General Conference

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

At least insofar as the prophet Joseph Smith is concerned, you’re incorrect about the Holy Ghost taking the form of an actual dove...

“The sign of the dove was instituted before the creation of the world, a witness for the Holy Ghost, and the devil cannot come in the sign of a dove. The Holy Ghost is a personage [a man], and is in the form of a personage [a man]. It does not confine itself to the form of the dove, but in sign [symbol or representation] of the dove. The Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a dove; but the sign of a dove was given to John to signify the truth of the deed, as the dove is an emblem or token of truth and innocence" (TPJS, p. 276). 

It appears that at the baptism of Christ the Holy Ghost generated a foreordained symbolic manifestation of some kind that testified he was present to bear witness to the Savior’s divine sonship. He did not transform himself into a bird.

Hi: I shared with you my belief about the event. In that I cannot be incorrect unless I am misstating what I believe.  It is simply my belief nothing more. I guess it isn't Joseph Smith's belief. I wouldn't say he is incorrect. I am simply sharing what I believe about the event. We believe different things and that is ok. Over the years of the Old Testament the Holy Spirit transformed himself into a pillar of fire, a flame, the shekinah glory above the ark. In Ezekiel He removed himself and that glory from the temple to create what was indeed the great apostasy until Christ returned in person to the temple and the physical visible presence of God was once again there. Again - just what I believe. Nothing more.

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You do a lot of hemming and hawwing, Phil.  Of course, you can try to make your tri-unity out to be some form of monotheism, but the Jews and Muslims will see right through it and consider you as merely a fast-talking tritheist.  The Mormons will just think that you are confused.  My main problem with your attempt to be all things to all men is that it just doesn’t comport with the Bible.

In 4th century A.D. Alexandria, Egypt, Bishop Athanasius was the prime mover in the development of the normative Christian doctrine of the Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed – which goes back to ancient Egyptian religion, in which Amon-Re-Ptah subsume all gods, all gods being three, and three being one.  According to modern scholars like Klaus Baer and Jan Assmann, not only was the Christian Trinity developed at Alexandria (Harry Wolfson agreed on the place, but maintained that the Christians got the idea more immediately from Philo Judaeus [Philo: Foundation of Religious Philosophy in Judaism , Christianity, and Islam]), but Ptah the Creator God/ Chaos (Memphis), is both male & female.  All the gods arose from him, are joined to him, and are him.  the Christian Trinity and the notion of hypostatic union was taken from ancient Egyptian religion.  However, Assmann argues for the expression of the Egyptian trinity or “triunity” at least as early as Middle Kingdom Egypt.[1]  There is nothing new in this assertion, and it is usually associated with one or more items from an entire constellation of common Christian and Egyptian religious terms.[2]  In addition, as the Muslims say, "God does not beget and is not begotten."

[1] Assmann, Search for God, 177-180,238-239.  Cf. S. Morenz, Egyptian Religion, 253-257,351; John Wilson in Frankfort, ed., Before Philosophy (Penguin/ Pelican, 1957), 75, and Thorkild Jacobsen in Before Philosophy, 142-148, both from H. Frankfort, et al., eds., The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (Chicago, 1946); James P. Allen, Middle Egyptian, 44-45.

[2] Note the frequent adaptation of ancient Egyptian terminology to describe Christian concepts in John Gee, “Some Neglected Aspects of Egypt’s Conversion to Christianity,” in M. Ayad, ed., Coptic Culture: Past, Present and Future (Coptic Orthodox Church Centre, 2012), 48-54.

Once again, I am not trying to have a debate here. I was merely responding to your message that I am the only evangelical who believes what I believe. I wasn't trying to state what Jews, Muslims, or Mormons believe. I thought I must have misstated what I believe in a way that confused you as to my normative Evangelical belief about the trinity. I do not look to the creeds to form my views. Once again I am not a creedal Evangelical. I studied the history of the creeds and reject them as determinative for me. Over my 2.5 years on this forum I keep saying that and you all keep telling me where my belief comes from - the creeds!?  I am not a creedal Christian. There, I have said it again. There is nothing in the Apostle's Creed that I object to; but I join the millions and millions of non-creedal Christians in the world, as primarily found in the Evangelical community of Christians. I am not a baptismal regenerationalist so I reject that in the Nicene Creed as well. I simply ignore the creeds. I don't take my notion of the trinity from Egyptian beliefs. I also am not a trinitarian in the sense of requiring a belief in it to be a Christian. I believe you know there are many different trinitarian perspectives within non-LDS Christianity. Over several posts I have merely been trying to share what I believe for no other purpose than to do that. I am a pretty normal Evangelical. I think sometimes that you all jump into a different mode whenever the "T" word is used. and revert back to the "its in the creed" and to a form of an attack mode. It triggers something in the LDS Christian.  Since I am not creedal, never was, and never will be creedal, I don't relate to what you are saying. I am a "the trinity is an important and confusing concept in Christianity kind of a guy." It has been made a non-belief in Mormonism. It has been made an essential belief in some non-LDS Christians. I am in neither camp. I believe what I believe just as many of you differ from each other about a whole bunch of beliefs, apparently even the First Vision. Non-LDS Christianity is not a monolithic community, except in an adherence to the essentials. Evangelicalism is not a monolithic community in the same way. The LDS Christian community is not a monolithic community either. We each have a lot of variance in our faith community; sometimes as much as between our faith communities.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That word "essence" or "substance " is the major problem- it comes from pagan Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle.  Then picked up by Philo, Thomas Aquinas etc. And like Bob says, Plato and Pythagoras got all that stuff from the Egyptians.

Transubstantiation and Alchemy all come from the same source as well.

It's undefinable, and therefore impossible to hang up meaning on.

We define the unifying principal as purpose, and love, as a human family is "one", or any group can be "one in purpose".  Heck,  any business is "one in purpose", any collective activity can be explained that way, even a baseball team. We know what that means.

That's another place where pragmatism fits well with our views.

It's based in teleology instead of undefinable metaphysics.

My source book for my understanding of the trinity is the Bible. Nada mas! You all keep insisting that you know what I believe and my source material better than I do. You would have a fit if I did that. You believe what you do from your own scripture (revelatory) sources, right? When you want to find evidence for it outside of your scriptures, some  (Talmage, Nibley, etc) revert back to the Patristic fathers to show a historical thread, in Orthodox Christianity for example in validating baptism for the dead, or pre-mortal spirits. That always confuses me. The preconciliar Patristic fathers are the ones who helped cause the great apostasy right? Why validate your beliefs through them? This is confusing for me. It seems that some in the LDS tradition want to be part of the great Christian church history tradition, while at the same time making a principle doctrine that all that needed restored by Joseph Smith.

President Hinckley made it clear, "Our faith, our knowledge is not based on ancient tradition, the creeds which came of a finite understanding and out of the almost infinite discussions of men trying to arrive at a definition of the risen Christ. Our faith, our knowledge comes of the witness of a prophet in this dispensation who saw before him the great God of the universe and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ." Your beliefs come from your own prophet's revelations, right? No one in the LDS theology formation period of the 1830s and 40s mined the Patristic fathers to come up with LDS beliefs, right? You believe in direct revelation from God to your prophets, right? I think the Pratts started a trend that to some degree continues today. Of course it doesn't matter what I think. I know that.

In the exact same way,  my beliefs come from the revelation of the Scripture found in the Bible, the primary source of God's revelation in this dispensation (according to my beliefs). Even though our conclusions differ, our source documents are quite similar, the revealed will of God in this dispensation.  I don't mean to hijack this interesting thread about your General Conference, through which you may receive additional revelation. I know how important that is to you. I did, however feel it important to once again state, I am a Biblicist in my hermeneutic. I place no creedal authority in the creeds. I look to them for no guidance, no source of my beliefs, any more than you do. I hope that makes sense.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Navidad

[pogi]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

A question about the new symbol. Does this mean Moroni is no longer to be used as a symbol (like the term Mormon)? Or is it just a new official symbol and Moroni is still ok.

Poor guy drops his trumpet one time and he loses his job for it!

Moroni will always be a symbol, but he won’t be an official symbol for the church.

Edited April 5, 2020 by pogi

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Poor guy drops his trumpet one time and he loses his job for it!

Moroni will always be a symbol, but he won’t symbolize the church.

anytime you see a news thing about the Church they always, always have the SLC Temple, I wonder if that will change?

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't understand your question? Don't you believe that Heavenly Father spoke at Christ's baptism, while the Spirit descended as a dove, and Christ in his human flesh was baptized physically by immersion? How is that not the Godhead present in different forms (a voice, a theophany as a dove, and a fully human being)? I don't understand the deceit part or implication.

Perhaps I misunderstood your use of the term different forms. I was imagining something else, for example, like the Holy Spirit walking as a deer or the Father or Son appearing as a burning bush. Sorry. 

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

 

Well Elder Bednar is my 13th cousin and I am not even a member. I guess that settles the nepotism thing!!! 

I am a second cousin a couple time removed from a previous apostle. Still waiting for my gravy train to pull in

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Neither Sister Gui nor I. Shows how much we pay attention, I guess.

My friend and her husband hadn’t heard it either. Her husband and boys watched the first half before realizing something was different and inviting her in. 

[InCognitus]

My wife loved the story about feeding the chickens.   But she says watching conference talks spoken to an empty room is not the same.  She says they should have added a laugh track.

[Bernard Gui]

Elder Bednar’s temple growth graphic was remarkable. I wonder how the huge gaps in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East will be filled. I was moved by his emotional response to the expansion of temple presence around the world. He usually seems somewhat restrained. 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

.................... I simply ignore the creeds. I don't take my notion of the trinity from Egyptian beliefs...............................

I didn't think you did, and did not say that.  What I was saying, and what you missed is that normative Christianity (yes there is such a thing) utterly rejects the LDS POV -- and vociferously attacks it as heresy.  The FV is about two persons, as different as you and I are different persons, appearing to Joe Smith in the grove in 1820.

Normative Christianity is a pagan belief system derived from pagan religion and then justified through complex Greek philosophy completely alien to the Bible.  I was joking that your apparent rejection of normative Christianity makes you a good candidate for LDS baptism -- not that I thought for a moment that you would actually consider going along with such a notion -- and you missed the joke.  You need to lighten up, Phil. 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Elder Bednar’s temple growth graphic was remarkable. I wonder how the huge gaps in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East will be filled. I was moved by his emotional response to the expansion of temple presence around the world. 

I've been saying for years now, Mongolia should get a Temple! i can't even imagine travelling to Hong Kong to go, yuck!

[Garden Girl]

So here I am, alone in my den... having just listened to Pres Nelson speak from the Sacred Grove, issuing a Proclamation to the World regarding the restoration... and then standing by myself. white hanky in hand, tears on cheeks, as I joined many of you in a solemn but joyful Hosanna Shout...  I did not feel alone...

I have a lovely oval picture frame from 1972 holding wildflowers picked from the Sacred Grove,  and the Hill Cumorah, 48 years ago, and given to my folks by their Bishop when my dad was Ward Clerk...

GG

[Raingirl]

1 minute ago, Garden Girl said:

So here I am, alone in my den... having just listened to Pres Nelson speak from the Sacred Grove, issuing a Proclamation to the World regarding the restoration... and then standing by myself. white hanky in hand, tears on cheeks, as I joined many of you in a solemn but joyful Hosanna Shout...  I did not feel alone...

I have a lovely oval picture frame from 1972 holding wildflowers picked from the Sacred Grove,  and the Hill Cumorah, 48 years ago, and given to my folks by their Bishop when my dad was Ward Clerk...

GG

Your experience mirrors mine.  The lack of members in attendance, the emptiness of Temple Square, had me feeling disconnected and alone in a way I haven’t previously felt during conference. But during the Hosanna Shout, I felt a sudden and overwhelming sense of connection. 

[Bernard Gui]

How will the Muslim countries be opened to missionary and temple work? I remember having the same thoughts about Communist bloc countries during the years before they were liberated, especially my ancestral home, Poland. Yet here we are...a son having served his mission there and a good friend serving as one of the first Polish mission presidents; however, this seems to even more insurmountable. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi: I shared with you my belief about the event. In that I cannot be incorrect unless I am misstating what I believe.  It is simply my belief nothing more. I guess it isn't Joseph Smith's belief. I wouldn't say he is incorrect. I am simply sharing what I believe about the event. We believe different things and that is ok. Over the years of the Old Testament the Holy Spirit transformed himself into a pillar of fire, a flame, the shekinah glory above the ark. In Ezekiel He removed himself and that glory from the temple to create what was indeed the great apostasy until Christ returned in person to the temple and the physical visible presence of God was once again there. Again - just what I believe. Nothing more.

Remain calm.

I said nothing about what you believe. Go back and read it carefully. I'm not going to bother quoting it but you said that Evangelicals believed in " essence".

I said there was a problem with that belief, and detailed why.

But it is interesting that y'all must have rejected the Nicene Creed.

https://www.unitedbethel.com/about/a-brief-anabaptist-mennonite-history/

"The Anabaptists subscribed wholeheartedly to the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. On such fundamental matters as the doctrine of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, human depravity, the new birth, and the literal return of the Lord Jesus, the Anabaptists were in agreement with the Reformers. "

Edited April 5, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Once again, I am not trying to have a debate here. I was merely responding to your message that I am the only evangelical who believes what I believe. I wasn't trying to state what Jews, Muslims, or Mormons believe. I thought I must have misstated what I believe in a way that confused you as to my normative Evangelical belief about the trinity. I do not look to the creeds to form my views. Once again I am not a creedal Evangelical. I studied the history of the creeds and reject them as determinative for me. Over my 2.5 years on this forum I keep saying that and you all keep telling me where my belief comes from - the creeds!?  I am not a creedal Christian. There, I have said it again. There is nothing in the Apostle's Creed that I object to; but I join the millions and millions of non-creedal Christians in the world, as primarily found in the Evangelical community of Christians. I am not a baptismal regenerationalist so I reject that in the Nicene Creed as well. I simply ignore the creeds. I don't take my notion of the trinity from Egyptian beliefs. I also am not a trinitarian in the sense of requiring a belief in it to be a Christian. I believe you know there are many different trinitarian perspectives within non-LDS Christianity. Over several posts I have merely been trying to share what I believe for no other purpose than to do that. I am a pretty normal Evangelical. I think sometimes that you all jump into a different mode whenever the "T" word is used. and revert back to the "its in the creed" and to a form of an attack mode. It triggers something in the LDS Christian.  Since I am not creedal, never was, and never will be creedal, I don't relate to what you are saying. I am a "the trinity is an important and confusing concept in Christianity kind of a guy." It has been made a non-belief in Mormonism. It has been made an essential belief in some non-LDS Christians. I am in neither camp. I believe what I believe just as many of you differ from each other about a whole bunch of beliefs, apparently even the First Vision. Non-LDS Christianity is not a monolithic community, except in an adherence to the essentials. Evangelicalism is not a monolithic community in the same way. The LDS Christian community is not a monolithic community either. We each have a lot of variance in our faith community; sometimes as much as between our faith communities.

Ok

Didn't see this

I apologize 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi: I shared with you my belief about the event. In that I cannot be incorrect unless I am misstating what I believe.  It is simply my belief nothing more. I guess it isn't Joseph Smith's belief. I wouldn't say he is incorrect. I am simply sharing what I believe about the event. We believe different things and that is ok. Over the years of the Old Testament the Holy Spirit transformed himself into a pillar of fire, a flame, the shekinah glory above the ark. In Ezekiel He removed himself and that glory from the temple to create what was indeed the great apostasy until Christ returned in person to the temple and the physical visible presence of God was once again there. Again - just what I believe. Nothing more.

I would differ with you in this regard: I believe God does not transform himself into those kinds of things. They are only outward signs of God’s presence. Leading us to believe he can transform himself into a burning bush, a pillar of fire, a dove, a wind, a voice, or any other material object would be to deceive us of his true nature, IMO. He is an exalted man with body and parts like us. When we see him, that is what we see. 

[Stargazer]

31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

How will the Muslim countries be opened to missionary and temple work? I remember having the same thoughts about Communist bloc countries during the years before they were liberated, especially my ancestral home, Poland. Yet here we are...a son having served his mission there and a good friend serving as one of the first Polish mission presidents; however, this seems to even more insurmountable. 

I would say that missionary work to the Muslim countries will have to wait until after Christ returns in glory, since it is apparent that they will be heavily involved in attempting to conquer Israel when Christ sets foot on the Mount of Olives. During that time they will probably be extremely resistant to Christians generally. Without divine intervention there will be no proselyting there.

But God may provide intervention. 

[Bernard Gui]

Uh oh. There’s that Joseph Smith hymn again!

[Scott Lloyd]

The choir is singing “Praise to the Man.”  YES!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Uh oh. There’s that Joseph Smith hymn again!

I was starting to get worried.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Uh oh. There’s that Joseph Smith hymn again!

 

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The choir is singing “Praise to the Man.”  YES!

One of my favorite hymns.  Inspirational and true in doctrine.

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Uh oh. There’s that Joseph Smith hymn again!

The best rendition of "Scotland the Brave" there is!

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The best rendition of "Scotland the Brave" there is!

Actually, “Praise to the Man” predates “Scotland the Brave,” whose lyrics weren’t written until about 1950.