Dale

I found a link to the differering sacrament prayers used by the Community of Christ. My Nampa congregation uses the traditional ones. World Church News Community of Christ, We proclaim Jesus Christ and promote communities of joy, hope, love, and peace.

My reaction to the Trinity idea has been one of skepticism. If others want to believe in thats ok with me. To me its not the only way to view the Godhead.

I love that man. he was someone i always looked up to. I was thinking about watching Soylent Green. I need to rent the 10 commandments.

I only have tried to get important books around to be informed of the basics. A lot of the scholarly issues i have not made an in-depth study of. I look through the books and return to stuff that is important to study again. I do a lot of topical study in the scriptures. But reading scripture from beginning to end has never been easy for me. Every time i read my books i see stuff i wish i knew better. So that motivates me to study harder on those topics that i feel are important to understand.

Prisonchaplain-I supplement my readings in Anti-Mormon material with other stuff in my library by Evangelicals. The best book on the Trinity i found was by Allister E. McGrath an Evangelical scholar. It is entitled Understanding the Trinity. I own a copy of the New Mormon challenge. I do try and keep good Evangelical books in my personal library.

Holly-I do not feel the orthodox idea of the Trinity was orthodox in the early church. See FAIR's Godhead and the Trinity article. Godhead and the Trinity - FAIRMormon FARMS has also responded to the scholarly issues it gets on God, and Jesus from its perspective. Response to Search for the Truth DVD I am a Reorganized Latter Day Saint. My church has had official anti-Trinitarian views over the years. Officially my church has gone Trinitarian. Not mandating views on God we still have many members like myself who hold God and Christ as two persons. I have read the best Evangelical arguments for the Trinity for many years and still am not persuaded its unquestionably true. The best book on the Trinity i have found is Understanding the Trinity by Allister E. McGrath. So i understand the idea i just don't think it is all true. I read Evangelical Anti-Mormon material because of my interest in apologetics. I make no secret of the fact i was LDS prior to my joining the Community of Christ in 2005. I had exposure to Evangelical claims they were the pure orthodoxy for about 20 years now. My belief that the Book of Mormon is scripture has only solidified. Unlike some Ex-LDS i am not above admitting the possibility i made a mistake in leaving the church. I don't think i did, but i do not view my beliefs influenced by Joseph Smiths teachings a mistake. One of the several Anti-Mormon books i am studying is Mormonism Unmasked by R. Philip Roberts. He has been in Anti-Mormon films like the Mormon Puzzle and Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith. If i found their arguments persuasive i would be Evangelical today. Instead all such exposure to such stuff did was to keep me LDS until 2005. My reading of such stuff had no influence on my leaving the church. What did was i had RLDS associations starting in 1989 and i liked my church enough to eventually join. I do support you as a person. I do not agree with your big reason for leaving. Keep open to the option of re-joining the LDS Church. Many ex-LDS find Evangelicalism untrue and return to the church. I could return to the LDS Church myself although i would have to undergo the process for being allowed to return. I myself do not encourage people to become ex-LDS, but rather to pause on the idea for many years to make sure they don't get caught up in mistake.

We have women elders, and women who serve in all parts of the priesthood. Although they tend to be adult women deacons. We have women who serve as apostles. We do get communion passed. We use grape juice in our version of the sacrament. The bread tastes the same as i remember from the LDS services. We use the same sacrament prayers. Although i have seen a modernized version that some in the church toyed with. These may, or may not be officially approved versions as i am not certain whether conference ever approved their use in worship. -------------- Our Inland West Mission Center recently put up a website. The new website has some technical problems with it. Inland West Mission Center It gave my congreation i attend when my health permits its own page. Nampa Congregation I have Multiple Sclerosis which stops me from driving. So i keep in touch with people at church via e-mail mostly.

Xan-This link might interest you The Mormon Defense

I see one more trouble for Trinitarianism. Did Jesus have a spirit body? (Luke 24:39) It does not say Jesus found his spirit form was different from that of other spirits. It is problematic to say they are one in essence if their was a personage of spirit in the Trinity. The creedal idea of God is based on the idea that vast differences existed between creature and creator. One illustration in my Understanding The Trinity book compared Jesus to a sample of moon rock. In Jesus would be a tiny bit of God like the sample of the moon would be a tiny bit of the moon. But that God is bigger than can fit into Jesus body. So he allows us to sample what God is like.

Xan-i have a suggestion for you. Why don't you post a short post with a few top of your questions for us? Instead of debating back and forth let everyone as a group simply work on answering your original question post. That way it won't be as a chaotic, or contentious of a discussion. I really hate you to leave the discussions here.

With Xan i suspect she took a lot witnessing to Mormon training. She just had to much knowledge of quotes she got from Anti-Mormon sources not for me to suspect that. Her questions were to practiced not to be deliberate. So she comes her thinking she will save a bunch of Book of Mormon believers from the deception she thinks we are under. She fought every answer she was given to the point my patience was wearing quite thin. If she had a bad experience here that is because she invited it upon herself. The last time i replied to her she gave me a quick angry rebuttal with a stack of quotations demonstrating her fight mentality. It is kind of hard to respond to every isssue she raised as she was attempting to overwhelm you with issues. If she had stuck around i could have spent the next five weeks answering her issues and she still would choose to remain confused. I have a copy of Jerald and Sandra Tanners Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?. As a rule unless i do not allow Evangelicals to cite the whole contents to me. I do not like debate with people who are trying to witness to me. I ask myself a question before dialoguing with Evangelicals. "If what this person felt about my religion were untrue would they want to know it?" And if my little voice tells tells me "No." my rule is to tell them to "Stop." But i was having fun so i tolerated it longer than i should have as far as my own participation went.

XanYou:I just cannot reconcile what you all have said here, to Mormon Doctrine. Me:That is ok. You:Joseph Smith wrote: God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . . . He was once a man like us; yea that God himself, the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. . . .{10} Me:The Community of Christ of which i am a member see's the sermon as wrong on that point. Deut.13:1-5 does not prevent a prophet from going wrong about God. You:Here then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you. . . .{13} Me:Once again the sermon does not represent my churches teachings. But i don't see what you posted as disproving my answer to you. You:Bruce McConkie states, "An exalted and glorified man of holiness could not be a Father unless a woman of like glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a Mother. The begetting of children makes a man a father and a woman a mother whether we are dealing with man in his mortal or immortal state."{15} All men and women are thus the offspring of this heavenly union. Me:Go to Mormon Miscellaneous. Van Hale has a paper on the Origin of Spirit in Early Mormon Thought. Joseph Smith held God was uncreated. He did not teach the spirit birth idea and Van Hale documents this well that this idea was not clearly his. We split from the LDS in 1844, so their leaders are not our leaders. So we never continued the idea of eternal marriage. Why are you bothered by his idea i am not? My theology differed from Bruce R. Mckonkie but i love most of his ideas. I doubt the literal spirit children idea. You:James Talmage wrote, "God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title 'Elohim,' is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of the spirits of the human race."{16} Me:LDS believe that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. In the age of artificial insemination and cloning other means of God having a Son exists. Where do the scriptures teach the literal spirit children idea? D.&C. 132 is the only supposed prophetic early source of the idea i know of. You:I am confused about this one too because it's from a prophet from your church, Over a period of 21 years Brigham Young taught that Adam was the God of this world, the creator of it, the Father of Jesus Christ, and our Heavenly Father. As the second Prophet, Seer, Revelator and President of the LDS Church, he taught this as essential church doctrine both in private and public discourse. Me:He also distinguished Adam from Elo-heim 1852 sermon. if he was wrong does Deut.13:1-5 prevent a true prophet from later going wrong about God? You:Here are quotes from Brigham Young on the subject of Adam-God. "Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later .... When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; … Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation" (April 9, 1852, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pages 50-51). Me:In the 1852 sermon he also clarifies his belief in Eloheim, Jehovah and Michael. You:"I purpose to speak upon a subject that does not immediately concern yours or my welfare. I expect in my remarks I will allude to things that you search after as being absolutely necessary for your salvation in the kingdom of God .… Father Adam and Mother Eve had the children of the human family prepared to come here and take bodies; … and that body gets an exaltation with the spirit, when they are prepared to be crowned in the Father’s kingdom. ‘What, into Adam’s kingdom?’ Yes .… I tell you, when you see your father in the heavens, you will see Adam. When you see your mother that bore your spirit, you will see Mother Eve." (October 8, 1854, Where Does It Say That?, pages 1-8, 1-9; Brigham Young Papers Mss, Call # Ms d 1234, Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.) Me:He said in another sermon that he could not get LDS to accept his ideas. So his ideas never changed official Mormon Doctrine. We feel Joseph Smith 3rds Joseph Smiths son was prophet, so rejected the idea to. At most the only doctrine that effects my church are ones attributed to Joseph smith. and i do not feel they effect the truth of the LDS Church or mine one bit. You:"Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true" (October 7, 1857, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, page 331). "I will give you a few words of doctrine, upon which there has been much inquiry, and with regard to which considerable ignorance exists. Br. Watt will write it, but it is not my intention to have it published; therefore pay good attention, and store it up in your memories. Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God that will be a curse to many Elders of Israel because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet upon it the world hold it derision." ("A Few Words of Doctrine" reported by G.D. Watts, given by President Brigham Young in Great Salt Lake City, October 8th, 1861. A.M., photocopy of archive # Ms/d/1234/Bx 49/fd 8). Me:Big deal. I read these same Adam God quotes for many years. I am ex-LDS. I did not read these sermons and think Mormonism was false because of them. They had nothing to do with my becoming RLDS. That is because i came to see that a true prophet can be wrong about such subjects and still be a prophet. In the LDS and my church a President can be in transgression for heresy, ect. But unless charged in accordance with the Doctrine and Covenants he cannot have his office taken from him. Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith were never charged with anything so are innocent under church law. You:It's my understanding that this is not doctrine anymore, but why did a prophet say all the above things and claim they were revealed to him if they are not true? Did the Holy Spirit reveal them or not? Me:It was never LDS doctrine. Why does Mormonism have to be false if a prophet errs about God. Does Deut. 13:1-5 prevent a true prophet from later erring about God? Was not Judas as an Apostle ever inspired in what he said? Galatians 1:8,9 has Paul saying even he could teach a wrong gospel. If it were ever proved he erred in such a manner should i have to throw out the writings of Paul? I do not see the truth of the church dependent on a prophets personal errors. If a prophet can err about the gospel why not about God also? Joseph Smith taught that even his revelations needed to be tested in the leading quorums of the church before going to the people. He knew he could accept a false manifestation as a true one. His idea was that such a revelation if under discussion ran against a snag in discussion it might be stopped before going to the people. As early as 1829 David whitmer said Joseph Smith taught some revelations were of men, others of god and others of the Devil. It was never his teaching that the prophetic office was any guarantee of infallability. With Brigham Young he had one revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants. (D.&C. 136) If that was a true revelation it does not matter even if he erred over 20 years on Adam God. Why don't you get an LDS D.&C. and apply the Barean test to all of it? (Acts 17:11) Why not pray to God about what you are reading? (Moroni 10) Just beware the Thessalonican test. This is the universal anti-Mormon test used on Mormonism all the time. I really hate to see you leave the conversation. I do not hate you. I feel you have been mislead. I feel you are decieved. I am willing to labor with you if you are sincerely interested and want to know the answers. If what you felt about Mormonism were untrue would you want to know it? If the answer is "No." then not even God can help you.

The plural of majesty explanation is employed to explain away the "us" and the "our." This explanation say's it is not a conversation between the Father, and son, or his angelic host. I myself reject that explanation. In Genisis 11:6 the people talk about themselve's as an "us" literally. But only when God is talking to Jesus, his angels as an "us" some tell me i am not allowed to take it literally. (vs.7) That to that some God talks about himself in the plural. How does my alternative view fit with this? "But you are my witnesses says the Lord . You are my servant. You have chosen to know me, believe in me, and understand that I alone am God--there never has been, and there never will be. I, yes I am the Lord and there is no other Savior." (Isa. 43:10,11, New Living Translation) "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have I not told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses, Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."(Isa.44:8,KJV) We learn as much as an answer we will ever get in modern revelation. "Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I AM,"(D.&C. 29:1) And then later in verse 42 Jesus starts speaking as if he was the Father, "I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only begotten Son." "Thus saith the Lord; for I am God, and have sent mine Only Begotten Son into the world for the redemption of the world," (D.&C. 49:5) In verse 28 it says "Behold, I am Jesus Christ, and I come quickly. Even so. Amen." Jesus when speaking as the Father in these verses is representing the Fathers exclusiveness as God. In the LDS Pearl of Great Price its Selections from the Book of Moses has a few statements from God that interest me. It said "and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all. (Chapter 1:6) This is very close to Isa.44:8. "And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so." (Chapter 2:26) This clearly reveals them as being distinct personalities. The Father knows Jesus exists. He just does not know of him as a God beside him. God does not mind Jesus being a God with him. "In the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God." (John 1:1) "R, Laird Harris notes the Hebrew word at Isa.45:5, 'epes' means that there is no one in the supernatural realm who is his equal (47:8,10. Notice they are not saying this means there are no other gods, but only no others which are equal to Israel's God. The background is against the heathen nation and their gods, which probably were taken to be stronger than Israel's God. The Hebrew does not mean there are no others, only that there are no others who are Yahweh's equal, a very different setup than White is claiming." (Journal of Mormon Apologetics, Volume 1, FAIR(1999) pg.43) When i first read this answer it helped me with Isaiah passages a little. It helped to see the Book of Abraham idea of Gods need not contradict Isaiah. (Chapters 4,5) But it still did not help Jesus fit in as a 2nd God with God. Isaiah 53:6,9-10 do slightly teach a belief in a Father and Son. It does not however have the distinct personalities reveal themselves. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord [God the Father] hath laid on him [Christ] the iniquity of us all....And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord [the Father] to bruise him [Christ]; he hath put him to grief." (Isa.53) But if as in D.&C. 29, and 49 Jesus speaks as the Father we were not meant to know that. He could speak in the same revelation as the Father totally. Or he could speak as the Father, and be Himself. As long as the Fathers personality is expressed through the Son he is still the exclusive God. Does it make God any less exclusive God to be in a Godhead with two other persons?

LDS prefer to say we are literal spirit children of our heavenly Father. I do not actually see the idea in LDS scriptures. The idea got worked into LDS official statements. But i actually feel the idea is a result of misunderstanding D.&C. 132:which talks about "a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." I think it refers to having physical children after the resurrection. Most thought it taught having spirit children. That is one interpretation but not the only interpretation. The only way the Father has children these days is spiritual adoption. "the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto god." (D.&C. 76:24) Since Jesus was a spirit to me my guess is God miracelously created his spirit body much like he did the angels. (Collossians 1:15) The intelligence part of Jesus put into his spirit body "was not created or made." (D.&C. 93:29) "The spirit of truth is God. I am the Spirit of truth." (93:26) "Intelligence or the light of truth, was not created or made." (vs.29) The sex life of God is none of my business. Of course i am RLDS and we don't feel the Father has a body, or a wife. But if i were LDS this is how i would approach the issue. But i have no objection to a pre-incarnate angelic form being created for Jesus intelligence. If i found out the Father had a body and a wife i would would accept it without losing my faith over it. Jesus was called Rabbi a title reserved for married men. Certain women had came to anoint Jesus body with spices. That was the duty of the widow, or widows. (Luke 23:55,56) In John 11 Jesus calls out a woman in mourning which only a husband could do. If God the Son had a wife that means God had a married life if they arn't separate beings? (Luke 24:39) Under the creeds outside of Jesus the man they are the same person.

I will not answer your past questions to me. The condition for our continuing to dialogue on this topic is solely limited to the latin word persona. I am asking the questions now. I only want to see if you really know the creedal idea of them being non-persons persons is Biblical based on anything you have clearly found in the Bible. If the meaning of persona is really in the Bible you should not have a difficulty in proving the three as not being defineable as modern persons? Let us just examine passages where the three are aware of each other like three modern persons. Then show me what definitions of persons, Paul, Jesus, or any New Testament writer was operating under to avoid being accused of mixing the idea of three Gods with ideas of one God. I did not write the creeds. the creeds superimpose persona every time on passages dealing with the threeness of God. So i really want you to take out your Bible only on those passages that clearly teach the distinctly aware persons. Then i want you to show me from them where those texts where they mean mean persona, or have any meaning similar to persona. The word Trinity is not in the Bible. But the meaning is supposed to be all Biblical So i challenge you to show me that they felt the persons were like three dumb persons an actor plays. Or show me exactly where they used the word persons in reference to the three where they clearly meant non-persons. Otherwise the Godhead is split into three modern persons even if treated misleadingly as one God. Can you prove the creedal idea of persons Biblical? That is what your church teaches.

This is the topic i am studying in my Mormonism Unmasked book. So i will share my thoughts about the issue. Psalm 110:4 is a coronation Psalm. It is not directly about Jesus, or Melchizedek, but an anointed Davidic king. Psalms contemplates a succession of priest kings. Of the order of Melchizedek Saul, David, Solomon, and Jesus shared the order of Melchizedek. I see nothing in Hebrews that prevents more priest/kings from being called to that order. With Hebrews 7:11,12 i do not see it as saying the Levitical priesthood was brought to an end. The Priesthood was still around after Paul had made the statement. The book is silent on what the ultimate fate of that priesthood would be. Certainly them continuing to offer sacrifices was unecessary. But Melchizedek keeps his priesthood although he does not offer sacrifice these days. (Hebrews 7:3) With men other than Jesus, and Melchizedek holding that priesthood was changed long before Jesus got it. This was at the same time the Levitical priesthood was operating. So perfection was never by the Levitical priesthood. But God kept it around inspite of other priests arising after the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:23-25. Some in the Melchizedek priesthood died like Saul, David Solomon. They offered sacrifices and God had no problem with that. I suppose like Jesus Saul might be able to get his priesthod back in the resurrection. I really doubt David and Solomon can. 1 Timothy 2:5 should be read with verse 1. It allows us to do acts of mediation with Christ for other men as believers. I do not see it as preventing earthly priesthood doing similar things. Priesthood of believers-1 Peter 2:5,9 should be read with Exodus 19:6. Israel was called a kingdom of priests at the same time a ministerial priesthood existed. Unlike R. Philip Roberts i felt he had no case for an end to mortal priesthood. Certainly priesthood would have to be revamped to so that priests could no longer have to sacrifice. This is the status of Melchizedeks priesthood function these days.

Xan-I see Isa. passages ect as presenting many contradictions to the New Testament idea of the persons. I see New Testament writers as not believing in the latin word persona. I see no reason to believe they believed anything like it. So i accept they considered the one God was composed of what would know today as three modern persons. A heretic who accepted God and Christ as two persons would simply camo-flauge their heresy in the language of mono-theism. So to me since i cannot find the creedal definitions of persons Biblical i confess they simply split the God of the Bible into two Gods. So i see the New Testament idea of God as mixing in a social Trinity with strict mono-theistic ideas that can never harmonize. The creedal writers tried an failed to do it with persona. I simply feel Jesus pretended to be the exclusive God with the Father in the Old Testament. So that when speaking for the Father as his agent he would pretend to have no personality of his own. I would not get that idea from reading Isaiah passages. They do teach the exclusiveness of God. My testimony of God and Christ being two distinct persons comes from a careful study of the New Testament. I just confess the Bible mixes mono-theism with tri-theism and extend no time trying to explain away the contradictions in Gods word. I see the New Testament claiming a lot "We are mono-theists just like you." "But by the way this one God is composed of Father and Son." I know its blasphemy, but maybe God and Christ got tired of pretending to be the same person as they did in Isaiah. To me the only way to avoid poly-theism is to accept the idea of the Trinity, or equivocate on Jesus Deity. Since i reject the creedal idea of persons the 1st option is out for me as a serious option. I am more open to equivocating on Jesus Deity option than accepting the Trinity. But i confess scripture does not do that. So not seeing a need to be a strict mono-theist i simply confess the New Testament departs from strict mono-theism. Certainly i am well aware of monotheistic proof-texts from the Old and New Testaments. I just feel those scriptures that teach the three are distinct persons split the one God of the Bible into two Gods. I cannot look at one mono-theistic proof text and not see the persons of God. I doubt Paul believed the meaning of a word like persona, or anything like it. So his idea of one God the Father and only Lord Jesus to me simply split the God of the Bible into two modern persons. I spent a lot of time with you on the latin word persona for a reason. The reason being is the meaning of the word person is very important. It can mean human persons. It can mean God as a person. It can mean the persons the actor God plays in the drama of history. Depending on what definition, Paul, Jesus, James, ect had in mind when calling God persons would effect whether they can be viewed as strict mono-theists, or not.

Does Jesus the spirit part have an identifiable personality distinct from the Father? The idea that the three persons are distinct at the same time seems to say so. But in the next breath its denied they are distinct beings. That they arn't really beings because that would turn the Godhead into a committee of Gods. So in ponderering the creedal idea of God i have been looking for a definition that explains what a distinct center of consciousness within God is. The true definition of the persons in the creeds is that these distinct centers of consciousness are mere roles of an actor God. It is not a mystery that God and Christ are two persons. I only see three ways they can be two persons. They can be distinct personalities of the same essence, but i see this idea as contradicting the creedal definition they are non-persons. Unless they are saying they can be both non-persons and have personalities at the same time. But that still seems like an logical impossibility to me. They can be mere roles of God. And they can be two modern persons like i define persons. The idea of the Trinity is supposed to be a 100% Biblical. But i look in vain for the meaning of the latin word persona in scripture. I do not see Jesus ever teaching him and the Father were non-persons in order to avoid non-polytheistic definitions of person.

Xan-Do you have an alternative to the latin word persona? The idea of the persons being non-persons makes no sense to me. They seem as smart individually like three humans. Do you feel they are not smart, so can be defined as three non-persons? Of course the Trinity idea is not saying they are dumb. God is smart. But to define the three as non-persons is to say they are dumb otherwise they are three smart individuals. I think the idea of three distinct centers of consciousness within God comes close to Tri-theism. The latin word persona, and other similar words if they exist are the only valid defense the creeds have against the idea it mixes the idea of God with persons who are like Gods. It seem like the creeds were written by theologians who wanted mono-theism, but also distinct persons within God. So they blended together ideas that were contradictory by adopting the latin word persona to pretend everything they were saying about God and the Godhead (Trinity) made sense.

I have in front of me a book entitled Reorganized Latter Day Saint Church: Is It Christian? by Carol Hanson. The book is also online as her ministry put it up. It had a good chapter 5 entitled Rejection of Biblical Reliability. I plan on taking sections out of it for discussion. I can't cite the title of the sections exactly as it does have a Copyrite on it. So i will make crude notes of what i am reading. I will only make comments on page 59,60 tonight. Proverbs 30:5,6-I see these verses as allowing scribes to tamper with God's flawless words. But that he would rebuke them and call them liar's. It can also mean if a person interprets added words, and meaning not in the Bible one can get a similar rebuke. To me i don't have a low view of the Bible but an accurate view. I would like Joseph Smith trust the original auto-graphs over the text as is now. Without seeing the lost original Bible books i see no absolute test of the reliability of the copies we have now. Joseph Smith 3rd once made a statement i agree with "We do not consider...the Bible infallible. We do not consider anything that passes through human hands to be infallible. We do not believe in the plenary [full] inspiration of the Bible" (Joseph Smith 3rd, President of the RLDS Church.) He did not even consider our own editions of the Book of Mormon in english, or french, ect infallible. How many parts did Nephi feel got removed from the Bible? I feel David had many wives. But i think he had only seven. What many parts was Nephi thinking of when he made that statement? He may have counted a small stack of changes as many changes? Depending on what he meant by many it leaves room for much of the copies to be mostly just fine. I know an Evangelical who will not use the NIV. He told me its corrupt producers were into works for salvation. I did not agree with him on his example. But i have had similar bad experiences with modern Bibles. Modern theological views can effect the form of translation. If Nephi, and God were being very picky they could count many changes Bible scholars would not. ( 1 Nephi 13) I think my friend was a KJV only believer. Maybe Nephi was an original Auto-graph only kind of believer.

Was Jesus a ghost? "And Jesus when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." (Matthew 27:50) "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39) Was Jesus spirit body created? "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature." (Colossians 1:15) I am aware of the common claim the word firstborn means priority, or pre-eminence. To me the explanation was invented by those who did not any part of the pre-mortal Jesus created. The Jesus and Lucifer are brothers idea is right there. Did only the Son have anything to do with creating the angels? Did the Father have no role in the creation of spirits? Was this created spirit subordinate to God? What did Jesus spirit look like? Was his spirit actually a formless Ghost, or spirit? "I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) I hear the argument that this means only the man Jesus is subordinate to God. But if the 2nd person of God has a body then his spirit is as much subordinate to God as his man part. Does not the brain of Jesus control what the spirit within him does? Or does he have no control of anything but his man parts? Are the persons of God mere roles of God? Are they mere distinctions? Ar the three like the dumb persons of an actor in a play? Or are they as smart as three individual men? "When we talk of God as a person, we naturally think of God as a person. But theologians like Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word 'person' with a different meaning. The word 'person' derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor's face-mask-mask-and, by extension, the role he takes in a play." "all three major roles in the drama of human redemption are played by one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor:God." "So when we talk of God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word." I selected the above quotes from my copy of Understanding the Trinity by Allister E. McGrath.(Zondervan,1988 pages 130,131) "Isaiah 43:10:b---"before me there was no God formed,neither shall there be after me." There was no Father God, or any other God, before the biblical God. There is not now and never will be, any other God! There are three person's, repeatedly declared to be God, forming the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. One God, with three eternal distinctions, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith by Floyd Mcekveen pg. 15. To me the evidence for the three persons not being mere roles of God is overwhelming. The persons on not three mere roles played by God. The three are aware of each other. The persons an actor plays are not aware of each other like the persons of an actor are? an actor can play only one role at a time. The three are the three all the time. Why cannot we view the three as like three humans? The only reason i keep finding given is the idea of one God would fall apart. The social Trinity idea goes against the Bible idea of one God, so we can't do it. Even if one rejects the persona term it still insults the intelligence of the three by denying they are persons. That denial exists inspite of their awareness of each other which is a trait of three humans. What is the replacement word for persona since it is misleading when used in regards to God? See you have to deny the three are like humans. But i know of know word but the modern definition of persons that acknowledges the intelligence of the three. Any other definition of non-persons still teaches the three are like the dumb persons of an actor. So the creeds might as well keep persona as no other word protects the New Testament from the charge it mixes the idea of a social Trinity with mono-theism. To me the Bible has to a hundred percent fit the creeds, or it fits the Anti-Trinitarian position better. I read someone like Floyd cite Isa.43:10 and think since i regard the persons as being defineable as persons it contradicts the New Testament as much as the idea of Gods. Try as i might to see the latin word persona as teaching true doctrine i see it instead as a cheap harmonization ploy. The persons seemed like three actor's, but Tertullian could not have that, so adopted that bogus word persona to insult the intelligence of the three. Very clearly the latin word persona denies the three no more have intelligence than the dumb persons an actor pretends to be. The actor God can be the only intelligence, or the New Testament wandered away from strict mono-theism. I see a lot of mono-theistic verses in the Old and New Testaments. I even see some as fitting the Trinity idea well. But i see a certain number unless one puts a persona sticker on them that blatantly teaches God and Christ are two persons. I read at one time, or another every commentary thats supposed to harmonize these difficult passages with the crees. Rather than try and answer Isa.43:10 i simply honestly confess the scriptures contradict themselves when the New Testament got into the idea of three persons being God. I have a hard time seeing Jesus in John 17:21,22 saying the three were pretend one in purpose. His use of the word "we" suggest he accepted the "us" and "our" of Genisis 1:26,27 literally. He certainly did not see them as mere plural of majesties. Even though the oneness of the three goes beyond one in purpose it presents further problems for them being mere roles of God. One cannot be one in purpose with oneself. Plus if Jesus has a created spirit body that overly separates the essence of God. Unless their was an essence wearing that spirit body it would be like i would put my hand in a glove. This is basically all the omni-present God could do with Jesus body is wear it like a glove.

I test my Jesus, God, and Gospel each time i read their books against Mormonism. They do not persuade me they have the exclusive truth. I was reading Mormonism Unmasked by a leading Southern Baptist critic of Mormonism today. I took out my Bible-repondered the argument i was studying read the scriptures in context. I have Books like Reasoning From the Scriptures with the Mormons by Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine. I look up their commentary on the proof texts i use to support my belief. I know how to read my Bible. I just do not grant that these critics of Mormonism read their Bible all the time right. As a habit if i can when citing a scripture i try and look up the Evangelical commmentary lest i be accused of scripture twisting. See i am not into just asking God in prayer for wisdom in discerning true from false teaching. I take out my Bible and apply the Barean test. (Acts 17:11) So i feel i can trust God twice as much than if i just relied on my feelings. Feelings can mislead. Feelings do not always mislead. Just do not test the truth like the Thessalonicans and my Anti-Mormon writers do. The Barean test is abused by them. "And the people of Barea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth. As a result, many Jews believed, as many of the prominent Greek women and men." (Acts 17:11, New Living Translation) My Anti-Mormon authors do not listen eagerly to the Restored Gospel message. They are like the wicked Thessalonicans having their own religion of man. So if they search the scriptures at all its to disprove the message. They have no interest in believing.

Xan you are basing a case for no doctrinal significant changed based on persons who have only seen copies. They have never seen the originals which are lost, so are no experts on the original. I see the scholars you refer to as speculating the case for inerrancy has been won based on only what they have seen. I recall Mark Twain as once saying there were three kinds of lies, damned lies, infernal lies and statistics. The 99.5% statistic only helps the copies so to me its a lie if used to say the copies match the original inerrantly. You avoided my argument. All it takes is one corrupted single copy by a corrupt group of men, or copyists to effect honestly kept later copies? Honest men would have no need to effect the Bible by tampering with God's word. At most all the correct copies in the world says nothing about whether the first copy was transmitted correctly? How do you connect the dots between the type of scrappy manuscripts John Gee points to and them being exact copies of the originals. They can't do comparison studies based on missing text they have not seen. 1.You cannot prove the integrity of those who copied the originals. If everyone can be proved to follow that meticulous method thats fine with me. You can't prove that they did without digging up the lost originals. 2.I reject the idea that the Holy Sprit protected the beginning copies of the originals. If you want to prove that to be dig up the lost originals so i can test your assumption. I am aware of Bible Reliability proof texts and feel it is scripture twisting. With lost Bible books those who say none of them were scriptural are speculating. It may be true many of them might be, but i know of no Bible verse where these books are referred to where they are clearly treated as fiction. So to me the closed canon idea is still at risk because if any of them were meant to be in the Bible, but you say they arn't you are wrong. Do you admit you are wrong about them since you are speculating? If you can speculate why can't i? If the Bible has been inerrantly preserved would not God want me to apply logic and reason to testing the claims of men? So far when reading you reply to me i see you relying on others opinion. And those who make the opinion can only document their opinion based on documentation that post-dates the lost originals. They hope the originals arn't in any danger, but don't know that. We are talking Bible preservation. I don't want to talk other issues with you until we are done talking Bible reliability. You said other stuff i could reply to. But i want to mainly discuss Bible reliability issues with you. I plan to raise a lot of issues in the next few days on that. I will pick out stuff out of one of my critics books and we can go back and forth on all the topics. With one issue the Greek can be translated right into english. Why could it not be? As long as it matches the greek it is a correct translation. But the Article of Faith are not scripture to me. My church has an official statement of belief and do not use it as much as we used to. In fact i wish it talked about transmission, and not just translation. To me transmission issues are more important than translation issues because i trust the KJV translators. I feel more importantly than translation that the first transmitted copies must match the oroginals. So the KJV translators can do a good job, but not know of added to or deleted material because they only worked with copies. The church Fathers writings have been used to support New Testament reliability. I guess you did not find out whether they saw only copies, or the bonified originals? This is one source of Bible reliability evidence used to prop up the scrappy collection of New Testament manuscripts. But with any witness we need to cross-examine their reliability as witnesses.

I no longer hold the idea they were the first people on earth. I read the Genisis account differently than i used to. I see Genisis 1 as using a broader definition of earth. But they did not have a concept of planet earth yet. Their world was what they could see. Their earth was small. In Genisis 2:5 the earth had not gotten rain in the localized area they called earth. It did not mean it did not rain on other parts of planet earth. When it talks of ground in Genisis 2:7 it means what they could see within their view. Adam to me was the first of the Adamic kind, and eve the mother of all living of the Adamic kind. "There was not a man to till the ground. (Genisis 2:5) Means what they could see around themselves, within our horizon. It can refer to a specific stretch of land in a local geographic sense. Zech 5:6 "all the earth" means it is talking about Palestine a tract of land or country not planet earth. I made some crummy quick notes from an article i have by Carol A. Hill. She feels the garden existed in the middle east. So i feel Pre-Adamites existed. I also accept Evolution. I accept the old earth. Try searching online for an article by Carol A. Hill. It is entitled The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local? It only came up as a printable article. On the 2nd page of the article it explains the use of "ground" and "earth." Her convincing argument forced me to go back and re-interpret how i understood the creation story use of those words. So a lot of things have happened on planet earth just not where they were at.

Xan-I am going to start calling you Xan for short. I will let you have your opinion. I am not in the i am right you are wrong kind of discussions. Only you can convince yourself that what you have been exposed to on Mormonism is wrong. I suffer from Multiple Sclerosis so i don't drive now. I was LDS at one point. I became a member of the Community of Christ in 2005. My associations with the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now called named Community of Christ) started in 1988. But i attended witnessing to Mormons seminars, ect whenever i could. These days i have to keep up with what's hot among the witnessing to Mormons crowd via the internet. I read the new books, try and watch the new films which i keep in a shoe box. I recently had to throw out a pile of tracts. Apologetics to me is for self defense, and helping others not to convince critics. My exposure to such stuff kept me a Book of Mormon believer. If you have a technical objection FAIR has a contact them option. They will e-mail you a one, or more responses. I do not claim to be an expert on Bible transmission issues. And if you have a specific objection to what John Gee said in his talk FAIR might be one way you can get back friendly answers. With lost Bible books any number of them might be non-canonical Apocryphal writings. But i do not wave away all such books without certain evidence as just Apocryphal type writings. The typical response i hear to the lost books is that they are not to be viewed as scripture. So no Evangelical would see a need to view to add these lost books if found to the Bible. Though Craig Blomburg an Evangelical scholar might be willing to add a New Testament book if it met certain criteria. I do think i would be interested in persuing the New Testament verses cited by the church Fathers. Were they witnesses only to copies, or the original lost New Testament books? Does any the material you have read deal with that?