HEY TONY PINA: re LDS beliefs

Hello Tony:

Tony as per your former concession, I'd like to ask you some questions based on several LDS works. I promise I will not argue with you or disrespect your position. But I would like your permission to clarify possibly issues which may arise from your responses. The reference works I have here are: Holy Scriptures, Inspired Version, Herald Press;The Way to Perfection, Joseph Fielding Smith,Deseret News Press;Jesus The Christ, Apostle James E. Talmage, Deseret Book Company;Joseph Smith's new Translation of the Bible, Herald Publishing House;Fundamental Differences, Russell F.Ralston, Herald;and, of course, The Book of Mormon. I will begin (maybe end)with only five questions:

(1) Joseph Smith's inspired version of John 1:1 in huge , significant leaping departures varies from the Greek text as represented in the very earliest of Greek manuscripts of John (copies of the original) as papyrus 66 and papyrus 75. That rendering by Mr Smith is not just a translation ; it could derive only from a grossly different text than that espoused by New Testament experts in this field as Westcott and Hort or Metzger. Could you explain this from the LDS perspective ...as the text is vital to interpretation, obviously!

(2) Tony, I am going to stop right here on #2 because I just typed , then erased, a quote from The Elder Fielding re the curse of Cain on his supposed progenity which I feel may hurt feelings. If you'd like to read it , I'll email you!

(3) The Apostle Talmage in exegeting John 10:30 says (p500) that as "one" in the Greek is neuter, not masculine, that therefore (because of the neuter adjective here) the oneness refers to power or purpose not personality. Do you feel the Talmage's grammaticism(not general theological deductions) evinces his conclusion here? why/why not?

(4) Ralston's book, p60 quotes Brigham Young (JD 1:50;MS 15:769,770) as saying that Adam is our Father and the only God with whom we have to do. Could you comment?

(5) Back to Elder Joseph Fielding Smith that LDS theologian states on page 246 that by the processes marrying and procreating , as per Doctrines and Covenants 132:20 we may become gods having all things suject to us, even the angels.

Thanks,

 

These URLs (most derived from Jeff Lindsay's excellent LDS FAQ) may be useful:

On John 1:1 (scroll down to "Doesn't John 1 support the Trinity concept?"):
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/oneness.shtml

On the "progeny of Cain" thing:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQRace.shtml

On the standard Mormon interpretation of John 10:30 (I can't speak on behalf of John Talmage, and I doubt Tony is in a position to, either, but this jives with my limited understanding of Mormon christology):
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Christian.shtml#Son

On the Brigham Young comment about Adam and God:
http://mike-parker.home.attbi.com/adam-god.htm

On becoming gods:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml#think


Cheers,

 

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

Hi tom

You see what happens when we don't get our own forum? (notice the trinity of my smiles)?

With respect, you are missing the point of some of my questions to friend Tony P. The issue in Jo 1:1 concerns Smith's text NOT his Christology directly and the issue in 10:30 is the good LDS elder/theologian's grasp of Greek grammar!

 

“One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.”
—R. A. Heinlein

 

Warning, I'm an ex-Mormon but mean no disrespect. One interesting query I've never really gotten a good answer on is this story of Moroni wandering around the wilderness by himself for many years. He ends up hiding the golden plates in New York. (Note: a portion of the golden plates were translated into the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith.)
1. Wouldn't the golden plates weigh far more than one man could carry, especially without any mules or horses?
2. Isn't the nearest native American tribe that we know had a written language in Mexico?

Putting one and two together, it seems it would take more than one life time to make the necessary trips on foot between Mexico and New York to transport the golden plates.

 

Bill and Bill

Rationalizing theology???

Any good movie lays out the parameters of what is and is not acceptable and we spend 120 minutes engrossed because we know the villein has defined limitations controlling him.

We feel cheated when Dracula throws away a cross or ignores the sunlight because he has exceeded the permitted parameters.

Theology sets out to create parameters and going beyond these parameters is inherently unreasonable to believers.

Joseph Smith came by a whole new set of parameters and non-believing theologists may have problems with these.

Of Mormonism, I have respect even though I lost a perfectly good drinking buddy to it. Tragic but true.

 

I think what Mr Huffman was referring to can be put this way

John 1:1 (Inspired version)
In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

John 1:1 (NIV Version)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

The idea expressed with Jesus as God is apparent in the NIV. Jesus and God are separate in the Inspired Version. I was raised RLDS (Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) and am far from a Biblical scholar. I simply would like to offer God's word in the NIV compared with the Inspired Version of Joseph Smith.

A comparison of Genesis will show that more men than Adam were created but kept in Heaven. Adam was then brought to earth after God rested on the seventh day.

 

I am sorry, I meant Mr. Grover's point about John 1:1.

 

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

Not a difficulty;in fact you just exemplified the problem of text (text concerns what did the author write).

Did Bill H ask the questions or Bill G? And, If my 5 questions are copied onto a piece of paper 100 times will there be errors among those copies?

The issue with the NIV vs the Smith's inspired version is not translation but text. We do not have the autographa of the New testament writings, but we do have thousands of early witnesses in Greek copies, translations, writings of the 'fathers' of the Church. These on John 1:1 all witness to the text of that verse on which the NIV is based . But the Inspired version is far and away differerent. This particular issue here is not at first one of who Christ is, or how should the Greek be translated. The first issue is what did John write!

My question to our Pal Tony P. was : given that textual evidence, does he yet subscribe to Smith's text on John 1:1. why/why not.

 

I'm obviously the other Tony, but living in Utah I have gathered a little information on LDS beliefs. Here is my try on what I think they believe. Their issue and your issue are the same. They believe something was lost in the translation or in the copying process. Could it happen? Of course it could. Is it probable? Based on our knowledge, probably not. They believe their version is correct, based on divine inspiration.

A couple questions for you Bill.

If there were significant errors in one of if not the leading text of religion, would god make an effort to fix that?

If he did, how would he go about it? Would he go through man?

How do we know this couldn't or didn't happen?

These are certainly not meant to be loaded questions, I am asking you or anyone else who wants to answer because I have been curious about this for a while. Thanks.

Tony

Apologies in advance if I misrepresented any facet of the LDS beliefs.

 

Wow Bill. I saw P46 in the Hatcher Library at A*n A***r. Whatchu got?

 

or in the case of Genesis 3300years, rather.


Hi Unk what I have is the complete transcriptions of the 69 earliest papyri and photos by Comfort and Barrett. One can order this through Tyndale House or one can haunt museums worldwide and peer at the same through protective glass. I found my way easier

 

Anyone out there seen the videos, THE GOD MAKERS? I,II

They give a thought provoking account of the Mormon religion.

 

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

The Joseph Smith issue can be answered by the fact that LDS theology, like Roman Catholic theology, has rejected revelatory/prophetic dispensationalism. This means that biblical doctrines, and doctrines contained in the Book of Mormon, are subject to revision based on later revelation.

Obviously one person's answer is only one person's answer, but there's no way, now, that Tony Pina could possibly be expected to respond to all of the specific issues brought up in this thread.

I also don't like the tone this thread is beginning to take. When Bill asked his original questions, I picked up a strong current of "I really want to know this stuff," which has gradually been replaced by a tone of (as we used to say in the old philosophy IRC channel) "Bring your assertion and a body bag." I would like to remind you that there is exactly one Mormon here, and I have counted a good half dozen critics or curious onlookers, not including myself (because I'm trying--very unsuccessfully, from the looks of it--to "play Mormon" in hopes of evening the odds a little). If the objective really is to learn from Tony, and not to gang up on him, maybe it would be useful to bring things down to a summary post again, with the idea held very firmly in mind that unless you can definitively address any question that is ever brought up about your own faith, he should have the luxury of skipping anything he doesn't feel qualified to answer.


Cheers,

 

Re: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

WOW!!! Look what happens when I am away from DegreeInfo for just a matter of hours!

Now, where do I begin (you have all brought up a wide variety of stuff for me). Let me first begin with a few assumptions:

1. I am an educational technologist, not a systematic theologian. My job is to make complex technology simple for teachers and other practitioners, so my explanations may be unsatisfying to those used to long, detailed exegesis.

2. Mine is a lay church (unpaid clergy). While I have served in various church callings, I am only a spokesperson for the beliefs of a single Latter-day Saint (namely, me).

3. My church has no doctrine of infallibility. Books or statements by church leaders (even the President of the Church or members of the Quorum of 12 Apostles) are not considered official church doctrine just because they are said or published (especially in unofficial venues like the Journal of Discourses). Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are free to publish books or websites on their understanding of LDS doctrine. Sometimes they (and I) make mistakes.

OK, Let's get to work:

If I understand correctly, you (plural) would like to get a Latter-day Saint's point of view on the following topics:

From Bill Grover:

1. John 1:1 in light of a work commonly referred to as the Joseph Smith Translation and how it relates to existing Greek manuscripts of the same passage.

2. The reason why those of African descent did not hold the LDS priesthood prior to 1978.

3. Whether Dr. James E. Talmage (a geology professor and member of the LDS Quorum of 12 Apostles in the early 20th century) belief in the LDS concept of the Godhead rests upon a correct understanding of Greek grammar.

4. How I feel about quotes from the Journal of Discourses that has Brigham Young stating that Adam is our father and god.

5. How I feel about a statement from Joseph Fielding Smith That godhood is achieved by marrying and procreating.

If I have not properly understood your inquiry, please correct me. Since I must read the Joseph Fielding Smith and James Talmage passages before I comment on them, I will answer the others first (sorry Bill G., but Robert's and Bill H.'s questions are easy)

From Bill Huffman:

BILL: How much did the "golden plates" (source of the Book of Mormon) weigh. Wouldn't that be too much for Joseph Smith to carry?

TONY: Those Latter-day Saints (eight official witnesses and a couple others) that had the opportunity to hold the plates (which were described has having the "appearance of gold") tended to estimate their weight at around 50-60 pounds. If the plates had, in fact, been a 6x8x6 inch solid block of gold, they would have weighed about 200 pounds (certainly too heavy, even for 6'2" 220 lb Joseph Smith). Anti-Mormons have made great sport of this fact.

However, Tumbaga, a gold/copper alloy was widely known and used in pre-Hispanic America. A 6x8x6 book of hammered plates made of tumbaga would weight between 50-80 lbs, depending on the ratio of gold to copper. Joseph Smith, according to both friends and enemies, was a large and very strong man. He could have carried something of this weight.

Does my explanation prove anything? Of course not. However, it does place this particular aspect well within the range of possibility.

BILL: Isn't the nearest native American tribe that we know had a written language in Mexico? (The Book of Mormon is a written record, so someone there must have mastered a written language).

TONY: Although some early Latter-day Saints believed that the Book of Mormon described the origin of all Native American peoples and dealt with the entire North and South American continents, a closer reading of the book reveals that it takes place in a significantly more limited area. The area surrounding the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in southern Mexico (and possibly going into Guatemala) is the best candidate. Most learned Latter-day Saints believe that this is the likely area where the Book of Mormon took place. This would be consistent with your language finding.

BILL: One interesting query I've never really gotten a good answer on is this story of Moroni wandering around the wilderness by himself for many years. He ends up hiding the golden plates in New York.

TONY: According to the Book of Mormon, Moroni's people were wiped out about 385 AD. In 421 AD. Moroni finishes his account and, presumably, deposits the plates in New York. If Moroni traveled north from the Tehuantepec area of Mexico, he would have had to travel some 800 miles to reach the Palmyra area of New York. Thus he would have had 36 years to make the trek (an average of just 22 miles per year). I'd say that was do-able. I hope that this qualifies as a "good answer".

From Robert:

1. Have I seen the GodMakers I and II?

TONY: Yes, I am very familiar with the movies (I have even read the screenplays) and the Books upon which the films were based. The Anti Defamation League and the National Conference of Christians and Jews rightfully condemned the films as inaccurate and misleading portrayals of LDS beliefs and practices. Ed Decker and Dick Baer, the film and books' authors, have done such a shabby job that other professional anti-Mormons, such as Jerald and Sandra Tanner have denounced Decker as undermining the whole filed of anti-Mormon ministries. The GodMakers Book is no better and is, frankly, an embarrassment (To Decker and Dave Hunt, not to the LDS Church). If you would like, I could give you a list of all of the instances where Decker, Baer and Hunt get it wrong, but I would need an entire thread to do so. Are you game Robert?

Well, my lunch break is over. I'll be back for more Bill G. I promise. Thanks all for your great questions.

Tony

 

Good job Tony! See you soon!

 

I just had a chance to read the last couple of postings from Bill G. and Tom. Unfortunately, I have to rush this and get back to work (but I promise to come back soon and finish my answers or answer any new quieries).

Being a member of a church that is deemed (euphemistically) as non-mainstream (yes, I know that many of you have other adjectives), I am not unfamiliar with Christians who treat me in a rather un-Christian manner. I have been lurking about this forum for a little while and have come to appreciate the knowledge possesed by Tom Head, Bill Grover and others. I learn more about my own faith when I read and exchange with the views of other knowledgable people.

I grew up just a few miles from Walter Martin and Melodyland and my faith has been attacked by some of the "best and brightest" (if such can be so-called) in anti-Mormondom. If I can dispel a few misunderstandings here and there, I feel it a blessing to do so.

I will answer as many questions as I can, to the best of my ablity, as long as there is someone who wishes to read them.

Tony