prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13959 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
93
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
So are you now telling us that you believe you will never actually see our heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost, because you believe they only exist as spirits, or persons with spirit bodies only, and persons with only spirits bodies can't actually be seen?
If so, what scriptures are giving you those thoughts?
Yes, that's right. The latter part is more speculative. It may be that once we are glorified we may be able to see the Father and Holy Spirit. However, it is our understanding that they are spirits, without corporeal essence. Furthermore, it is difficult for non-LDS believers to fathom a God that is limited by a physical body, and yet omnipresent.
You're probably well aware of the most common passage used by non-LDS to explain why we believe the Father to be a spirit being.
John 4:23-24: 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. KJV
Thank you, that is much easier to grasp. When you referred to Jesus saying if we've seen him we've seen the Father, it reminded me of another scripture that I always took to mean the Father has a body or at the very least appears as a man:
"GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,"
"Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;"
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" (Hebrews 1:1-3, emphasis mine)
I'm not trying to dissuade or persuade you PC, just understand how such scriptures fit into your view of God.
There is actually an excellent discussion on this whole matter of "the image of God,"--one that encompasses the Genesis 1:26-27 passage as well, in the book How Wide the Divide. However, to offer a very short summary:
Non-LDS: The image of God references God's character, power, glory, attributes, not his physical characteristics, since He is spirit.
LDS: I recall several examples Prof. Robinson used to insist that the "image of God" phrase ALWAYS refers to physical characteristics in biblical writings, and so should be understood in the same way when referring to God the Father.
I understand your belief that mankind are not of the same nature or kind as God. I still don't get the "essentially" one God thing. Near as I can tell, you believe that each member of the Godhead is identical in essence or nature, meaning one did not exist before the other and none rely on the other for existence, each equal in glory, power and knowledge. Is that close? If so, I get where the difference is now between our views.
Bottom-line: That Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, to non-LDS believers, does not mean that the Father created the Son. We believe Jesus is co-eternal, co-equal with the Father in essence.
Here is where I can clarify the LDS viewpoint. We don't believe the Father is of superior essence or nature over the Son. We believe both Father and Son have a spirit body, and a glorified body of flesh and bone. Their essence or nature is the same. This supposes I'm using the word essence in the same way you mean. We believe the Father is in a position of authority over Jesus as his Father and King, but each of them has every quality and attribute of the other. The only distinction is in their role as Father or Son.
I believe Prof. Robinson (LDS scholar at BYU) signed on to the summary that LDS embrace subordinationism--that the Son is subordinate to the Father in essence or nature, because the Father created him. I stand ready to be corrected, however.
-
<div class='quotemain'>
1. ...Evangelicals, and indeed nearly all non-LDS Christians hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one ontologically, meaning ESSENTIALLY.
So would they appear as three separate beings or not?
How would they appear? Since non-LDS Christians believe the Father is spirit and not corporeal, the question is interesting indeed. Yet, we are told that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. The Holy Ghost also is Spirit. So my best off-the-cuff answer, minus theological terminology, is that we experience the three, yet probably only visibly see Jesus. Jesus did say that when we see him we see the Father.
I ask this because after following the excellent link you provided, I still don't get what you believe. I understand you're not a monarchial modalist, that you don't ride the "one in three" bike. But I'm not getting the "three in one" thing either. Just when I think I understand the trinity, a new definition is offered. And when I think I get THAT one down, words like ontology and essentially muddy the issue again.Ontology simply means essence, or essential. So, as I said before, the key difference along this line is that the LDS view of God is three very distinct individual personages that are united in purpose and will. The trinitarian view is that the three, while distinct persons, are ESSENTIALLY one God. Where this becomes an important distinction is that trinitarians believe that humans are eternally different in kind--that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are unique, unequaled, and have never been otherwise--not before time, nor afterwards.
I don't think I'm a numbskull, I just want clear statements like, "Yeah, if someone snapped a polaroid of the Godhead there'd be three separate beings in the picture," or not.There are three persons, but only Jesus would appear in the polaroid. (Next part said in my best Jack Nicholson voice) Are we clear??? (You're supposed to answer in your best Tom Cruise voice, "Crystal.").
Describe your view of trinity visually if you would. I'm an artist of sorts, and I see words as pictures, concepts as images. Thanks for bearing with me, I really want to understand what you believe and until I can say it back to you I don't feel I do.I'll stick with mathematics, since I scored a 12 percentile on the ASVAB artistic portion.
1 X 1 X 1 = 1
The Father X The Son X The Holy Spirit = The one true and living God.
Their totality is one, and they each represent the godhead, yet each has his individual place in the equation. Maybe this helps.
To draw the distinction, I'd represent the LDS view as follows:
1 + 1 + 1 = one godhead familial deity. While each represents the godhead, the unity is corporate, not essential. These are separate beings, and the Father is of superior essence over the Son and the Spirit.
-
Well then from what I understand of your view of the trinity, we agree. I hope you'll set me straight if I'm wrong, but you saying there are three distinct persons but one God, seems the same as LDS saying there are three distinct persons but one Godhead. Isn't it just a matter of terms? Otherwise, I don't understand where your beliefs differ from LDS beliefs. Is it just because we use the term Godhead? If you saw the Father, Son and Holy Ghost do you think you'd see three separate personages? I'm not understanding where we disagree.
The following is my summary of key differences as taken from How Wide the Divide?, by Craig L. Blomberg (Denver Seminary) and Stephen E. Robinson (BYU), "Christ and the Trinity, Joint Conclusion" (pp. 141-42) Again, these are their conclusions offered in my words:
1. How separate are the three persons of the Trinity? Evangelicals, and indeed nearly all non-LDS Christians hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one ontologically, meaning ESSENTIALLY. LDS believe that they are one "in mind, will and purpose," but that the Father and Son, in particular have separate corporeal essences. Since the Holy Ghost is noncorporeal, my guess is that Spirit is seen as also being a distinct essence.
2. Have they always been essentially and entirely deity? Evangelicals believe that there is a universal difference in kind between human and divine. LDS believe they are one species. They believe Christ reconciles humans to the Father, and make it possible for us to become what he is.
3. Non-LDS Christians believe that the Father and Son, in particular, are co-eternal and co-equal--that the Father's superior authority is based on relationship, not essence (ontology). LDS believe that Christ is subordinate to the Father, though divine. Evangelicals believe this to be a compromise of Christ's deity.
Also, would you please point me to an online definition of the trinity as you view it?
Question two being the easiest. I'm sure you can find many good definitions, but here's the "official" statement from my church. I believe the link takes you to our Statement of Faith. #2 refers to the Godhead.
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fun.../sft_full.cfm#2
-
Wow! I'm totally confused as well now...I was raised Roman Catholic and have always understood the Trinity doctrine to be that Jesus, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit were all 1...so it seems that I have been misunderstanding the RCC interpretation of this doctrine for all these years?
Pushka, you were right. "God in three persons, blessed Trinity." That from the song, Holy Holy Holy.
Maybe this will help.
Trinitarianism: Father X Jesus X Holy Spirit = one God.
Jesus only: Jesus + Jesus + Jesus = One God, who shows up in three different ways (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
LDS: Father + Son + Holy Spirit = one "Godhead family."
-
"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true."
"I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." (John 8:17-18)
So Jesus, in proving his divinity and reality as Son of God and anointed Savior, uses a Jewish Law of Witnesses. He says that if two men testify of something, it is true. Whether that's always true in contemplation of law isn't the point. The point is that he is citing a law that requires two independent witnesses to a fact. Then -- and mark it well -- Jesus says he himself is one witness of his divine mission, and Heavenly Father is a second witness of his divine mission.
So here's the problem. If the doctrine of the trinity is accurate, then Jesus is being dishonest. After all, the point of the Law of Witnesses is to have two separate people testify independent of each other to a truth. But if Jesus is merely one mode or expression of a single Being, then it's deceiving for him to claim that he is separate from his expression as Father for the purpose of having two separate witnesses.
BUT...if Jesus is one with his Father in will, desires, power and glory -- but separate beings -- then it is perfectly logical for him to invoke the testimony of Heavenly Father as a second independent witness to his divinity.
Actually, I'll have to leave it to the monarchial modalists to explain themselves on this one. If I'm understanding your contention quickly, you are refuting refuting the concept of one in three, not three in one. Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, yet one God. So, the Father could bare witness of the Son, as well as the Son baring witness of himself. They would be two persons, yet they remain the one true and living God.
2.) POST #98:
Thy will be done, not mine (talk about multiple personality disorder if trinitarians are right); no one comes to the Father but by me (so once we come to Jesus he turns around and the back of his head is the Father's face?); pray to the Father in my name (why confuse us? why not just say pray to me since I'm all three?); this is my only begotten Son (I can see how us being God's children could be seen as metaphorical--though I think it's literal--but I can't see how someone can be their own father, or why someone would pretend to be for the sake of religion), ad nauseum.
Again, the Son is saying that He seeks the Father's will rather than his own. He also says the one Way to the Father is through the Son. Your struggle is against those monarchial modalists who claim that Jesus is the Father, is the Son, is the Holy Spirit. You make want to check the United Pentecostal Church's website for their explanations. They openly admit that they DENY the Trinity, in favor of the very modalism you speak of.
http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60_questions.asp
3.) POST #101:
"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God," (Acts 7:55)
How does someone stand on their own right hand? Siamese twins or something, joined at the spiritual hip? The trinity just doesn't stand up to Bible accounts like this. Does anyone dispute it? If so, why? Explain it to me, I invite you.
Once again--three persons, one God. Persons can stand next to each other. It is monarchial modalism you are refuting (one person, three modes), not trinitarian theology.
"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
Doesn't the Nicene Creed quash subordinationism? Aren't the Father and Son coequal in power, neither subject to the other? Because if the trinitarians are right, how can someone be greater than themselves according to this verse?
This one does require a bit more explanation--but just a bit. Jesus, as a good son, submits (obeys) his Father. Jesus is not speaking to superiority of essence or being, but of position. The Father is in a position of leadership. But, as is the order of nature, the Son would, of necessity, be of the same, or equal, essence as the Father. Animals beget animals, humans beget humans. So, any essential Son of God, would be truly God.
I look forward to your attempts to harmonize the creeds with the contradictions I've provided, honestly.
Bottom-line: The contradictions you point out seem to be aimed at the monarchial modalist heresy, popularly known as "Jesus Only." It argues that Jesus is the one person of God, and that he reveals himself in three modes (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). This is not trinitarian teaching, and is rejected by Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Mainstream Protestant, and Evangelical churches. This very issue caused a significant rift in the Pentecostal movement. Those who embraced the false teaching are known as Oneness Pentecostals. They enthusiastically reject the Trinity. You can google the United Pentecostal Church to discover their defense of the teaching.
http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60_questions.asp
With the simple understanding of Trinity as three persons, one God, it seems that most of the contradictions you perceived are easily (and honestly) explained.
-
Judgement. Punishment. Hell. Eternal damnation. Horrific words and phrases. A concept difficult to digest. LDS theology has mitigated this teaching, by resigning to hell–or the outer darkness–only the most reprobate and apostate. Nevertheless, the idea that even one human soul would have to spend an unending eternity in hell is one that needs explanation, and perhaps even defending.
C.S. Lewis is known to have said that while he find the doctrine of hell detestable, the question to ask is: “Is it true? I'd argue that if hell is true, we’d best digest and embrace what this reality does to our beliefs.
Scripture does seem clear on the matter:
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. Matthew 25:46
God, “will give to each person according to what he has done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; Romans 2:6-9
God is just: He will pay back trouble to shoe who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9
And the devil, who deceived them was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Revelation 20:10
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out–those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. John 5:28-29
All verses are from the New International Version.
My own thought on the eternal nature of hell: Jesus is not like us. His memory is beyond time, and it does not fade. Therefore, his life of suffering and rejection on earth, his beatings, and those moments of separation from the Heavenly Father–these are all burned into his memory for all eternity. In effect, Jesus lives hell for us for all eternity. He took eternal hell and damnation upon himself at Calvary. Those who reject his love and forgiveness must thus take the everlasting punishment upon themselves.
-
Heh, well, I also feel and believe that all of us, including women, should be doing what our Lord and heavenly Father want us to do, not what some uf us, including women, feel we want and need.
Or in other words, which would you rather be and become, out of all the choices you have:
A wife and mother who devotes all of her life to home and family, without any other career.
OR
A wife and mother who devotes some of her life to home and family, while having another career.
Is there a right answer, here, Ray? Are you implying that God wants all women to stay home? Is there liberty in this area? In other words, is this choice over whether or not the wife is to work one that God allows the family to make, or has he preordained that women should stay at home unless starvation beckons?
And on the flip side, our heavenly Father is not pleased, but not necessarily displeased, with your choice to work or have a career away from family and home instead of being a better mother and wife…
But, what if the time away from home working provides subsidiary income for the family and allows mother to get some mental stimulation and break--thus making her more capable of parenting when she is home? Maybe the Heavenly Father would be very pleased in such a circumstance?
-
Well that's not what the text says so it's merely speculation but why are you speculating that Satan was in the employ of God as some sort of beta tester?
I'm suggesting that Satan accused Job, and that God allowed Job to be a showcase of what a devoted servant to God looks like. And, we continue to learn from this example today.
Of course, I'm starting with several presuppositions: that God is just, that servants who suffer will be amply rewarded, that what I'm learning about in the book of Job is not whether or not God is fair, but how to endure in times of suffering.
None of which makes the action seem just. If you or I were to do the same type of thing, It would be mass murder. Murder, even according to the Bible, is prohibited.
I start with the assumption that God is just, and try to learn from the stories with that as a given. So, the dialogue between Satan and God gives me insight into the joy God takes when his followers endure hardship, but remain faithful and loyal. The Devil loses the argument over my righteousness on that day. How literal or word for word the conversation is, my God is not capricious, nor whimsical--betting the Devil at my expense, if the mood strikes him. Again, I begin with the presupposition that God is just.
How would Ezekiel or James know if Job was literally historical or not?
I start also with the presupposition that Ezekiel and James were inspired in more than the literary sense. So, when they refer to Job as having been through some things and proven true, it means he did and was. I'll not discount the possibility that such is not the case, but it's where I start.
-
It has nothing to do with "political correctness." It's a question of morality. Killing a person on the battlefield is one thing. Torturing and/or killing an unarmed prisoner is another thing entirely. There is no honor in that.
Besides, it's illegal. And as LDS, we believe, ostensibly, in the rule of law.
Right or wrong, the question of legality is an open one. Keep in mind too that the purpose of the interrogation is to prevent future terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians. The justification the government has used is that "enemy combatants" are not traditional uniformed soldiers fighting a straight forward war, but are disguised individuals or small groups, whose intent is to inflict mass casualities on noncombatants, in order to scare the target country into whatever submission is sought (destruction of Israel, reneging on defense treaties with friendly nations, etc.). Since these enemy combatants do not honor the traditional rules of engagement, as enshrined in the Geneva Convention, and since they target civilians, they do require or deserve its protections.
The legality and morality of this line of reasoning continues to be debated.
-
We don't believe God couldn't superintend the councils, just that He didn't. We believe He did guide Joseph Smith. It's not a matter of, "Hey if God didn't guide the councils then He can't have guided anyone who reveals new scripture."
This absolutely makes sense, because the the creeds referenced are incompatible with Joseph Smith's revelations. They could not have both been led by the same Holy Spirit.
Dr. T, this is an important distinction: Prof. Robinson isn't objecting to adding new scriptures to God's revealed words...he's objecting to unauthorized additions.
And, if I understand correctly, the bishops and other church leaders gathered at those conferences where the creeds were developed were unauthorized because they were not ordained by God, and were part of a church that had already wandered into apostasy, according the LDS teachings, correct?
Why I mention this is that the bishops were not even claiming to have revelations from God, much less that they were adding to Scripture canon. They were fulfilling their roles as "some called to be teachers, some pastors (leaders/bishops/overseers)..."
In a sense, I suppose the LDS teaching would follow that none of the non-LDS teachers/preachers etc. are authorized.
For the record, it is not official LDS doctrine that God had physical relations with Mary. If LDS are so block-headed for not being able to understand the trinity, equally block-headed are those who can't conceive of any manner of conception beyond the mortal one we know. God the Father is the literal Father of Jesus Christ. Seeing as how neither Heavenly Father nor Christ saw fit to explain the chemistry and biology involved, I don't stay up at night worrying about it.
I believe there is a phrase about "in the manner of men," or some such verbage, that leads many non-LDS readers to the assumption of physical relationship. It's an easy assumption to make, but also an unauthorized one.
But to say you're summarizing Bible teachings while contradicting them (no one has yet to refute my Nicene/Bible contradictions...interesting) is not the same. Apples and oranges my friend.
I guess I was being a bit thick, and missed the contradiction post. Can you either repost, or give me a post # to go back to? I agree with your distinction, but stick with the assertion that the bishops and leaders at Nicea were fulfilling a teaching and pastoral role--activities that require a lower level of confirmation than adding to the canon of Scripture or claiming to be a modern day prophet, imho.
There's no footnote because most Latter-day Saints' experience in arguing with non-LDS Christians about the trinity results in, "Well if you don't believe in the trinity you don't understand God so you can't be a true Christian." Can I give you names, phone numbers and addresses of people I've had that discussion with? No. But I've had them, and so have others. It is this sort of anecdotal evidence I believe Prof. Robinson is referring to.
I'm not sure I would say that anyone who does not fully embrace the creeds is a pretender, but I would argue that any Christian who walks with the Holy Spirit should grow in knowledge and truth. Thus, if the claimant embraces heresy and abandons true teachings, there comes a point at which s/he becomes apostate. Again, if they were walking with the Spirit, they should have sensed the warnings and the "NO--flee from the false teaching" promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Most churches are very reticent about declaring someone damned, based on doctrine. Instead, they generally declare a parting of the ways, and say the offender has left our "like precious faith."
BTW, it would not surprise me if many Christian laypeople, and some clergy, might presumptiously abandon all nuance, and make the dogmatic declaration that such and such a belief is a "damnable heresy."
No, and that's the difference. LDS don't teach that, "Hey if you believe in the trinity you're a scamp and in now way can you be called Christian." I think a Christian is anyone who believes that Christ is the Savior of mankind, the Son of God, and who tries to live his teachings as best they know how. LDS don't bar anyone from being Christian who's not a member of our church. How arrogant for anyone to do so.
A clarification is in order. My understanding is that the LDS do indeed believe that "unrestored Christians" are Christians. However, the belief continues, saying that most unrestored Christians, like Buddhists, Muslims, and others of sincere faith, will enter a lower heavenly kingdom, not the Celestial Kingdom. So, while no "you're not a Christian" statement is ever uttered by LDS, there is an understanding that creedal trinitarians will probably not inherit the highest kingdom, where the Heavenly Father resides.
The main fruit of Joseph Smith's role as prophet is The Book of Mormon. If it is good fruit, he is a true prophet. Period. It really is that simple. That's why LDS missionaries focus on The Book of Mormon so much...not because it's superior to the Bible, but because it establishes Joseph Smith's claims to being a prophet. The rest is like dominos...if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then what he taught was true, and there was an apostasy, and truths were lost, and so on and so on.
This is the bottom line, imho. However, for non-LDS, the other discussions are necessary, because we are not yet convinced of Joseph Smith's claims. The strength of the other discussions also impact how those claims are evaluated.
4.) Instead of debating whether scholars in a musty councilroom (circa 365 A.D.) were justified in their clarifications of scripture, the discussion should be, "What does the Book of Mormon teach about Jesus? Are these teachings "good fruit?" Are they true? Was the prophet who translated it a true prophet or a false one?" Discussing the Book of Mormon doctrines only take one so far...the last step is to ask God if the words are His or a farm boy's.
But here's the flip side. Perhaps it would be good for open-minded folk to examine the claims of the bishops, pastors, teachers of the early Church. Perhaps their fruit is good? One might become convinced that they did indeed have the anointing of God upon them. And, understand, I'm not calling for a review of Catholic church history to see the fruit, but rather to look at the creeds, and to see how they have lasted throughout time, and whether they have added to or confused our ultimate understanding of God.
-
how can we forgive ourselves? If repentance isn't required, but we still beat ourselves up over something.... how do we get past that?
Before we can love others meaningfully and powerfully, we need to be filled to overflowing with God's love. My love is weak, self-serving and manipulative. The fruit of the Spirit--that's the kind of love worth sharing! Likewise with forgiveness. If I'm in deep despair over my own actions, I seek the face of God and ask Him to reveal the power of his forgiveness to me--to let me sense it, taste it, truly know it. BTW, once I've seen God's forgiveness of me, and then embraced it as my own true reality, I will find it much easier to forgive others--with his forgiveness.
-
Note: I'm going to take a crack at a couple of issues Dr. T brings up, while awaiting others' responses as well.
I guess what I’m asking, I guess, is, “God could guide Joseph Smith but not the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon?” Why?
Perhaps another question worth answering is, "Could God have given revelations to both, or are the products of these two different sources incompatible?" If the latter, it may come down to which one was anointed by God? This may be where a discussion about the doctrine of the restoration of the Church and the general apostasy of Christianity arises.
My understanding is that it was not necessary to specifically define the Trinity until people began to misdefine it. . . . from what I understand about this, they were trying to sort it out in response to other people who were founding cults with un-biblical understandings of the Trinity and other doctrines. Hopefully I'll have some time to elaborate on this later.
This is an important concept. Many of the doctrines we now consider creedal were formed out of a defense against heresies that had arisen.
-
If you mean that the word trinity was employed as a summary of the creedal implications, sure, but it wasn't invented to serve in defining the creeds. That's what I meant by "fair game" use of trinity by Prof. Robinson. The word trinity existed before it was assigned religious meaning specific to the creeds, therefore it follows that anyone can with equal facility assign their own meaning to it without robbing the quorum of creedology.
Okay, first, I'll tip my hat to Prof. Robinson. He does a rather clever turn of the word to make his point. Yes, I even see some humor in it. On the other hand, IF LDS members take his cue, and, when asked, "Do you believe in the Trinity?" simply respond, "Sure, we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," well...that could certainly lead to misunderstanding. Most Christians, indeed, most westerners (America and Europe) believe that the Trinity means that God is three persons, one God, and that their unity is more than just familial. They truly do make the one God. So, as the professor does, straightforward LDS, who want to employ this method, should always say, "Yes, we believe in the Trinity--but not the way you've been taught." Such an approach would lower my eyebrows.
Not at all, in fact he's quite clear that LDS doctrine doesn't accomodate a Nicean definition of trinity.
Ultimately he is. But, he begins with, "Sure we believe in the Trinity." Actually, I'm okay with this, because he does explain himself. My one caution would be that whenever you say to a non-LDS Christian, "We believe in the Trinity..." an explanation should be immediate.
It just would have been simpler for Robinson to say: We (LDS) disagree with the Trinity doctrine as developed from Nicea onward. We do however, believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Yes, I think it would be unreasonable. It might be reasonable to question their understanding of God, but their faith in His ability to save is predicated on their understanding that he lived, died and rose again for their sakes. I defy anyone to find a passage in the Bible that states, "Confess with your mouth that Christ is Lord, believe that God is a triune being without form or pathos, and you shall be saved." Revealingly, here are the requirements for salvation as handed down by the great apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost:
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)
Of course Christ himself taught that unless a man is born of water and the spirit (same process described by Peter) he cannot be saved in the Kingdom of God. Strangely absent is any mention of Nicea or Chalcedon or trinity...
It dawns on me that there is an incredible irony here. Evangelicals often criticize LDS for an overemphasis on works leading to salvation. In reality, LDS basically believe that good works will be the necessary fruit of true salvation--enduring salvation.
On the other hand, LDS criticize evangelicals for being so focused on sound doctrine, arguing that there is no biblical requirement for believing certain teachings or creeds. My response is that someone who is truly saved, truly born again, someone in whom the Spirit of God dwells, will gravitate towards true doctrine, and will sense when heresy (false teachings) threatens.
So, no perfect doctrine is not a requirement of conversion. On the other hand, yes, the believer is expected to grow in truth, to be able to give an answer for beliefs, and to contend for the truth.
Bottom-line: We all want to get the "Who is God?" and "What does He say?" parts right, don't we?
If by mainstream you mean an LDS member in good standing, no. The questions asked of a member before they receive an ecclesiastical recommend to enter an LDS temple define what "mainstream" LDS beliefs are. Not one of those questions deals with henotheism, belief in other gods or belief in becoming gods. The do deal with belief in Jesus as Savior.
By mainstream I mean that the member holds to the core teachings of the church, and askews those doctrines that the Church finds suspect. Also, rather than inquiring about entry into the Temple, I'm more interested in the presumably higher standard of being admitted into the Celestial Kingdom.
Of course, but the subject of the article was what qualified someone as Christian, and Jesus never said, "Unless ye believe a trinitarian interpretation of my divine nature, ye are not my disciple." I'm all about understanding God, since that is what eternal life consists of according to Jesus:
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)
But Prof. Robinson's intent wasn't to establish an end-all concept of God's nature, it was to show that someone can be Christian yet still disagree about His nature (since the trinitarian view is nowhere in the Bible).
On the other hand, the point of my referencing the article (originally) was to show that there is a means by which prominent LDS apologists embrace the Trinity. The issues of what constitutes true salvation, as well as what constitutes a salvation that endures are ones that we may wish to persue--hey Heather's paying for the bandwith, right?
I find it interesting that the LDS claim of living prophets is violently rejected, yet bishops injecting greek philosophy not found in the Bible at the behest of a pagan emperor attempting to unite a fractious kingdom are seen as anointed and oracles of God. To say, "Believe Christ as taught in the Bible and you'll be a Christian...but if you want to stay Christian, you have to then believe the creeds," is more blasphemous to me than to affirm that Bible passages describing God anthropomorphically are to be taken literally.
The whole "injection of Greek philosophy" accusation assumes very political and secular motives on the part of those bishops. Another, obviously more generous, interpretation is that the leaders and great teachers of the church began to encounter heresies, and thus were required to put together explicit faith statements that clearly explicated who God is, and what He's like. That the creeds take on a Greek flavor is not surprising, since that was the culture of the time.
I offer this, because my own fellowship ran into the same problem. When the Pentecostal Revival start spreading in 1906 (our 100th year anniversary this year
) none of them wanted creeds. Creeds had been used to drive them out of their churches. Yet, when the Oneness heresy began to spread, the faithful realized that some kind of Statement of Faith was necessary, or the movement would be tossed this way and that by every individual who claimed to have a prophetic word.So, bottom-line: If the bishops were compromising the truth by forcing a politically correct corruption of the gospel, then yes, you are rightly scandalized. On the other hand, if the church did not enter an 1800 year era of apostasy, and if JS' offerings were not from God, well then the non-LDS churches are also rightly scandalized.
I'm guessing here we're casting aside such "scandals," and simply doing our best to explain the reasonableness of what we believe, while trying to gain a more authentic understanding of beliefs not our own.
If an LDS promoted it, yeah it'd be heretical within the doctrinal framework unique to our church. But if a non-LDS embraces and promotes the trinity, do I think that makes them un-Christian or heretics, nope. Heresy must be defined by approved doctrine, and as there is no universally accepted doctrine of God, not everyone can be equally heretical.
Interesting. I've always thought heresy was false teaching--meaning somebody is right, and the other person is wrong. Not all heresy leads to apostosy, but some does. John mentions Docetism (not by name, but by explanation).
What Church discerned that? Are you saying there is only one Church that can judge of God's nature, and decree who is Christian? If so, which is it? As noted, the issue of filioque splintered "the Church" into Roman and Greek flavors, so who's to say which is right or wrong about trinity? Where did authority to settle the dispute come from?
That is the $64000 question. Snow has asked the same. Not so much about the specific example you offer, but rather the more general, what constitutes a doctrinal error that is so heretical that the adherent would be damned? Most Christian churches don't try to answer that question. Instead they say, "This is what we believe. If you agree, unite with us in Kingdom work." I don't have a clear answer either, other than to say that it is certainly possible that one who knew God, but who ignored the warnings and promptings of the Holy Spirit, embraced heresy.
But the trinity doesn't teach distinct persons does it? Aren't they of the same substance, just different expressions? Distinct to me means separate beings of separate substance united in will but not in body. That isn't trinitarian, is it?
The doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but of one nature. They are the one God.
What you describe is monarchial modalism (one in three, versus three in one). Ironically, it is the Oneness Pentecostal heresy: Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, Jesus is the Holy Spirit--he just appears in different modalities or expressions.
-
But the word trinity is fair game as a word, and it wasn't invented for a religious purpose. It simply means:
"A group consisting of three closely related members." ( The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000)
Fair game? It's an odd way to describe word usage. Without getting into semantics or word origins, most people understand that the word Trinity is primarily used in theological discussions, and that it is a description of God. I would further argue that the word was formulated, originally, as a description of the creedal explications for God. So, wrapped up in the term are such understandings as the ontological unity of the godhead. IMHO straightforward disagreement and explanation would prove more informative than "fair game" word usage.
True, this describes the relationship advanced in the creeds, but Prof. Robinson is committing no strange act by using the word trinity to describe the Godhead of the New Testament (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). He's using it in its literal sense, referring to a quantity of three.
If I'm understanding you correctly, Prof. Robinson is interjecting the secular understanding of trinity into a theological discussion, in spite of the fact that there is a far more prevelant theological definition already available. Perhaps he just prefers to agree rather than disagree, but me thinks what he's doing qualifies as "a strange act." (strange meaning unusual, unnatural).
All Prof. Robinson is doing is using a hypothetical question to illustrate that we LDS don't believe the Nicene Creed. Didn't you guys catch that? He's not "eager" to prove LDS are Christians by virtue of believing in a trinity. He's simply saying, "If you use definition A, then yeah LDS believe in the trinity. But if you use definition B (the one described in the creeds) then LDS don't. And since most Christians use definition B, then no, LDS don't believe in the trinity and if that makes us un-Christian to the rest of the world, so be it."
I guess I get it, and there is a cleverness to his approach. On the other hand, it's also a method of discussion than could lead to misunderstanding. Why? Because your definition A (his first usage) is an unusual forumulation based on a secular understanding of trinity. Definition B (his second, and implicitly lesser definition--he rejects it ultimately) is by far the more common definition, especially in theological conversations.
It just would have been simpler for Robinson to say: We (LDS) disagree with the Trinity doctrine as developed from Nicea onward. We do however, believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
PC and Dr. T, I think you guys missed the point of the article. Maybe not. I understand we're just diving in to a discussion of it. But on the whole his point was that if one must believe the creeds to be a true Christian, then Jesus, his apostles and the ante-Nicene fathers weren't Christian--a preposterous assertion I'm sure you'd agree.
Let me ask the question back at you, but with a different take: If the Trinity doctrine, as developed through the creeds, and as currently taught throughout most of Christianity, is true--if it is the correct understanding of God, then would it be unreasonable to at least question the faith of those who reject the teaching?
One, because the Holy Bible doesn't overtly express a doctrine of henotheism. Two, because we don't believe one must subscribe to a henotheistic view to be qualified as Christian. That's the whole subject of the article under review...to determine if the creeds are appropriate measures of who is and isn't Christian.
Let me clarify: Are you saying that it is not necessary to believe that there is one God to be worshipped (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), but that there are many gods, and that we too may become such, in order to be a knowledgeable, mainstream LDS member? Furthermore, that the safest and surest way to prepare oneself for entry into the Celestial Kingdom is through sincere development as a knowledgeable mainstream LDS member? (I'm leaving fudge room, but not much).
We do. As our first article of faith points out, "We believe in God the eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." It doesn't say, "We believe in the trinity."
No it doesn't. On the other hand, a prominent LDS theologian implies acceptance (with alternative definitions), and, I'm guessing that many LDS members would answer, "Yes, of course we believe in the Trinity. We believe....then they'd recite that first article of faith.
I don't understand the fanatic need to cling to a term in asserting one's Christianity.
Without getting into whether the issue is truly vital, essential, "make or break" "heaven or hell," surely you can understand the importance of correctly understanding who God is? We are discussion the doctrine of God here. We all we say believe in one true living God, whom we worship. Ought we not have a right understanding of who He is?
If someone believes Jesus is the Son of God, died so that sinners might live again with God and does their best to apply Christ's teachings as they understand them...in my mind that person is Christian, LDS or not. Imagine the backlash if LDS went around saying, "Unless you believe our Articles of Faith, you're not Christian." How arrogant. So why use the creeds (extra-biblical) in such a condescending fashion?
Here's a suggestion I posted on another string, related to this issue of differing doctrine. A person is saved much as you described, through repentence and faith in Christ. The thief on the cross likely knew little more than that. However, once "saved," the believer should grow in deeds, faith and knowledge. If, however, s/he strays towards heresy--and ignores the Holy Spirit's warnings, wooings, drawings--and ultimately totally embraces the heresy: is that person still "saved." Is s/he still a Christian? Even the LDS has a procedure for declaring that someone has become apostate. Perhaps embracing heresy is a qualifier.
It's an open question as to what type or degree of heresy would lead one to apostasy, but these are not unreasonable or fanatic inquiries.
If it's so wrong for the LDS church to believe in "new scripture," such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants -- if adding to the Bible is heretical and blasphemous...
It's only wrong if they are wrong. So, here's the question rephrased: If the Triad is not Scripture--if it is not of God--then is it heresy or blasphemy to embrace and promote it as such?
how are the non-Biblical concepts in the creeds so readily accepted as on par with scripture? How does that make sense? By non-Biblical I refer to the distasteful phrases like, "without body, parts or passion," etc...
Two thoughts: They are not taken as on a par with Scripture. On the other hand, God has given some to be teachers. If the Church has accurately discerned that those who formulated these creeds were anointed of God, and given to us as teachers, than the fruit of the labor would be good fruit for us. Secondly, the fact that the creeds, while highly regarded, are not on a par with Scripture means it would be far easier for us to discard or revise them, if they did prove unworthy.
One last thing to consider. I always enjoy asking this question of classical trinitarians. If the trinity as expressed in the creeds is an accurate portrayal of God's nature, how does this passage make sense?
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
"And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17)
I suppose a trinitarian would assert that God descended on Himself and talked about Himself in the third person and was in three places at once. I don't believe in a schizophrenic God.
Three persons--distinct persons--one God. Not scizophrenic, just Tri-Une.
-
I pretty much agree with you, Lindy. I don't care about mistakes made when speaking English... just try! I know a Mexican family who has their child in a church daycare. The mother and father speak English OK, but speak Spanish at home. Their son is 2 and doesn't know enough English to follow simple commands at daycare. The daycare teachers have asked them to please speak English with him some at home so that he can follow simple instructions. She told them she would, but confided in me that they have decided not to speak English in their home at all because he will learn it and abandon the Spanish! What the...? So his teachers continue to struggle.
This is actually a huge issue: the desire of immigrants to fit in, yet not lose their roots. Add the reality that the parents do not speak English well, and expect their children to look to them for counsel and parental authority. The reality in some immigrant households is that children do lose the mother tongue, and then gradually gain an unconscious disrespect for the parents, who talk baby talk.
Another reality is that while many people would respect those who try hard, but speak broken English, as a society, America is not very kind about this. I've seen it in myself. When we realize someone isn't fluent we tense up, become somewhat cold, and many unthinking people become quite cruel: Get out if you can't even speak the language.
In contrast, during my 6.5 years in Korea, most Koreans were ecstatic if I could stumble out a few konglish phrases, and were more than willing to assist with translating, when needed. I speak to this because I've seen both sides.
Some immigrants overlook the slights, and boldy communicate in broken English. But for many older immigrants, it's so humiliating to talk like a baby, and quite often be rejected, rather than encouraged for trying.
As a mother, I can't help but think of all the children who are here illegally who will be competing with my child in the future. They will probably get 100% paid scholarships to the best colleges, then there's the whole affirmative action thing that will probably give them an even bigger edge in the future workplace.
America will soon be facing depopulation if we descrease our immigration. LDS families may still be large, but our birthrate is rapidly falling beneath replacement levels. Look to Europe and the wealthier parts of Asia, where they are already facing shrinking populations. The time will come when we'll do like Australia use to, and actually pay people to come and work in our country. We'd best not be burning bridges any time soon.
-
An important thing to understand here, IMHO, is that there is a change in definitions.
If by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that.
It's an interesting exercise that is going on here, to be sure. Prof. Robinson is very open about the fact that he is using a different definition than non-LDS Christians when saying that he and LDS believe in the Trinity. What's ironic, is that "Trinity" is a theological word, specially formulated to describe what the creeds teach. So, Dr. T's question is appropriate--why the eagerness to embrace a theological word, even though the beliefs traditional associated with it are unacceptable?
One LDS poster described the Church's view as henotheism. Why not just go with that and say, "We believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but we do not accept the corrupted teachings associated with this doctrinal formulation called Trinity. We believe henotheism better represents what the Scriptures teach."
However, if by "the doctrine of the Trinity" one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils--that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence--then Latter-day Saints do not believe it.
And again, since the word TRINITY is a theological invention meant to succinctly label the doctrine of God, as explicated by creedal developments, why not just reject it?
-
How is it that the sons and daughters were not so righteous? Is that what the text says? Regardless, did they deserve death on account of a wager?
I had that sense from the practice of Job in making offerings for his children in case they cursed God. It is probably too speculative on my part to say that they were definitely "problem children."
Rather than suggesting that the children were killed due to a wager, one possibility is that the angels or messengers in Job 1 were all charged with testing God's creation. It's even possible that some of them came to report from other places in the universe. Satan could well have been charged with testing God's creation on earth.
Keep in mind also that Satan, in the NT is called "the accuser of the bretheren." Rather than "betting" God, Satan was prosecuting Job--challenging the true righteousness of the man. So, God allowed Satan to make his case, knowing full well that Job would do well.
As for the children, if they were righteous, then they will be rewarded for their part in Job's trial.
The questin is not whether or not God is good and just but whether what the author of Job wrote is literal history and whether what he wrote accurately represents God and God's actions.
Since the person Job is mentioned in Ezekiel and James, I'd argue that the Book of Job was considered authoritative, and is a true telling of what happened.
-
In the late 60's a movement started that became known as the “Free Love” movement or “Hippy” movement. As this stupid movement
Amen. Fornication has given us a large number of single-parent families, stds, and lots of hidden expenses. Our education system is weighed down with social ills, our tax burdens are higher, our workforce is less able, and, quite frankly, we are losing our leadership status in the world. It's not about the government being in people's bedrooms, it's about people being irresponsible in their bedrooms and then expecting society to pick up the slack.
1. Six days shalt thou labor and do thy work and rest on the 7th day. If someone is a full time minister for the L-rd what six days do they do their work and what day is the day of rest? I do not post this to be critical but if this principle is not understood one will not be able to utilize the L-rd’s method of providing for their family.
Most ministers work six days, and rest on Mondays.
2. Learn the secret, joy and benefit of hard work. Learn to enjoy work, learn to love work and wish for work more than money - for both you and your children. Money does not provide what the L-rd expects to be provided by a man for his family but work does. It is the first commandment given to man being sent from Eden.
I totally agree with this. We settle for jobs that pay the bills, and are miserable for at least a 3rd of our lives. In addition, the other 2/3rds gets distorted. Far better to work longer hours for less pay, but do something that is fulfilling and meaningful.
-
Here's a couple of the problems I have with that: 1. How is it that Satan is walking about with God's sons and presenting himself before God?
First, to give us context:
(Job 1:6-7) One day the angels {6 Hebrew <the sons of God>} came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan {6 <Satan> means <accuser.>} also came with them. The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?" Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it." (NIV)
I'm not sure what the problem is here? Is it so surprising that God would speak with Satan in the midst of other angels?
2. Does it sound reasonable that God would conspire with Satan to kill a righteous man's family as a wager or test?
(Job 1:12) The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD. ... (Job 1:18-19) While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, "Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!" (NIV)
First, the sons were not so righteous. Second, Ben is right (I did see his response). This life is but a wisp in the light of eternity. Our Creator does indeed have the right to write the scripts of our lives. Ultimately, God will do right by everyone. No one will question his goodness or justice.
Job must have understood this much, in that his plea is not for a restoration of what he had, but simply a reassurance that all is well between him and his sovereign.
-
Actually in the scriptures the Lord says that the "age of man" shall be 120 years. *I'll post the exact scripture verse later today*, and recently scientists have discovered that our human DNA is programed to live for exactley 120 years.
First, a prayer, "May our Heavenly Father grant special blessings, and a mighty sense of his presence, to allmosthumble, during this time of separation. Also, a double dose of strength and blessing to Apostleknight during his time of caretaking."
Now to the nitpicking. If I'm not mistaken, the 120-year figure was an average for awhile, but the age continued to degenerate as the effects of the Fall accummulated. The Psalmist puts it at 70-80--which is about where we are now.
Ps 90:10: The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. KJV
-
this is tempting many married women and mothers to enter the workplace (and in some parts of the US and UK they are openly welcomed). the reasons given for two parents working is the need to support a family, to put a roof over their heads, and clothe and feed them. satan is subtle i guess, tempting us to break god's laws, to dishonor the priesthood, by a genuine concern to fulfill our responsibilities of procreating and having families. but it's not about that really is it? are we being decoyed by the gods of materialism, and in this day and age we are being tempted more then ever. our generation will have to learn sacrifice on a par w/ those who went thru the depression and two world wars if we are to enter the kingdom of heaven. that means, in practical terms, an able bodied LDS husband and father supporting his family on his earnings alone, w/ wife/mother (albeit an educated/skilled woman in the event of death/divorce) being at home w/ the kids - even if this means sacrificing material possessions (like two cars, eating out, a mortgage even...)
actually, this is a question rather than a statement, since i am engaged and know that it will be very difficult to support two of us, let alone children as well, on just my salary (even though i work in a professional field which required graduate schooling) - it's something i'm 'wrestling' with - but deep down think/believe the truth is as above-stated??
Okay, here's my outsider's question: Is it official doctrine or teaching of the LDS that women should stay home and bare as many children as possible, and not enter the workforce unless absolutely necessary?
I know that this traditional model is back in favor, and that it can be a blessed approach. However, is it THE official best model in the church, or simply one that gets the most nods of approval? Are women who work, even in the professions, somehow looked down upon as being compromising, less spiritual, more materialistic?
We're raising three girls, and got started a bit late (I'm 42 now, oldest daughter is 5). We're done with the producing part, and now concentrating on the raising. We both agreed that mom would stay home until at least the youngest reaches fulltime school age. Afterwards, she'll likely go to work--not because she has to, but because she wants to. Yes, it will make life materially more comfortable. But, it's more about her keeping her mind active, and having something to fall back on, should something happen to me.
In my church, I know many people would nod approvingly if she chose to stay home, and would applaud me as an able breadwinner and solid traditional dad. On the other hand, I doubt anyone will speak poorly of us if she does end up working.
Is there an official LDS view, or is the poster merely stating her take?
-
Did the author of Luke write them or were they inserted by a scribe at a latter date. While they were probably not part of the original text, the matter is not completely certain.
Snow presents a rather interesting example of one of those not-so-common disputed passages. Just a couple of quick thoughts on this general phenomenon:
1. The example I'm more familiar with is Mark 16 (the longer ending). In that case, the NIV, and some other modern translations, sets it off, and clearly notes that the longer reading is not found in the earlier more reliable texts. I haven't checked the Luke passage. Lesser controversies sometimes warrant footnotes.
2. This is one of the reasons I favor modern translations over the KJV. Those who favor the literalism of the KJV can find it in the NASB. However, the later translations all have the advantage of many more manuscripts that date much earlier than what was available to the KJV translation team.
3. If I wish to teach a lesson on a topic that a disputed passage relates to, I generally try to find other biblical passage that address the issue. If there are none, I'll not likely emphasize the matter (which is why I don't handle snakes or drink poison as part of my sacramental observance).
-
I do get angry, angry at the system that doesn't care about people...angry at those who come to our country and refuse to learn the language, or to abide by the laws and rules of society. I shouldn't type when I'm in an angry mood.... doesn't do anyone any good.
Perhaps this is worthy of another thread, but this factor does not bother me as it does most. Why? A good many immigrants come here to better the lives of their children. They are often middle age, and must take up jobs that require 60+ hours per week. They, quite frankly, do not have the luxury of time or money, that would allow them to learn English at the level we want them to (no accent, no obvious grammar errors).
What does happen is that their offspring will be fluently bilingual, the 3rd generation will favor English, and the fourth generation probably will not even learn the "mother tongue."
Depending on the country of origin, learning English can be tremendously difficult. I know LDS missionaries become roughly proficient in most languages in an incredibly short amount of time, but for immigrants, and even many expats, the first order of business is job and family. Those middle aged and older usually do not master our language.
Personally, looking at the big picture, I'm not too worried about it. As long as they vote for my party!
-
Do you take the Book of Job to be literal history?
Now that you ask that, it could only be so in the strict sense if the writer of Job had a revelation from God. Otherwise, how would he know about the conversation between God and Satan.
That said, yes, I think it was a retelling of what happened to Job.
Maybe I took the story of Job alittle different. ... After he had lost everything, he didn't think that his creater wasn't there, but that he had offended the lord in some way.
And yet, he vigorously defended himself against the contention of his friends that God was punishing him for some hidden sin. He repeatedly state that he was confident of his faithfulness to God, for which his friends accused him of arrogance. And, indeed, in the end, Job is vindicated, and God has his friends come under Job's authority as he leads them in worship.
In the Old Testament it is rare for a story to make just one point. Here are just a few of the pionts that I get from the story of Job. 1 everything comes second to love of the lord. 2 the righteous go through trials and are blessed after the trials of there faith. 3 Job being a righteous man had thing in proper order of desire.
Point #1 seems to be very much like my point--Job did not seek a restoration of what he had lost--he sought God.
Why Does Hell Have To Be Eternal?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Ray, is hell hot or not? Is the Lake of Fire real or figurative? Will there be wailing and gnashing of teeth, or is hell merely a place of regrets?
Thank you.
While I agree with this, I'm wondering if you're willing to go further? Is hell hot? Is it torment? Is a place of painful punishment, or merely one where sinners regret their rejection of God?
I think a fair compromise would be for you both to come over the the A/G. Ray could continue to enjoy the leading of the Holy Spirit, he'd get a lot more enjoyment out of the singing (we not only have 'mechanical instruments'--we 'jam for Jesus'), and Christos could find a good melding of ancient doctrinal tradition with very contemporary religious practice.
Hey...this dreaming thing is kinda catchy!