clear whether this is God in plural or God in singular. But it doesn't say Father anywhere. That's you making an inference (and likely an incorrect one). I quoted JS from 1941 (later on but still somewhat relevant) inferring that the God we pray to is Ahman. https://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1841/9Mar41.html In Moses 7 the Father gives his name as Man of Holiness, contrasted to the Son of Man. Ahman and Son Ahman are clear parallels. The naming scheme and JS’ instructions on prayer both suggest Ahman is the Father. 10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: It doesn't say Jesus is a part of heavenly father. Rather it says Jesus is a part of God, which is pretty normal contemporary doctrine. (Although we usually express it as godhead rather than god) It doesn't say Jesus "is the godhead." It says, "[Son Ahman] is the greatest of all the parts of Awmen which is the Godhead the first born." That is "Godhead the first born" is Ahman not Jesus. Probably not. The firstborn is used throughout JS’ works to reference Jesus Christ. While I agree that the text is pretty convoluted, the Firstborn here is most likely a reference to Jesus somehow. 10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: So you're twisting it pretty badly there. I suspect there's a word missing between "Godhead" and "the first born" as that's bad English the way it's phrased. Interestingly Orson Pratt's version of this revelation renders it as "Son Ahman--the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." However I suspect Pratt is doing what you are doing and assuming Ahman is the father rather than the godhead. (Or for Pratt the spiritual aether which is the Spirit which allows the unity of the Godhead) The idea that we are part of God is again a fairly common belief if we are one with God. However again if you look at the text, clearly some words are missing. Here it is in the original copy. Q What is is man. A This signifies Sons Awmen. the human family the children of men the greatest parts of Awmen Sons the Son Awmen It's not clear if it's supposed to be that man signifies Sons Awmen as Christ, or if it's the greatest part of Son Awmen i.e. adopted children of Christ ala Mosiah 15. I suspect there's just some corruption here. But it doesn't in any way shape or form say what you are saying it says. Actually, on rereading this, its probably just saying that the greatest part of Sons Awmen, meaning man, is Son Awmen or Christ. 10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: As for the holy ghost being AWOL, again just because something's not focused on doesn't mean he doesn't have a doctrine for it. (I honestly don't understand this argument from silence as implying non-existence) Again though, really nothing new here. It may indicate a teaching similar to what Parley P. Pratt mentions where there's a platonic emanation theory for the creation of human spirits. However it's just not clear enough to be sure that's what parts mean. But I think ascribing the person of the Father to God here is just incorrect. Clearly it's talking about the Godhead. I’m not sure why you think it’s the Godhead. I’ve already given a couple of reasons why I think the Father is a good fit. Additionally, the text says Awmen is a being. I doubt JS would say that the Godhead is a being.
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 23, 2017 Author Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Again I think he's saying this name is much more than you are suggesting. The "this is a key for you to know how to ask & obtain" clearly indicates this isn't just a name. Likewise is the bit about Adam. Note the endowment was introduced a month after this. Oops didn’t see this when I wrote the other post. However, I think everything I wrote above stands. According to the revelation, Ahman is a being which is more indicative of the Father than the Godhead. Ahman and Son Ahman look like a Father Son relationship that parallels Man of Holiness and Son of Man from Moses 7. As far as the Endowment goes, there is no referencing the Godhead by a single name in there, but instead the endowment gives specific names to Gods, probably members of the Godhead. The Adam reference is JS’ revolutionary doctrine that God the Father is an exalted man, so man (Adam) was made in the literal image of God. according to JS knowing the nature of God is paramount to a saving faith, and so it makes sense that referencing that would be a key to asking and receiving in JS’ mind. Edited December 23, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 23, 2017 Author Posted December 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Again I think he's saying this name is much more than you are suggesting. The "this is a key for you to know how to ask & obtain" clearly indicates this isn't just a name. Likewise is the bit about Adam. Note the endowment was introduced a month after this. Also don’t forget that names in the endowment are used for access. Those names include literal names and figurative examples. All of that is to say that the endowment does not by any means rule out Ahman being the literal name of the Father.
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 23, 2017 Author Posted December 23, 2017 28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Again I think he's saying this name is much more than you are suggesting. The "this is a key for you to know how to ask & obtain" clearly indicates this isn't just a name. Likewise is the bit about Adam. Note the endowment was introduced a month after this. The other part of the 1832 revelation that makes this pretty simple are the two questions: what is the name of God and what is the name of the Son of God. This sounds like we are dealing with two members of the Godhead, not the Godhead and the Son of God. The fact that the term Godhead gets used in the revelation infers that the original question is about the Father and not the Godhead, else why not just use the term Godhead as its readily available.
Bobbieaware Posted December 23, 2017 Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Josh Khinder said: That is true that the nature of God wasn't revealed to Joseph Smith from the Book of Mormon the way Joseph Smith taught it in his latter years , even thou that doesn't make sense if he was communicating with an omniscient God 2 Nephi 9:20 O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it. Just as I suggested at the start, you’re revealing you don’t know as much as you think you do. What in the world has caused you to think just because God knows all things that his prophets are going to instantly and automatically know each and every thing he knows? You appear to not understand that God unfolds his truth to his prophets methodically and incrementally, revealing higher truths upon the firm and sound foundations of previously revealed and digested truths. A good example of this principle in action is when the apostles in the Jerusalem Church caused that the gospel should be preached only to the Jews because the Savior said he was sent to preach the gospel to none except those who were of the house of Israel. It wasn’t until some years later when Peter, as the presiding apostle of the Church, received a revelation from God that the gospel should also be preached to the gentiles. If your take is the correct one, why didn’t Peter know the gospel was going to be preached to the gentiles ahead of time, before receiving the famous powerful and dramatic revelatory vision that revealed to hi, the gospel should be preached to the gentiles as well as to the Jews? Why was Peter unaware of the fact that the gospel should also be carried to the gentiles, and why wasn’t the gospel preached to the gentiles right from the very start of the apostolic era? After all, God knows all things, doesn’t he? Edited December 23, 2017 by Bobbieaware
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 23, 2017 Author Posted December 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Spelling is indeed the main issue. However the things you raise depend upon there being absolute literalism which I think is dubious. Look at the original document. Note it's a copy of something. Second there are redactions in the text. Third we don't have the original. So we should be careful pushing the level of literalism such that a pronounce takes that level of significance. Second, it doesn't say heavenly father is an it. It says the name of God is Awmen but it isn't clear whether this is God in plural or God in singular. But it doesn't say Father anywhere. That's you making an inference (and likely an incorrect one). It doesn't say Jesus is a part of heavenly father. Rather it says Jesus is a part of God, which is pretty normal contemporary doctrine. (Although we usually express it as godhead rather than god) It doesn't say Jesus "is the godhead." It says, "[Son Ahman] is the greatest of all the parts of Awmen which is the Godhead the first born." That is "Godhead the first born" is Ahman not Jesus. So you're twisting it pretty badly there. I suspect there's a word missing between "Godhead" and "the first born" as that's bad English the way it's phrased. Interestingly Orson Pratt's version of this revelation renders it as "Son Ahman--the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." However I suspect Pratt is doing what you are doing and assuming Ahman is the father rather than the godhead. (Or for Pratt the spiritual aether which is the Spirit which allows the unity of the Godhead) The idea that we are part of God is again a fairly common belief if we are one with God. However again if you look at the text, clearly some words are missing. Here it is in the original copy. Q What is is man. A This signifies Sons Awmen. the human family the children of men the greatest parts of Awmen Sons the Son Awmen It's not clear if it's supposed to be that man signifies Sons Awmen as Christ, or if it's the greatest part of Son Awmen i.e. adopted children of Christ ala Mosiah 15. I suspect there's just some corruption here. But it doesn't in any way shape or form say what you are saying it says. As for the holy ghost being AWOL, again just because something's not focused on doesn't mean he doesn't have a doctrine for it. (I honestly don't understand this argument from silence as implying non-existence) Again though, really nothing new here. It may indicate a teaching similar to what Parley P. Pratt mentions where there's a platonic emanation theory for the creation of human spirits. However it's just not clear enough to be sure that's what parts mean. But I think ascribing the person of the Father to God here is just incorrect. Clearly it's talking about the Godhead. Then again... I think you’re onto something: “Ah lish The first Being— supreme intillegence; supreme power; supreme glory= supreme Justice; supreme mercy without begining of life or end of life comprehending all things, seeing all things: the invisible and eter[n]al godhead.” That’s from the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language. You get both the description of an individual and the inclusion of the Godhead. The same thing is probably going on in the 1832 revelation. God the Father’s name is Ahman, but Ahman is also the Godhead, and so we get the clarification immediately following the statement that Son Ahman is the greatest part of Ahman. Edited December 23, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 23, 2017 Author Posted December 23, 2017 (Sorry for all the individual posts). Unfortunately, that puts us right back where we started without a decent theology to explain the conflation of the Father and the Son in Moses 7 and to support their separate existence such as in Moses 2 in which the Father states that the Only Begotten had been with him from the beginning. Back to expansionalist modalism I guess...
Josh Khinder Posted December 23, 2017 Posted December 23, 2017 55 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Just as I suggested at the start, you’re revealing you don’t know as much as you think you do. What in the world has caused you to think just because God knows all things that his prophets are going to instantly and automatically know each and every thing he knows? You appear to not understand that God unfolds his truth to his prophets methodically and incrementally, revealing higher truths upon the firm and sound foundations of previously revealed and digested truths. A good example of this principle in action is when the apostles in the Jerusalem Church caused that the gospel should be preached only to the Jews because the Savior said he was sent to preach the gospel to none except those who were of the house of Israel. It wasn’t until some years later when Peter, as the presiding apostle of the Church, received a revelation from God that the gospel should also be preached to the gentiles. If your take is the correct one, why didn’t Peter know the gospel was going to be preached to the gentiles ahead of time, before receiving the famous powerful and dramatic revelatory vision that revealed to hi, the gospel should be preached to the gentiles as well as to the Jews? Why was Peter unaware of the fact that the gospel should also be carried to the gentiles, and why wasn’t the gospel preached to the gentiles right from the very start of the apostolic era? After all, God knows all things, doesn’t he? Don't the prophets in the Old Testament and Book of Mormon get there information directly from God ? Micah Chapter 5 The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem—In the last days, the remnant of Jacob will triumph gloriously over the Gentiles. 1 Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. 2 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. [700 BC] Micah was written around 700 BC and got his information directly from God, there were two Bethlehem in Israel and God told him the Messiah would be born in the Judean one . Just like Peter who was directed by God to preach to the Gentiles . Matthew 2:5 "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written: Luke 2:4 So Joseph also went up from Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the City of David called Bethlehem, since he was from the house and line of David. King James Bible Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Romans 4: 17(as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; or God speaks about the future as thou it was a past event, since God is omniscient as Micah proves, why not Joseph Smith isn't he capable ? poster removed
clarkgoble Posted December 24, 2017 Posted December 24, 2017 22 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: Also don’t forget that names in the endowment are used for access. Those names include literal names and figurative examples. All of that is to say that the endowment does not by any means rule out Ahman being the literal name of the Father. That's what I'm getting at. This is about names in the masonic, hermetic and theurgical platonic traditions.
mfbukowski Posted December 24, 2017 Posted December 24, 2017 (edited) 23 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I'm more dubious about the Babel parallels depending upon how one takes it. I do think the March 9, 1841 minutes suggest it is tied to the temple though. Quoting: "the Great God has a name By wich He will be Called which is Ahman-- also in asking have Referance to a personage Like Adam for God made Adam Just in his own Image Now this a key for you to know how to ask & obtain." It seems to me that in all the versions of this Ahman revelation you have "Ahman" and then mixed with English words. I suspect this is a masonic like keyword. WVS speculates in the footnote there that this is what Joseph is referring to in the notes to Abraham Fac. 2. Fig 3 is described as "Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed." While it's different from the words used now I think that's its main function. i.e. it's something representing the new name of Rev 2:17 that Joseph focuses in on in various places. (Rev 2:17 is also part of Masonic ritual dealing with the adjunct level of Master Mark Mason) I should note that in the Master Mark rite the name is the first letter of each of several words - an acrostic. That said, I do think Genesis 1 is a temple text and not a proper creation text. There are various scholars coming around to that view of late including Evangelical ones. The first time I saw Facsimile 2 figure 7 I saw it in a way that changes all the usual interpretations I have ever seen of it since then but after attending the temple I instantly saw a connection explaining the signs and tokens as a kind of "semiphore code" of meanings for the signs and tokens. In fact, this figure was my first avatar on this board. It appears to me that this figure is a key to it all. Just tonight though I found this site by Scott Woodward http://www.scottwoodward.org/scripture/PGP_Abraham_facsimile2_interpretation.html which actually illustrates the way I first saw the figure. It is shown below. I have nothing more to say about it until I study it further but I love the fact that the artist saw as I always have. Joseph's interpretation literally says, at least in my way of reading it, that it was intended to be seen as the artist here shows, AND is a key to interpreting temple symbols. My only argument with the artist's interpretation is that the thumb should not be extended- but that is something of course we will not go into. Note that in the "original" there is no implication of the thumb, plus it is not included in the temple. This also relates to some earlier comments I have made in this thread. The classic sectarian interpretation interprets it as an Egyptian of the time may have seen it: Quote A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk's tail, holding aloft a flail. but clearly Joseph did not and would not see it that way for obvious reasons. I have always seen this as a key to the meaning of the temple signs and tokens and nothing can convince me otherwise. Joseph was not "translating"- he was seeing the hieroglyphics anew as he was inspired to see them. I think we have discussed this before and I think you also have a theory along those lines if I remember correctly Joseph said this about the meaning: Quote Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove. The depiction immediately below is the "original version" as it appears in the facsimile, the one below is the artist's interpretation. Notice the differences- those differences are the key to the whole thing. Edited December 24, 2017 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts