HEY TONY PINA: re LDS beliefs

Re: Re: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Thanks for the kind words. Right back at ya!

Coffee, Tea and Alcohol are on our "no" list, but I'd be happy to drink something else while you have your coffee. Martinelli's Sparkling Apple Cider is jokingly referred to by many as "Mormon Champagne".

Tony

 

For what it's worth, I agree with Tom. Tony is getting a fire hose in the face, and this is likely to prevent any kind of fair, fruitful, and followable dialog. I would like to humbly suggest that Tony pick the questions from Bill Grover (who originally offered the invitation accepted by Tony) to which he would like to respond. It may be most beneficial for all other posters from that point forward to stick to the topic(s) discussed by Tony and Bill. I merely offer these suggestions as someone interested in following a productive, even-handed discussion.

As a point of minor clarification, Tom is correct in noting that Mormonism has not bound special revelation to the 66 books of the traditional protestant canon. But this has nothing to do with dispensationalism per se.

 

Hi Tony: FWIW some of us think the "God Makers" is worse than useless. Is there a great gulf fixed between your religion and mine (Gnesio-Lutheran)? Sure. So what? I'm with Ed, at least in this dispensation.

Since "the glory of God is intelligence" and the glory of this board is distance learning, do you know of any DL venues run by your church? There is no substitute for direct information, especially when there are very deep theological differences that make people overly emotional.

The word "dialogue" gets overused, but the real thing is not easy--especially when participants honestly believe that it would be to the other side's spiritual benefit to cross the floor. Not easy--but not impossible, either.

 

Sheesh, the evangelicals who are pouncing on good ol' Tony in this thread with their "Walter Martin, Jr." fantasies are a hoot. I have to compliment Tony on taking it so graciously.

But kiddies, y'all almost make me embarassed to call myself an evangelical. It reminds me of the guys I knew in Southern California who ran around with their "Cult Busters" t-shirts, thumping their Bibles more than any Fundie I have ever known.

Keep in mind that my background is the same as yours and, as Tony is aware from having read my book, I am clearly on the pro-Martin side (despite having exposed Martin's mickey-mouse credentials many times, I always thought the man had style). But I remind you that this is a distance education forum, not a venue to play amateur apologists and jump on the only open Mormon in this forum (and one who can, quite obviously, handle y'all quite well).

Open dialogue and discourse are certainly a part of academe, but I agree with Tom Head on this one - it's the tone that some of the posts here have taken that are making some of you look like schmucks. Over and above anything, Tony is a hell of a nice guy, and it's the evangelicals that are acting smug here.

So I've decided that you are all going to hell, and that I AM am the only one who is saved.*
______________________________

* I put the "I AM" in total upper case in case anyone wants to launch into another pseudo-analysis of Exodus 3:14, something self-proclaimed cult-busters love to do. Besides, I was lecturing on the cults since before some of you were born, so I feel I have the right to kick my feet up and enjoy the humorous side of this thread, such as it is.

 

Not at all. I left my exegetical profundity behind when I moved back to the east coast from California. I figured you westerners needed it more than I did.

 

.................

You seem to wish it both ways: You target us with hurtful statements as : people on this thread embarrass you as an evangelical ;these are employing Martin fantacies; they look like smucks, they are amateur apologists, but Tony can handle ya all well!(perhaps so) these are your judgement calls. But on the other hand you claim to have left your exegetical profundity in California...a neat escape! So what is your criterion for these judgemental statements you pontifically fire at us?

If these are amateurish exercises here then you clear up the issue of Smith's inspired version with its immense departures from the massoretic Hebrew and the best textual witnesses to the Greek NT. Instead of condemning these good participants, shed upon us the radiant illumination emanating from you, the great I AM.

 

........................
Steve

I'm feeling a little guilty about the confrontive tone I used.

Sorry,

 

Any info on pertinent DL courses? Just wunnerd.

 

Matter of fact, yes. One of the early leading major universities involved in distance learning happens to be . . . Brigham Young U.

(Doctrinal issues aside, the quality of BYU's courses was always quite good, although I've never been thrilled by their decision to offer the B.G.S. - Bachelor of General Studies - by distance, rather than the more traditional B.A. or B.S. This, however, is a weakness of several major colleges and universities that were early entries in the distance market. Unfortunately, BYU does have one quality that other most programs do not share - they do not admit students who are incarcerated, on parole or probation, under court restriction, or who have been convicted of a crime.)

Nonetheless, it's time for some humor in this thread. Therefore . . .

I have an announcement to make: I have decided to become a Mormon. Not that I buy into Mormon doctrine, but I happen to be gay - and Mormon guys are hotter than Fundy guys.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

 

And, perhaps more apropos to a forum dedicated to distance learning…

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
—Albert Einstein

 

.........................

Tony

I'll bet you're planning your response. if you are willing and able to deal with the text and translation of the LDS Inspired Version, would you besides commenting on John 1:1 also give your opinion on a couple of other issues re this?

As I compare Genesis 50 in that version it seems to present a discrepency of about 25 verses including an obvious prophecy re J. Smith.

As I look at that version's rendering of 1 John 5:18 it seems to mistranslate the pronoun (auton as middle) as did the KJV as well making the verb (keeps) having as its subject believers which is however a non Johannine usage of that form of the verb gennao (beget) which seems never applicable to believers, some say.

Finally in John 1:18 Smith adopts the Textus Receptus of monogenes huios only begotten Son, or unique Son, as opposed to the vast textual evidence that the correct reading would be monogenes theos..."unique God" .

If you do not wish to do this I will understand. Perhaps you have then an LDS prof of Theology I might question?

As we all agree you are generous in giving your time. Do not feel you are alone, all here are your friends. As a hint on the grammar of 10:30, you may wish to look at Calvin or Lange for insight and, even, support on this one issue.

 

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the response, Your answers seem reasonable except for the 800 miles. I would guess that it would have to be closer to 8000 miles which would make it a bit harder.

Sorry for the amateur "anti-mormon" questions. I've never done any research into this "stuff". I was brought up in the church and decided very early on that I wasn't a Mormon. It's kind of an amusing story.

I was sitting in primary class at the age of 7. (Assuming that I remember correctly and they babtize at 8 in the church.) I was listening to the story of Joseph Smith and the Golden Plates for what seemed like the umpteenth time and I got an almost religious flash of inspiration that Joseph Smith was a con man. It just seemed like the far more reasonable explanation to me compared to that story about the golden plates and magic glasses. I thought I should best test my new theory somehow and asked the primary teacher if people could go see these golden plates at Temple Square or someplace. Well her answer convinced me that my flash of inspiration was probably correct. Yea right an angel took them back, I laughed to myself and remember thinking, "That grownup lady actually believes this stuff that she's telling us." (I know, I started my asshole ways at a very early age.)

Now I don't ever bother telling stories unless there's a funny part. This is at least what I consider the funny part. The church had seemed to make a big deal about not babtizing members until they're 8 years old which is supposed to allow the person to believe in the church before being babtised into the church. The church also made a big deal about total immersion being the only correct way to do it. I must have still had some small doubt about my conclusion being correct. I thought, what if they hold you under water so that the unbelievers are drowned and weeded out! Therefore the church membership would remain pure. (Hey I was only 7, give me a break.) Now at some level I knew that this was very silly but I started practicing holding my breath every time I took a bath just to be on the safe side. I started taking really long baths and practicing holding my breath over and over until the water would finally get cold and I'd have to get out. After I finally turned 8, the big day came. I stepped into the pool, panic took over and I forgot all my training. I decided I was not even going to let them try to drown me. They had to dunk me 3 times before it counted because the first 2 times I fought to get back to the surface and therefore wasn't ever fully submerged. Well, by the third time I remembered my training and it counted. I hadn't drown so I figured that was all the evidence I needed and I haven't questioned of my "faith" in the church since.

 

Tony P

To try the second time to make clearer what I am confusingly above babbling about and seeking your interpretation re a few points on the inspired version is:

1) John 1:1, seems much different. Why? Is the difference textual or translational? Can The IV be trusted here and elsewhere in your opinion and why?

2) Genesis 50. Why the added material and the prophecy about Smith? Does this seem believable to you despite the absence of any textual witnesses? Why?

3) 1 John 5:18. Why should auton be by inspiration translated as "himself" rather than "him." Issue is, who is it doing the keeping. One would expect to see heauton for "him." Also, would the author apply gennetheis to believers? Smith follows the suspect KJV translation here...why? Is Greek grammar based on the patterns seen in NT usage an issue in LDS interpretation and doctrine? Why/why not?

4) John 1:18 is a textual problem concerning what in the original is described by monogenes. There are several variant readings. Smith follows the outdated KJV text based on much less credible witnesses. Why? Do LDS scholars make studies on such textual concerns? One group of very conservative Protestants (KJV ONLY) says one version is inerrant in its text. Is that an LDS doctrine as well? why/why not? What does the "inspired" in "Inspired Version" mean to you?

My assumption is that you have access to LDS commentaries, doctrinal books or other to help form your answers. What I will promise to do is make notations in my notes on LDS positions based on your responses. This is not, at least for me, a vain exercise, but a chance to get "inside" and see nonprejudiced data.

Thanks,

 

Re: Bill and Bill

Concerning the rather accusatory tone of this thread, I can understand it in a way.

When I am trying to understand something, I usually do some preliminary study of the subject on my own. But I often run up against ideas and assertions that I have trouble understanding (let alone accepting). These become the issues that I need clarification on, and they become foci of my subsequent questioning.

So when I locate a representative of the belief-system that I'm having difficulties with, my impulse is to hit that individual with my problems. And unfortunately, that might look to the other party very much like an attack.

The difference is that my motivation is not to change their belief, but to improve my own understanding.

I tried doing this myself a few weeks ago. I thought that since I have tremendous interest in religion, and since we have a number of clergymen and theology students posting here, I would seek their response to the issues that personally trouble me. Unfortunately, the responses tended to be defensive and rather hostile.

Misunderstanding and feelings of offense are everpresent dangers here.

 

Oh! How utterly embarrasing! Ironically, I could get "A's" in statistics and make such a goof. The distance, of course, is 2800 miles, not 800 miles (inidentally it is about 6700 miles to the bottom of South America. 8000 miles would put us closer to the South Pole).

Please allow me to revise my figures a bit:

36 years to travel 2800 miles would equate to just under 78 miles per year. I still think that this is quite do-able.

Sorry for the typo.

Tony (with face appropriately red)

 

Re: Bill and Bill

I think that this comment of Dennis' is very astute, and it's too bad the post has been overooked. In fact, it seems to me to answer all of Bill G.'s questions very elegantly.

What we have here are two closely related belief systems: mainstream evangelical protestantism and the LDS. Both of them exist within a set of carefully drawn parameters.

For the former, the parameters are drawn by the Bible, as manifested in the original languages and by the critical texts. These are divine revelation, the foundation of true Christian faith and the very word of God. The LDS have somewhat divergent parameters defined by a subsequent revelation received from God.

So the fundamental issue here is how the parameters themselves are justified. Or put another way: What is man to do when God at least seems to give different groups conflicting revelations?

It's a problem that's a lot broader than the evangelical-LDS dispute, since it applies to all revealed religious doctrines around the world. It also goes to the heart of so-called "cult busting", since the validity of the whole enterprise depends on being able to give a convincing answer to the question.

 

Re: Re: Bill and Bill

It is my personal conviction that religous texts should be evaluated according to the conventional rules of historiography. As an old British scholar once said, we treat the Bible like any other book to show that it is not like any other book. I am not interested in starting with the presupposition that any form of purported revelation--including the Bible--is divinely inspired. Such claims are in and of themselves empty. After careful historical, grammatical, and literary analysis some religious texts will lean toward the mythical and others toward the historical. Reams of literature have shown the Bible to be generally historical (yes, even with respect to miracles), while other works have been shown to be severely lacking in this regard.

Of course, I recognize the fact that many religous proponents couldn't care less about the historicity (or lack thereof) of sacred writings. They are only concerned with the immediate, pragmatic implications of the principles espoused within. As long as such principles make positive contributions to society at large and provide personal contentment, that's all that matters.

I, however, am concerned with the pursuit of that which is true, not merely that which brings comfort, practical benefit, or temporal hope. I've said this before and I'll say it again: If Christianity were proved to be historically untrue, especially as related to the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, I would abandon it in a nanosecond. I once heard a European scholar say that if the bones of Jesus Christ were indisputably found today, he would continue to call himself a Christian. Why? Because even though Jesus would not have been raised physically from the dead, he would still be raised in the scholar's heart. I must confess that I find such thinking to be absurd (so did the Apostle Paul, by the way). Either Jesus really lives or he doesn't. Why would I worship someone proven to be no more than a dead mortal, no matter how great a teacher he may have been?

I do not wish to detract from the discussion between Bill Grover and Tony. But I think it's important to note that the problem raised by Bill Dayson has been adequately addressed in readily accessible literature. Anyone interested in reading such work is welcome to contact me privately for a list of standard, widely espoused works.