Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
02/05/2003, 14:41:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
If you mean lds-mormon.com, then this is the right place. Post away, it's been a while since we've had a real Mormon topic here.
|
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/05/2003, 15:14:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
The great I am is correctly interpreted as: "I am what I will be." I also have never seen the transliteration of the four-letter name as Ehyeh. The letters are: Yod "y" Hei "H" Vav "v" Hei "H" I would pronounce it Yahveh. The second h receives no additional sound because it is at the end of the word. But I am limited to Sephardic Hebrew.What confuses me is the presentation of Mormonism as a Book of Mormon people, yet Doctrine and Covenants seems to be the Real mormon book used. If you are interested in posting a dissenting view, simply write one and post. Ramona
|
Posted by: james ®
02/05/2003, 16:39:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
Ramona,Actually, Mormons DON'T really rely upon any fixed book, or other printed material from the past. They might make use of it to illustrate a point, or presuade listeners, but really they depend upon WHATEVER THE CURRENT LEADERSHIP SAYS! Or perhaps what the leadership has to say about scripture or any doctrine taught by the leadership in the past. Or, they just provide the church with fresh material on occation which might overturn any previous understanding the church may have had! This is one of the primary points of disagreement that other people have about Mormons. That Mormons believe they have contact with God, and that they have the authority to issue new scripture, teach new teachings, issue new policies, alter practices. Its not a stagant church, which DOES give Mormons a certain amount of power. The universe changes all the time, and so does our understanding. To be fair to other churches, religions, educational institutions, and scientific knowledge...those are also always changing along with the universe. By the time that something goes into print its already outdated information, unless you understand god/or the universe as constantly refreshing the information printed in a 'living book'. So, yes it might be a bit confusing to understand Mormon ideas concerning scripture, authority and the nature of the universe or god...
|
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/06/2003, 08:47:34
Author Profile Mail author
|
James,So they are really an Ensign people ;-). You mention that the mormon people, especially GA's have contact with God. What I find terribly interesting is that once upon a time G.A.'s had face-to-face contact with God. Has the restored priesthood been taken from earth again because of darkness? I will quote Froggie, "Perhaps that warm feeling inside your belly is the sausage you had last night for dinner." That warm feeling is the "revelation" that modern-day prophets now receive. What happened to personal visits from God? What happened with the great visits of Jesus walking with Joseph F. Smith down the temple halls? Information may be refreshed, but God is unchanging....wait another update on that. Ramona
|
Posted by: james ®
02/07/2003, 18:12:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
Ramona,I don't think that LDS general authorities even make 1800 call collect calls to god these days...Let alone personal visits.(visualize 'carrot top' telling church authorities to dial down the middle) Maybe they get 'virtual' visits from god on the internet. Its possible as they have been using screen listings of names to fascilitate baptisms for the dead! I am sorry if I gave you a false impression, I wasn't trying to support anything lds...
james
|
Posted by: JAK ®
02/06/2003, 09:31:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
james,You have just described in this post some of the elements at work in what I have characterized as doctrinal shift. You are quite on the right track as you analyze various elements which collide in ways that result in official doctrinal shifts for religious organizations. It is all a great study for people with sufficient education to have an intellectual disconnect from various doctrines and dogmas. A nice post to motivate thought! JAK
|
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/06/2003, 12:51:44
Author Profile Mail author
|
Ah James,
You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Mormons indeed do not rely upon any fixed book, or other printed material from the past. They merely claim, in commercials, to do so.I find it marvelous and a wonder to see shifts based on leanings from the G.A.'s. I also see it in regular people mormons. One finds them grabbing a few words and running with them. Ah, but this is also not unique to Mormons. We find the Jehovah's Witnesses taking scripture about blood and running with that regarding transfusions. Funny though, a Jew at most would only be ritually unclean until the end of the day. Speaking of Jews, we find the inability to eat swordfish because of the laws of Kosher. Swordfish transition regarding scales making them ritually unclean beasts. But I digress. The point is that churches change because there are flaws in doctrine that was before them. Changes become necessary for continued faith, as the masses of humanity evolve. Ramona
|
Posted by: james ®
02/12/2003, 17:55:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
Ramona,
You state the following, "Funny though, a Jew at most would only be ritually unclean until the end of the day." I assume that this has to do with the various statements reguarding what is an "Abomination" or not. Being raised LDS, I was taught that abominations were actually sins...but from what I understand there is a really big difference technically! So, what is the definition of an "abomination"? What is the definition of a "sin"? (from either a Jewish, christian, or mormon definition) Thanks!
|
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/12/2003, 18:40:51
Author Profile Mail author
|
Isn't the abomi(nation) where the famous snowman lives?What the Torah calls a "Toevah" (tav vav ayin bet hey. from the root "taav"-tav ayin bet) is usually translated as "abomination". The term is typically used in the Torah proper (the first five Books of the Bible) to refer to extremely serious offenses which completely undermine the basis of any conceivably sound religious or moral society from G-d's standpoint. Among the offenses are male homosexual acts, idolatry, and child sacrifice. Idolatry and child sacrifice are particularly identified with the Canaanites, and are cited as grounds for their being dispossessed by the People of Israel in the Land of Israel after the Exodus from Egypt. In the Prophets, the meaning is extended to include moral depavity (such as murder and oppression of the poor and weak, and sexual offenses such as infidelity and promiscuity) on the part of those meticulous in their ritual observance (particularly in terms of bringing Offerings to the Temple). It must be stressed that the Prophets are not in the least opposed to meticulous ritual observance. They simply feel that those who are so careful in these matters should be equally careful in terms of interpersonal mitzvot ("commandments"), which are also mandated by the Torah.
Then there is this quick definition:
"Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord: "
You want me to define sin from any of the three perspectives? I'll pick Jewish. "A shot that falls away from the mark, or a fall from the path." It's a fall away from your potential. I picked one, now it's your turn. Ramona
|
Posted by: bosquero ®
02/06/2003, 11:20:23
Author Profile Mail author
|
The Hebrew phrase which you profess to know how to interpret is "ehyeh asher ehyeh," and so should be translated either, "I am that I am" or "I will be whom I will be," or whatever, but at least with repetition of whatever tense one assignes to "ehyeh." The Septuagint read it as present tense, there being no true present tense of the verb h-w-h extant. Bosquero
|
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/06/2003, 12:10:39
Author Profile Mail author
|
http://www.morasha.it/zehut/fa01_ehye.html Aleph hei yud hei This may help you to understand my perspective.http://www.bluethread.com/ehyeh.htm Here are also some possibilities. http://www.shalomctr.org/html/torah51.html And then there are the words of the Good Rabbi David Auerbach: EHYEH ASHER EHYEH is easy to translate but difficult to understand. Perhaps it is an idiomatic expression which means "I will continue to be." God is saying to Moses: "Everything in the world which you experience is temporary, limited, finite. It comes into existence, it grows and flourishes for a while, and then it deteriorates and dies. There are no exceptions. I, however, am different. I am without beginning and without end. I wasn't born and I will never die. I continually exist. My power never diminishes. Thus I am able to bring to pass anything and everything I choose." God, therefore, is eternally existent. He is the cause of all other things or beings that exist for a limited time. He is always there. Contrast this with those who were considered as gods in the ancient world. They were not without beginning and without end; they were not unlimited in their power; they were not constantly available. They were the figments of human imagination and were thus limited by human imagination. Since the I am is one of the hidden meanings of God, and the blending of Jewish Theology and mysticism, is it Kabbalah that you are interested in? Then it is defined as only linguistically related to the root.
The most important of God's Names is the four-letter Name represented by the Hebrew letters Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. Linguistically, it is related to the Hebrew root Heh-Yod-Heh (to be), and reflects the fact that God's existence is eternal. In scripture, this Name is used when discussing God's relation with human beings, and when emphasizing his qualities of lovingkindness and mercy. It is frequently shortened to Yah (Yod-Heh), Yahu or Yeho (Yod-Heh-Vav), especially when used in combination with names or phrases, as in Yehoshua (Joshua, meaning "the Lord is my Salvation"), Eliyahu (Elijah, meaning "my God is the Lord"), and Halleluyah ("praise the Lord").
The first Name used for God in scripture is Elohim. In form, the word is a masculine plural of a word that looks feminine in the singular (Eloha). The same word (or, according to Rambam, a homonym of it) is used to refer to princes, judges, other gods, and other powerful beings. This Name is used in scripture when emphasizing God's might, His creative power, and his attributes of justice and rulership. Variations on this name include El, Eloha, Elohai (my God) and Elohaynu (our God). The most important of God's Names is the four-letter Name represented by the Hebrew letters Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh (YHVH). It is often referred to as the Ineffable Name, the Unutterable Name or the Distinctive Name. Linguistically, it is related to the Hebrew root Heh-Yod-Heh (to be), and reflects the fact that God's existence is eternal. In scripture, this Name is used when discussing God's relation with human beings, and when emphasizing his qualities of lovingkindness and mercy. It is frequently shortened to Yah (Yod-Heh), Yahu or Yeho (Yod-Heh-Vav), especially when used in combination with names or phrases, as in Yehoshua (Joshua, meaning "the Lord is my Salvation"), Eliyahu (Elijah, meaning "my God is the Lord"), and Halleluyah ("praise the Lord"). The first Name used for God in scripture is Elohim. In form, the word is a masculine plural of a word that looks feminine in the singular (Eloha). The same word (or, according to Rambam, a homonym of it) is used to refer to princes, judges, other gods, and other powerful beings. This Name is used in scripture when emphasizing God's might, His creative power, and his attributes of justice and rulership. Variations on this name include El, Eloha, Elohai (my God) and Elohaynu (our God). Does this help you to understand? Ramona
|
Posted by: Martin ®
02/08/2003, 04:13:52
Author Profile Mail author
|
Let's also be honest and acknowledge that there's no legitimate reason to believe God ever said anything like that, or indeed anything at all.
- Martin
© 2003 Martin. All rights reserved. Copying, quoting, or citing this copyrighted work in whole or part without the written permission of the author is prohibited. Violation of this copyright, even for personal or not-for-profit use, is a serious criminal offense and is subject to federal prosecution.
|
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/10/2003, 18:18:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically. In all actuality, as Bosqo knows, the name of God is simply breathing sounds. Perhaps Moses only heard his own breath. Then if you look at another name of God, Adonai. You will find an interesting meaning. "I do not know." Again, I'm not sure what you are referring. Ramona
|
Posted by: bosquero ®
02/08/2003, 11:19:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
Ramona, I don't want to seem rude and arrogant, but I have a Master's in biblical Hebrew, and as you might imagine, I have read the whole Hebrew Bible. That doesn't mean that I've done more than scratch the surface of all the scientific, historical, and literary problems of the text, but it does mean I am aware of most of what you reported, though I thank you for it. --Bosquero
|
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/10/2003, 18:12:00
Author Profile Mail author
|
It is a rare occasion to know someone with any understanding of Hebrew. Excellent for you!! Education and more specifically a Master's is not arrogant. Bravo for you old man. I assumed, incorrectly. My apologies. Ramona
|
Posted by: bosquero ®
02/06/2003, 11:24:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
The Hebrew phrase which you profess to know how to interpret is "ehyeh asher ehyeh," and so should be translated either, "I am that I am" or "I will be whom I will be," or whatever, but at least with repetition of whatever tense one assignes to "ehyeh." The Septuagint read it as present tense, there being no true present tense of the verb h-w-h extant. Bosquero
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
02/05/2003, 15:44:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bosquero inquires: Who runs this website, and how would one go about posting a dissenting view? Vicki replies: rpcman, and it looks like you already have!Welcome to our humble, arrogant, peaceful, contentious, educational, home in the little e-box.
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 15:45:03
|
Posted by: bosquero ®
02/06/2003, 11:30:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thankyou, Ms. Jersey! But I mean something like a twenty pager. --Bosquero
|
Posted by: Ramona ®
02/06/2003, 15:30:36
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bosquero,You may want to start posting by issue, rather than a 20+ page thesis. I look forward to seeing your work. Ramona
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
02/05/2003, 23:18:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'd be interested to see this post as well. Let me just say that the doctrine of Jesus=Jevovah could easily have come late in the game, even if there were apparent linking between Jesus and Jehovah before that. This is because, early in the game, Smith might have based his ideas on the Trinity, in which case Jesus=God=HG=Jehovah=Elohim. I can make a good case that the BoM was written by a believer in the Trinity. Such a belief would unsuprisingly have Jesus peforming acts peformed by any of those entities--but is not the same as a belief that Jesus is Jehovah, but not God the Father.-Dan
Modified by nofaith at Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 23:27:42
|
Posted by: bosquero ®
02/07/2003, 12:25:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
I replied yesterday, but I can't find it. I'll try again:
When discussing individual members of the trinity--particularly the distinction between the Father and the Son, the basis is laid in the question, why and how a son? Why a new name for a manifestation of the same being. If the two gods both existed without beginning, then a case could be made for their indivisibility, but if not, they must be distinguished. The idea of the "Begotten Son" derives from Ps 2:7, and is given various interpretations in the NT, but Smith adhered to that of Hebrews, where it is equated with the priestly ordination of Ps 110:4. Both are taken to refer to the premortal apotheosis of Jesus.
So there are two gods, one who was always God and one who became God by the action of the first. "And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fullness at the first" (D&C 93:14--May 6,1833). Any claim that Smith ever doubted the distinction between the Father and the Son must reckon with his use of the phrase "Only-Begotten"--that is, the distinction between the God who begat and the God who was begotten.
Mohammed attempted a compromise between Jews and Christians when he accepted the virgin birth of Jesus but rejected the trinitarian doctrine that Allah could beget or be begotten. He understood well that it did not refer to the incarnation.
|
Posted by: Martin ®
02/06/2003, 03:50:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bosquero,You write: "The thesis that Jehovah was only lately assigned the role of Jesus seems to be a flagship issue with this website." What website? Vicki clearly thinks you mean our own, but that's utterly preposterous! You should have provided a link to the site and page in question and provided far more elaboration and discussion. You need to do that now. Furthermore, your assertion doesn't even make logical sense! "Jehovah 'assigned the role' of Jesus"?? What does that even mean? Sheesh! I smell an extremist.
- Martin
© 2003 Martin. All rights reserved. Copying, quoting, or citing this copyrighted work in whole or part without the written permission of the author is prohibited. Violation of this copyright, even for personal or not-for-profit use, is a serious criminal offense and is subject to federal prosecution.
Modified by Martin at Thu, Feb 06, 2003, 04:23:05
|
Posted by: bosquero ®
02/06/2003, 11:49:16
Author Profile Mail author
|
Well, for starters, Kirkland had to conclude that Christ had been dropped from the trinity in order to reconcile with his thesis the fact that the original temple ceremony had Jehovah answer to Elohim. But like I said, it would take a dissertation to unscramble the data as Kirkland presented it. --Bosquero
|
Posted by: rpcman ®
02/06/2003, 18:39:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
Joseph Smith dropped the idea of the trinity before creating the Nauvoo endowment. Kirkland did not "conclude that Christ had been dropped from the trinity." Read the essay again. And while you're at it take a look at BYU's own history professor Thomas Alexander's essay on the changing nature/names of your church's God(s). http://www.lds-mormon.com/changod.shtml
|
Posted by: bosquero ®
02/07/2003, 11:22:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
1)T. Alexander entirely ignores the temple creation ceremony.
2)I haven't seen a shred of evidence that Smith abandoned trinitarian doctrine, in the sense of a triune godhead.
3)Kirkland writes as follows: "We have seen that he used the title Elohim in various modes, none of which included Jesus, and he also used the name Jehovah to refer the [sic] Father. Given all of these possibilities, to Joseph's endowment ceremony, then, [sic] did not seem to include Jesus among the creation gods."
Regardless of a trinity, Smith treats Jesus as the creation God throughout his scripture, from Mosiah till D&C 132. For Kirkland to now suppose that Jesus is not the creation God, namely, Jehovah, is marvelously far fetched. And that's what he has to do in the face of the evidence of the endowment ceremony.
|
Posted by: rpcman ®
02/07/2003, 21:12:05
Author Profile Mail author
|
1) Alexander ignoring the temple ceremony doesn't change his view of the evolution of the Mormon concept of God. Nor did I ever say anything that implied otherwise.
2) What Smith abandoned was the trinity. (Read the Lectures on Faith from the 1835 D&C for his earlier views on the Godhead including his take at the time that the three were one spirit--not just one in spirit.) He kept a Godhood of three personages and the concepts of those three evolved and grew bodies during his lifetime.
3) Again, Kirkland doesn't drop Christ from the trinity as you falsely asserted a couple messages back. The fact still remains that the original endowment ceremony said nothing about Jehovah = Jesus Christ.On another note, your original scripture selection of D&C 29 is a good one to show how Joseph Smith didn't have a clear understanding of which God he was talking about in his early revelations as his concept of God had not yet been settled in his own mind. Don't read 29:1 and stop. Keep reading and you'll find that the "Great I AM" of verse 1 had an "Only Begotten Son" in verse 42 and 46. Whoops! It just goes to show you that the early Joseph Smith cared less for consistency and coherency than he did for tossing around familiar biblical terms that made him sound to the gullible like God was speaking through him.
|
Posted by: bosquero ®
02/08/2003, 11:10:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
No, Smith had a crystal clear idea of what he was talking about, but like Kirkland, you have no background in his theology--the confusion is in your head, not Smith's. And you're evading the issue. I made a clear point which you are hiding from: Christ is consistently the Creator and Lawgiver--one has to naively assume (as Kirkland always does) that Smith's theology flipflops on a daily basis to assert that the creator God of the endowment, Jehovah, is not Christ.
As for the fact Smith has no problem making Christ his own son, this is a subtlety inherited from both the NT and the Protestant tradition: After the resurrection (and in fact, before his birth, according to Hebrews), Christ assumed all the powers of his Father, became his equal, and spoke for him, so that when he spoke as the Supreme Being, he could in fact refer to the Son as his Only Begotten. That is the whole idea of the trinity--it is not polytheistic as Kirkland seems to think--you have distinct individual perfectly united in purpose.
But this is why it will be almost impossible to treat the problem in bits and pieces--you have to be educated from scratch. Are you going to maintain that Jesus did not claim to be the I AM, or that that is not the intent of Rev 1:8? That is what Jehovah's witnesses do, but the position is considered heretical by mainstream Christianity. If you ever hope to understand the intent of Smith's doctrine you'll have to get some background in 19th Century Protestantism. Till you do, I'll keep chipping away at Kirkland's nonsense. --Bosquero
|
Posted by: Brass Tacks ®
02/08/2003, 13:11:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
Borquero,
I would like to get in on this conversation. Where can I find the Kirkland paper?
Brass Tacks
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
02/08/2003, 14:49:05
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Bos, I am still trying to figure out just exactly what you're getting at here beginning with your first post since your comments seem fragmented to me, but it could just be a reception problem on my end. I see a statement in your opening post that doesn't square but I'll get round to it eventually. First, I have to say that your barking up the wrong tree with rpcman. Having said that, let me try to find a starting place and hope you'll talk to me. It has been quite some time since I've engaged in discussion of the Mormon faith here though I've logged in many hours doing so in the past. You state above that Kirkland and rpcman have no background in Smith's theology. Please state briefly the foundations, principles, and origins of Smith's theology. If you're willing, we'll go from there. Vicki p.s. Bos, your nickname is Bos. Wear it with grace. Get your personal info off your profile do you want some lunatic from the internet showing up on your doorstep?
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Sat, Feb 08, 2003, 17:41:12
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
02/07/2003, 00:23:56
Author Profile Mail author
|
What exactly are you getting at here? Are you pissed off about the writings on the other links that rpcman provided? If it takes a dissertation to "unscramble" them, then by all means, have at it. We'll read it!I have this uncomfortable feeling that you're here to insinuate that the information in the links is fraudulent while implying that challenging them would take too much effort. No effort is too great for a worthy challenge. If your cause is worthy, have at it! And go back into your profile and remove your personal information, are you nuts or something? Vicki p.s. I gave you a nick name, you have to stay.
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Fri, Feb 07, 2003, 00:27:57
|
Posted by: bosquero ®
02/07/2003, 11:36:19
Author Profile Mail author
|
Do I get to know what it is? Interestingly, many suppose that the reason Moses asked for God's name was to be able to conjure him--or in a less mystical context, pray to him, i.e., with the correct name.
|
Posted by: Logan ®
02/07/2003, 10:51:43
Author Profile Mail author
|
How easy is it, in all of this, to see that men simply created a religion? To see that these men were simply trying to sort through all of their ideas -- to sift through the endless posibilities inherent in fantasy, in an effort to create a belief system that they enjoyed -- is purely obvious.It is absolutely mind-boggling to think that some people out there actually assign Mormonism, or any religion for that matter, any relationship at all with some kind of supernatural "God"-figure. These religions of ours only have anything to do with us. And yet I really do still "like" Mormons, generally, and good people everywhere who truly want to do good. Logan
Modified by Logan at Fri, Feb 07, 2003, 10:54:47
|
Posted by: bosquero ®
02/07/2003, 11:31:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think that the main difference between religion and the modern science of ethics, is that religion supposes there is an absolute right and wrong, which can be arrived at by excercising the inner conciousness, whereas ethics supposes that human reason alone must arrive at some relative common good.
|
Posted by: Brass Tacks ®
02/07/2003, 14:38:56
Author Profile Mail author
|
You didn't mention pure fraud--which is a deliberate deception practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. (webster says)
Brass Tacks
|
Posted by: Martin ®
02/07/2003, 22:32:38
Author Profile Mail author
|
You are gravely mistaken, sir.Having studied ethics and moral philosophy, I can assure you that the field certainly does not represent a single position as you quite unjustifiably assert. Instead, the student of ethics investigates all of the manifold alternatives that various human civilizations, cultures, and individuals are known to have favored, which even in broad terms covers many different, competing perspectives. That certainly includes systems of moral absolutism, some of which take a strictly secular form. Also, you are mistaken in your assertions about religion. Not all religions suppose the existence of an absolute right and wrong, and there can be no question that not even all of those that do, allow their co-religionists to employ their own "inner consciousness" to decide moral issues but instead require hard and strict obedience to a given code. How can you not be in possession of this rather widely possessed knowledge?
- Martin
© 2003 Martin. All rights reserved. Copying, quoting, or citing this copyrighted work in whole or part without the written permission of the author is prohibited. Violation of this copyright, even for personal or not-for-profit use, is a serious criminal offense and is subject to federal prosecution.
Modified by Martin at Fri, Feb 07, 2003, 22:34:21
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl! ®
02/08/2003, 20:49:34
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Bos, I want to address something that you stated here and to which Martin has commented. You stated that "religion supposes there is an absolute right and wrong which can be arrived at by exercising the *inner conciousness* ". Martin appears to contend that the practice of religion, in at least some cases and more probably most, is confined to strict adherence to obedience codes discounting the role, at least in part, of "inner conciousness". I am not certain that "inner conciousness" is the term you really wanted to use here. If I am wrong please correct me. I think the concept you were trying to draw out is the concept of "conscience" or "inner voice" that helps us to distinguish between right and wrong and produces either guilt and regret or satisfaction and contentment, depending on our response to a given set of circumstances. If I am wrong here, you must straighten me out. I am not so sure that I have the patience to be gracious and polite about this just now, but I'll try. Are you suggesting that our inner voice/conscience is a superior method of moral reasoning? I don't agree and this is why. Martin, I think, overlooks the concept of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is probably one of the main cornerstones of Christian belief regarding a personal relationship with Christ since the Holy Spirit is the vessel through which Christ communicates with us. If I am wrong, Martin, correct me. Bos, are you a Christian? I am. If you are too, then are you speaking of your own inner voice or the "still small" voice of God that Christians refer to? Or if you are Mormon, the "burning in the bosom" to detect spiritual righteousness. According to Christian belief there is nothing reliable in allowing our own inner voice or our feelings to guide us. The only trustworthy inner voice, for a Christian, is the "moving" of the Holy Spirit in us. (John 14). At this point neither you or Martin will be able to distinguish with whom I agree for the dual answer to that is neither of you and both of you. The fundamental problem with this is that it gives a believer the leeway to say they are following God's will and how truly honest are people to begin with? It is quite easy to claim and believe that we are following the will of God, that we are guided by the moving of the Holy Spirit when in so many cases our own human nature will not allow us to acknowledge that it is our will, not God's we are following, and that we use the concept of the Holy Spirit to rubber stamp our own desires. I put more authenticity on my own believed and perceived interaction with God via the Holy Spirit when I arrive at a point where the thing at hand is, the conclusion I've reached is, completely at odds with my natural inclination in dealing with a situation. IOW-- if it looks like an easy and comfortable way out or through a situation then it is more likely me responding to my own will and desire to cut myself slack and slide by than it has anything to do with what God expects of me (as expressed by the strict obedience code that Martin refers to). Decisions, conflict resolution, problem solving, moral dilemmas, I believe, exist to develop character. Now one could say (and JAK will most certainly say!) that that is just my perception in hindsight and I have no concrete evidence that any situation has any purpose except that which I choose to attach to it. But, I have to say it in a way that is congruent with who I am and how I perceive things. Building character, moral fiber and integrity is no easy process. No new life (body, soul or mind) springs from the absence of pain. It is in our human nature to avoid pain. When was the last time you volunteered to walk through psychological fire? And so when we, Christians, say we are following God's will or listening to his voice it is more likely that in most cases what we're listening to is our own inner voice telling us to avoid whatever hurts us and do whatever we can slide by with no matter what the cost of the more worthy outcome. We fail so many times to acknowledge and recognize that the self talk of our inner voice leads to self focused decisions and those are not God directed choices. They are self directed. A Christian, who spiritually dies to one's "self" in favor of following the will of God should be earnestly seeking God directed choices, not self directed choices, and learn to discern the difference. I admittedly, can talk myself in and out of, to and away from any number of decision making strategies depending on what motivates me in a given set of circumstances. Am I truly interested in doing what is "right" according to that "strict obedience code" or am I more interested in my own perceived personal gain? Am I more interested in my own comfort? Am I more interested in riding the high horse and standing on pride then I am in doing what I know is right? (All of the above and none of the above depending on how earnestly I choose to follow that strict obedience code.) There is nothing flawed in following a prescribed set of obedience codes and principles so long as the foundations of that code are solid and the adherence maintains a healthy balance in our lives. But believers, who deny they are subject to human failing and know good and well that they, like everyone else, lean toward pride and elevating our status and station can not claim to corner the market on sound paths to forthright decisions and choices when our own human nature presents the greatest obstacle to that end. How easy is it to fend off the impulse to go for the easy way out and turn our back on the obedience code? Too darn easy, I can tell you that! God's will doesn't offer us a clear and easy path nor does it guarantee immediate satisfaction. The cutting of a diamond is a long and painful process of cutting and refinement. Too often we choose the tumbler that simply puts a temporary polish on the common rock. Vicki modified to correct spelling errors and connect the dots in a few places.
Modified by Jersey Girl! at Sat, Feb 08, 2003, 22:30:25
|
Posted by: bosquero ®
02/10/2003, 10:11:02
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Vicki: Yeah, conscience is exactly what I meant, but I felt at the moment it would appear more sophisticated to call it something else. There is nothing in what you or Martin write that gets my dander up--I pretty much agree. As for giving you a brief synopsis of JS's theology, that would be harder than giving a brief response to Kirkland's paper, but since that is necessary to adequately respond to Kirkland, I'll make a small attempt to answer your request by treating one of Kirkland's problems:
He writes: "A close examination of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible also reveals his early monotheistic beliefs. He consciously attempted to remove all references to a plurality of gods from the King James Bible." One of the most important pieces of Smith's theology is D&C 76, written during and as a result of his Bible revision. V.24 states "That by him, and through him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." And v.58 follows on this: "Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God-"
This should give even a novice some idea of how backwards Kirkland's interpretation is--he makes the same mistake that Smith's 1844 detractors made in accusing him of lately teaching a plurality of gods. Smith's response to them was, I've been teaching that for 15 years--it's in the D&C and it's in the Bible (end paraphrase). And in fact the doctrine is found full blown in the Book of Mormon, Alma 13, where the metaphor of Ps 110:4 as developed in Hebrews is made use of.
About 20 years ago I wrote a 60 or 70 page paper on the subject--a copy of it was included in M Marquardt's collection at the U of U. I suppose I should try to use Textbridge to get it on e-file; then I could make it available.
As for depersonalizing my file, that's what Ramona told me. I'll see if I can figure out how to do it--I'm a clutz with computers. But if I were not married I wouldn't even bother to lock the door at night. --Bosquero
|
Posted by: Brass Tacks ®
02/07/2003, 14:01:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
What are we talking about in this forum? Are we addressing the proclamation paper entitled "The Living Christ" dated Jan 1, 2000, signed by the First Presidency & Quorum of the Twelve, www.lds-Mormon.com/godsname.shtml that rpcman in this forum directed us to?
Are you saying that the LDS belief that Jesus Christ of the New Testament is the Jehovah of the Old Testament is found in D&C 29:1 & 38:1--therefore not a recent belief? I don't have a D&C handy. Would it be too much for you to post what those sections of D&C read? What are the dates?
Perhaps the paper serves to dispel the popular notion that Mormons don't believe that Jesus is diety or God. But the paper does not tell all...It does not mention that the Mormons believe Jesus Christ is the LITERAL offspring of the God Father and that they believe us to be LITERAL brothers & sisters of Jesus Christ, the God Father & His wife being our parents. So isn't it logical that one can deduct that the Mormons do not believe Jesus Christ to be God?
Brass Tacks
|
Posted by: Brass Tacks ®
02/07/2003, 14:56:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
I forgot to add to my last post... I believe there is just one god--not two or three.
Brass Tacks
|
|
