John 3:16 questions

Little Fauss,

Surely YOU jest. If this is the kind of drivel that you believe about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a strange name for a supposed non-Christian church), then Jimmy was right. You may have an excellent knowledge of evangelical doctrine, but your understanding of the doctrines of my faith is fatally flawed. Whomever your "contacts" are (Walter Martin? James White? Ed Decker? John Ankerberg? or some other anti-Mormon pseudo-scholar?) you have been fed a load of "snake oil" by them. You would do well, my friend, to take a lesson from Bill Grover.

God bless you (with a capital "G").

Tony

...and I don't even need to be "pressed"

 

I do hope you managed to struggle through more of it than just the first chapter, which is really just introductory anyway. As for the "foolish talk" et al. language, as you're doubtless aware, such was the language of polemical discourse in late antiquity (probably fewer trolls than we get here, as parchment was significantly more expensive than electrons!

It gives a fairly good bit of insight into the Incarnation and Atonement. Even if you're not "convinced", at least it helps to have a clearer idea of another's position from a classical source.

Y'know, I thought you were referring to some science fiction thing until I ran across something about Icke elsewhere. I googled his name and discovered that this guy really believes that the world is controlled by a conspiracy of lizard people (Jim Morrison, the Lizard King? Nah, he's too busy hanging out with Elvis). Pretty nutty. I'd still be willing to read 5 pages on it, though, although I'd pass on attending something like this guy's 5 hour speech which he gave on his views at the University of Toronto! (and it didn't even affect their accreditation! )

Peace,

Matt

 

Little Fauss:

That Mormons believe that the god (lowercase used intentionally) of our universe is but one of many,

Tony:

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) worship God as the Supreme Being of the universe. We do not have a concept of multiple universes, so the term “god of our universe” is foreign to LDS thought (but is found in ineptly research pseudo-scholarly anti-Mormon works that confuse LDS doctrine with second century Gnosticism). We believe that there is no being above God.

As to your strange assertion (and reiteration) that we intentionally use lowercase “g” when we refer to God, this claim, fortunately can be verified with little effort. In a computer search of the scriptures and hundreds of LDS books, I was unable to find a single instance where a lowercase “g” was used in conjunction with God. For example, in the over 200 references of the word “God” in the Book of Mormon, all are uppercase except for one instance where a group of people was being chastised for worshipping false gods. If you could find any instance where an authoritative source of LDS doctrine referred to God the Father with a lowercase “g”, I would be extremely interested to see it.

Little Fauss:

that he (lowercase used intentionally) was once a man, like us,

Tony:

Again, the idea of lowercase is incorrect. The concept that God can become man is certainly not unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or anyone else who believes the words of John the Apostle that the Word was with God and was God and that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. LDS believe in the divinity of Jesus and that he became man. If you are trying to insinuate that we believe that there was a time where God the Father or God the Son was not divine and, somehow “became” God, that insinuation would not be a correct representation of LDS doctrine or belief.

Little Fauss:

and that we can one day become god (ditto above)

Tony:

Nothing in LDS doctrine suggests that we will “become God” or “become god”. That would imply either taking God the Father’s place or being equal to Him. LDS do not believe this—the LDS doctrine of our state, status and activities in the next life always place us in a subordinate position to God, our Father in Heaven.

Little Fauss:

if we are only:

1). Good, church-going Mormons;
2). Married within said church;
3). And follow all the various and sundry other rules required to attain righteousness in the eyes of Mormonism.

Tony:

Since this statement is so far off the mark, I am not sure where to being, without taking up several pages. Let me simply state that LDS believe that salvation is dependent solely upon the atonement of Jesus Christ. We believe that the Lord has made it explicit that there are certain things that he requires of us (that is why they are called “commandments,” rather than “suggestions”). However, we could attend church meetings every day of the week, pay a 90% tithe, marry in the church and then renew our vows dozens of times and keep every commandment in the scriptures to the best of our ability and it would not make a scrap of difference without the atoning blood of Christ. To represent the LDS concept of salvation and eternal life (and our status and activities in the next life) a result of works alone without mention of Christ is the worst possible distortion, bordering on deception.

Little Fauss:

If we meet the criteria above (and other criteria that may have evolved, as the church is forever changing its doctrine), then we will be partakers of the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven,

Tony:

The church is not forever changing its doctrine in any more substantial way than did the church in New Testament times and certainly has changed far less than has happened to the historical Christianity of councils, creeds and reformations.

Little Fauss:

and will one day get to have cosmic sex with our cosmic partner and populate other universes ourselves. We will get to become gods (see above note on lowercase).

Tony:

This one actually made me laugh! “cosmic sex with our cosmic partner”? Are you serious? Gong back to my computer database of over 2,000 books, including every notable LDS doctrinal work up to 2001, I was unable to find a single reference to “cosmic sex” or “cosmic partner”. Perhaps you are mistaking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with John Gray’s “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus”.

Seriously, though, this is another gross distortion of LDS doctrine. I would love to have you show me any work by an LDS author that mentions “cosmic sex”. As stated above, LDS know of only one universe, not multiple, but we do believe that God has created “worlds without number”. Also, since you have reiterated the lowercase “g” issue, I reiterate that it is in error.

Little Fauss:

I'm sorry for my attitude, but as a impressionable young man, I almost got sucked in by this stuff that truly does deserve the sobriquet "snake oil".

Tony:

I also apologize for the attitude of my previous post. It is contrary to my usual demeanor and philosophy of participation on Degreeinfo. I have striven to counter the assertions of those with whom I disagree (particularly those who advocate for substandard education or who are simply uninformed about topics, such as Ed.D. vs. Ph.D.) with appeals to research, or other edifying information. Your post about the beliefs (or, more accurately the misrepresentation of them) of my church are the single most personally offensive thing that I have read in my four years of posting on Degreeinfo. However; I should not have let my emotions get the best of me.

If this is truly what you have been taught about the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then you have definitely been fed a load of “snake oil”, and I certainly would not fault you for not believing this stuff. I do not believe any of the statements that you attribute to “what Mormons believe,” nor does any member of the LDS Church that I know (and I know thousands).

Your use of terminology and disconnect with actual LDS belief displays your obvious exclusive reliance on anti-Mormon works written by inept and incompetent authors (some of whom sport bogus or misrepresented credentials, as discussed on other Degreeinfo threads). To engage a dialogue based on differing doctrinal beliefs or interpretations of scripture is legitimate. I would be (and have been) happy to do so. However, claiming that over 12 million people that look to God as their Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are not Christian based on doctrines that they do not believe is nonsense.

If someone were to com onto this forum and state: “Well, we know what Christians believe and I will produce quotes from its leaders” and then describe the central beliefs of Christianity as cannibalism (John 6:53-55 KJV), self-mutilation (Matt. 5:29-30 KJV), hatred of one’s family (Luke 14:26 KJV) and suicide (Matt. 10:39 KJV), you and I would be offended and appalled, since we know that this would be a gross distortion of Jesus’ teachings. To reject all Christianity based on this distorted and out of context reading would be foolish. This is how I felt when I read your post about what “Mormons” (supposedly) “believe.

God bless (always with a capital “G”)

Tony

 

Hey guys,

Just so you know I haven't been on degreeinfo in about 6 months. I miss these debates, but have been busy. And I'd be crazy to think I can catch up with where this discussion started.

I know it started with this issue of the transcendence of God and the interpretation of John and so forth. I'm just curious to know, for instance, from Bill--why you so often say that you haven't studied these issues when you clearly have. I mean, you don't dive in as a "Christian" scholar. Are you just saying that you haven't read the Bible as carefully, as, say, Grover?

I just have $.02. The objections raised to the interpretation of John 3:16 have to do with the difficulty, IMO, with creating an analogy for the being of God from natural revelation, such as in the Thomistic analogia entis. I mean, it's difficult to say that God is "not" material and completely transcendent when the Son died on a cross. Do these things not seem contradictory?

This is a theological question, it seems to me, not a philosophical one. The parameters we use, if we rely on reason, to define our terms are going to bring us different content for the terms "transcendent" and so forth if we do not look at things within a specifically Christian framework.

Second, the analogy of being is the reason Karl Barth decided not to be Catholic; he couldn't stomach it. It's just too secular for him. It defines God in a way that, according to him, resists the incarnation, and so he apparently went overboard in the other direction.

Christian theology starts with these questions. I'd say, you need to take a look at John 1:14 carefully, and take a look at some commentaries and theological discussion there. It is at that point that, while God is "transcendent" and cannot be tied down to the measures of the finite mind, he has made himself known in the person of Christ. This kind of action, in Christ's person, should frame our way of referring to God's activity and way of relating to the cosmos; so I approach the defining of Christian theology within a Christian framework. I'm not giving you a reason to accept it according to some kind of external canon, like "reason."

The important point here is the role of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has a different form of action than the Son, while remaining the same God, like Irenaeus' analogy, God's "two hands." I think of it like three keys on a piano that make the same chord. Harmonious action, same action, but there are different "forms" that distinguish the three. Regardless, the Spirit is the one who assists in the understanding of Christ, who ministers the benefits to the believer the gift of understanding this God-man as the revelation of God.

So Bill's statement on Fear and Trembling is right. You can't follow in Kierkegaard's way, not by the power of human flesh. But the Spirit intercedes for us in our weakness to minister these holistic benefits and witnesses to Christ, gifting us with belief in this matter. It's not a matter of duty before a transcendent, ineffable God. It is a matter of yielding to the Spirit of Christ, ministering the benefits of his resurrection to you.

I don't have time for the Trinity on this one. I'd just ask your consideration for these points.

Blessings on the forum!

Chris

 

Tony,

The mormon church does claim to be THE true church and be God's chosen means of bringing the TRUE or RESTORED gospel to the world.

And the mormon church does believe that Joseph Smith is God's true prophet even though he had numerous wives, many at the same time, 'translated' the Book of Abraham from an Egyptian manuscript which subsequently was found to be a pagan burial rite (leaving the whole story about the origins of the Book of Mormon open to question!), and was convicted on charges of fraud associated by divining for gold during the period when he was having his visitations from the angels!

Little Fauss certainly misrepresented the teachings of the mormon church, yet despite its grandiose claims, it isn't any better than any other (Christian) church.

 

Does having multiple wives preclude one from being god's true prophet?

 

Originally posted by davidhume
Tony,

The mormon church does claim to be THE true church and be God's chosen means of bringing the TRUE or RESTORED gospel to the world.

The Church of Jesus Chrsit of Latter-day Saints does, indeed, claim to be the restoration of the church established by Jesus Christ. However, the LDS Church does not claim to be the single repository of all truth and readily proclaims that God acts outside the LDS Church. Many other churches claim, of ocourse to be the true church, while others claim that those who hold different beliefs and/or interpret the scriptures differently than they do are not Christian.

Neither I nor anyone in my church pickets the opening of a new Catholic church or hands out anti-Baptist flyers during the annual Southern Baptist Convention. The same cannot be said regarding the conduct of a few so-Called "Christians" during the opening of an LDS Temple or at the LDS General Conference.


And the mormon church does believe that Joseph Smith is God's true prophet even though he had..

...numerous wives, many at the same time

How many wives Joseph Smith had "at the same time" is certainly open to discussion...now Brigham Young was another story! We know how many wives he had Regardless, Abraham and Jacob (Israel) had more than one wife at the same time (the House of Israel, as you know, was the product of Jacob's four wives) and we regard Abraham and Jacob as God's true prophets as well.

...'translated' the Book of Abraham from an Egyptian manuscript which subsequently was found to be a pagan burial rite (leaving the whole story about the origins of the Book of Mormon open to question!),

Actually, the manuscript that Joseph used for the Book of Abraham was described at the time as being meticuluously written using a combination of red and black ink. All of the Egyptian Manuscipts in his possession were thought to have been destroyed in the great Chicago fire, but a small part of the collection (about 15% of the total) were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum in New York in 1967 by a non-LDS professor. The LDS Church had the papyri translated by top egyptologists, including Kalus Baer of the University of Chicago and published reproductions of the papyri almost immediately. It was obvious that the Metropolitan papyri--written in an obviously non-meticulous (hurried to the point of sloppy) style with no traces whatsoever of red ink--was not the part of the collection used for the translation of the Book of Abraham.

Since the accuracy of a translation of one manuscript cannot be established by looking at a completely different manuscript that was never translated, the Metropolitan papyri discovered thus far does nothing to validate or invalidate the Book of Abraham, let alone the Book of Mormon. Interestingly enough, there have been some similarities identified between the translation of the Metropolitan Papyri (part of an Egyptian ritual to prepare one for the next life) and the LDS temple ceremony, but that is a different subject entirely.

and was convicted on charges of fraud associated by divining for gold during the period when he was having his visitations from the angels!

I'm sorry to say that your source for this information is in error. If you were to read the existing documentation on the March 20, 1826 trial, which consists of a single page of Justice Neely's ledger for "People vs. Joseph Smith the glass looker-Misdemeanor". Neely billed $2.68 "for my fees in examination of above cause". There is no record of any trial, let alone a conviction. Four years later, Smith was tried (and acquitted) of being a "disorderly person". No mention of the supposed prior conviction in 1826 exists in the court records or in the writings of contemporary anti-Mormons (who certainly would not have left out such an important event). Joseph Smith was dragged into court numerous times and was held in jail (sometimes for months) but as was never convicted of a crime.

Little Fauss certainly misrepresented the teachings of the mormon church, yet despite its grandiose claims, it isn't any better than any other (Christian) church.

You are correct that Little Fauss misrepresented the teaching s of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Of course, I (and over 12 million others) believe that it is better than other churches-- that is why we are members. It probably doesn't shock you to hear that I have friends who are Southern Baptists, Roman Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Lutherans, Mennonites, Evangelical Free, Presbyterians and Methodists who believe that their church is "better than any other (Christian) church."

 

I apologize for the typos. I took too long to edit my post and was locked out.

I also try not to include my Northeastern IL signature when I post on non-academic or personal topics. Just ignore it here.

 

Tony,

The many wives of Joseph Smith are well documented. If elders and deacons in the early church could only have one wife, I am not sure how or when God changed his mind! But the 'many wives' revelations, which came to a shock to other officers and members of the Mormon church, seemed to be a convenient revelation, given that Smith had taken up with both young and older women!

His conviction for divining for gold was really meant to highlight a greater 'crime' which the young impressionable Smith fell into later; the claim of the 'discovery' of gold plates underneath a hill (under ground). Just an extension of his gold divining practice!

The 'red and black ink' argument put forth by the apologists of the LDS is only one of at least 8 arguments that the church has raised and used at different points to try and explain what is still a great embarassement to the church. The red and black ink argument was developed (and since abandoned by the church) from a statement from Cowdery who received it 3 rd hand; it's origins been from a publicity brouchure produced by the travelling Egyptian roadshow from which the manuscripts had been purchased for Smith to 'translate'. Anyone who is interested in the whole Smith/Book of Abraham fiasco can easily reference themselves from the internet.

We could examine the Book of Mormon itself; its story been based on a preexisting story already in circulation in Smith's times about the Jews coming to America. Furthermore, the hundreds of almost direct quotes from the Old and New Testament, in the language of the King James version, are amazing. And to think that when the Book of Mormon was written in its 'original', the neither the King James bible nor the NT had been written!

Someone said that knowledge is 'believed truth'. If you wish to throw your thinking processes out the window when it comes to the examination of your faith then so be. If you took the same approach in your academic work, you would never be employed (except perhaps at BYU!)

Sorry, Tony, but that's the way it is!

 

Well, there are certain advantages to older women just as there are certain advantages to younger women. Why settle for just one?

 

Ya, but over 30 of them, and one as young as 16!

 

Re: Not that there's anything wrong with that....

Steve: In Old Testament times, your wives' handmaidens (e.g., Bilhah and Zilpah) were every bit as much your wives as the free wives (e.g., Rachel and Leah) were. Consequently, Dan and Naphtali (sons of Rachel's handmaiden) and Gad and Asher (sons of Leah's handmaiden) were just as much the legitimate sons of Jacob as Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulon, Issachar (sons of Leah), Joseph, and Benjamin (sons of Rachel). Moreover, the children of a free wife's handmaiden were legally children of the free wife. So Ishmael was every bit as legit as Isaac.

 

There do exist some states where 16 is old enough.

 

Well, pressures from the state goverment finally forced the Mormon church to have a change of 'revelation' and polygamy was abandoned under such legislative pressures.

However, that did not stop church presidents, even after the church (and the state) out banned the practice, to have numerous wives

 

Personally, I think polygamy - both polygyny and polyandry - ought to be legalized.

 

Let's go one big step further. Someone please tell me why the governement feels they should have any say in who marries who? How is this a function of the government?
Jack

 

I don't know. Maybe the government wants kids to have identifiable legal parents in hopes of reducing the number of kids that become wards of the state.

 

Originally posted by davidhume

Tony,

The many wives of Joseph Smith are well documented. If elders and deacons in the early church could only have one wife, I am not sure how or when God changed his mind! But the 'many wives' revelations, which came to a shock to other officers and members of the Mormon church, seemed to be a convenient revelation, given that Smith had taken up with both young and older women!

No one in the LDS Church denies that the practice of plural marriage (polygyny) was practiced by the church in the 1800s, starting with Joseph Smith. The prescriptions of the Apostle Paul regarding the qualifications of New Testament Bishops and Deacons said nothing about the calling of prophets, so God would not have to change His mind about anything. The accounts of Joseph Smith's plural wives are far from clearly documented and the “facts” differ depending on the author’s predisposition against Smith.

His conviction for divining for gold was really meant to highlight a greater 'crime' which the young impressionable Smith fell into later; the claim of the 'discovery' of gold plates underneath a hill (under ground). Just an extension of his gold divining practice!

Sorry, my friend, but since Joseph Smith was never convicted for diving for gold (or for any other offense), your argument fails. No offense, but since claiming to have discovered gold plates underneath a hill has, to my knowledge, never been a ‘crime’ in this country, your statement is rather silly.

The 'red and black ink' argument put forth by the apologists of the LDS is only one of at least 8 arguments that the church has raised and used at different points to try and explain what is still a great embarassement to the church. The red and black ink argument was developed (and since abandoned by the church) from a statement from Cowdery who received it 3 rd hand; it's origins been from a publicity brouchure produced by the travelling Egyptian roadshow from which the manuscripts had been purchased for Smith to 'translate'. Anyone who is interested in the whole Smith/Book of Abraham fiasco can easily reference themselves from the internet.

Really? What are the other seven arguments? You are correct that anyone can reference just about anything on the Internet. Just pick a topic and you can find both good information and misinformation. If you only look for one side of an argument and ignore the other, you can find an abundance of information. Just look at some of the anti-Degreeinfo fora on the Internet for an example. Here is some of the “other side” that you missed:

1) The Book of Abraham has never been an embarrassment to the Church. We regard it as part of the body of scripture.
2) Oliver Cowdery saw the papyri with his own eyes, so any statement from him describing them would have been first-hand, not third-hand. Joseph Smith's journal also mentioned the rubrics (red ink). I supposed that Joseph got that third-hand as well
3) Several other people saw the papyri, since they were in the possession of Lucy Smith (Joseph's mother) for several years after his death and she would show them to hundreds of visitors. Robert Horne wrote an account of his visit with Lucy and commented "The records which I saw were some kind of parchment or papyrus, and it contained writing in red and black." This is also a first-hand account. The statement that the Church has, somehow "abandoned" these accounts is, of course, erroneous.

We could examine the Book of Mormon itself; its story been based on a preexisting story already in circulation in Smith's times about the Jews coming to America. Furthermore, the hundreds of almost direct quotes from the Old and New Testament, in the language of the King James version, are amazing. And to think that when the Book of Mormon was written in its 'original', the neither the King James bible nor the NT had been written!

Surely, having conducted such extensive research on the Internet regarding the Book of Mormon, you already know that these allegations have been answered numerous times over the past fifty years. No? Well, I invite you to read the supposed “preexisting story” (there are actually two of them)? Can you even name them or tell me anything at all about them and how the Book of Mormon is based upon them? I thought not. I have copies of both Solomon Spaulding’s “Manuscript Found” and Ethan Smith’s “View of the Hebrews”. If you had read them, you would not have made your statement. They are nothing at all like the Book of Mormon.

Someone said that knowledge is 'believed truth'. If you wish to throw your thinking processes out the window when it comes to the examination of your faith then so be. If you took the same approach in your academic work, you would never be employed (except perhaps at BYU!) Sorry, Tony, but that's the way it is!

Sorry Dave, but to accept arguments about the Book of Mormon presented by those who have never read it and fail to understand its contents would certainly be “throwing” one’s “thinking processes out”. Blindly accepting the musings of anti-Mormon pseudo-scholars who merely resurrect tired and long-discredited arguments made by equally inept anti-Mormon authors decades earlier would certainly be “throwing” one’s “thinking processes out”. My combination of study and faith has served me quite nicely in both my religious and professional life, thank you. Your crack disparaging BYU, a top-flight academic institution by any objective measure, was not worth a response. You are free to make (incorrect) assumptions about my intelligence or scholarship based on erroneous information compiled by less-than-competent authors of web sites, but please excuse me if I have trouble taking your condescending view of me with any degree of seriousness. I have no trouble engaging in dialogue about the beliefs and practice of my church when there is a serious attempt at understanding and exchange (such as my interactions with Dr. Bill Grover).

Dave, that’s just the way it is. God Bless you.

 

You, of course, are aware that most of the wives attributed to Joseph Smith were sealed to him posthumously...