volgadon
-
Posts
1446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by volgadon
-
-
I believe the Bible tells us that God is a different "species" if you will, than humans.(Num. 23:19) (Hosea 11:9)
Yet the Song at the Sea tells us that YHWH is a man of war. Why say man and not god?
Also, in Hosea YHWH says Israel will call him Ishi. What do you think the root of Ishi is?
-
So, the score is what? Mormon writers writing about Mormonism are, what a dozen or so? And there are something on the order of 1080 plus or minus non-LDS writers writing on Mormonism? And the fact that an over whelming number of the works are vicious and defamatory is irrelevant to my allegation of bias. So, I can conclude that, in your mind anyway, LDS writers are adequately represented when the subject is Mormonism and there is no bias against them. Am I correct?
I'm not going to tally them all up. If you wish to do so and prove that ND is anti-Mormon, then by all means do so. You haven't even looked at most of the entires, you made several false claims as well. Things aren't looking too good for your assertions.
You shifted the goalposts. Originally, you were claiming that divinity schools were anti-Mormon because they don't sell pro-LDS books. We've shown you are wrong. Now you are going for quantity. Well, how much would be enough for you?
BYU is anti-Catholic!!! Their bookstore has only one book on Catholicism and it is not written by a Catholic and isn't supportive of their truth claims. So the score is 1-0.
ND sells books by a recent president of the church, books by an official church historian, books by BYU proffesors on LDS and non-LDS topics, and books by leading LDS scholars.
-
Let's tally the score. Elphaba says she found almost 1089 books on Mormonism and four were by recognized LDS writers. That is Mormon writers 4 and non-Mormon writers 1085. OK That surely settles that argument doesn't it? Volgadon says at least 4 too. He didn't say how many he got when he searched but if it 419 or 1089 either way, I am wrong. My friends provided evidence that saves Notre Dame's reputation as being even handed. Yep you are right. I was wrong. ND has a definite even-handed approach to LDS writers.
Didn't go through the entire list. I mainly searched by individual author, but I get about 1085 for "mormon." There are multiple editions of the BoM, several LDS works of the 19th century, and books such as Motab songbooks and various Mormon historical societies.
What we did find within a few minutes is enough to show that your research was sloppy at best. ND doesn't specialise in studies of Mormonism, but it has a fairly broad selection, including both Mormon and non-Mormon works from both the 19th and 20th centuries.
-
I also just found Terryl Givens' "By the Hand of Mormon" and 2 books by William Hamblin. We are at 12 already, and most of these are within the past 50 years.
Actually, make that 18 with 2 books by Grant Hardy, 3 by Royal Skousen and 1 by John Tvedtnes.
-
Within two minutes I found four:
Your Study of Isiah Made Easier: in the Bible and Book of Mormon, 2009, David J. Ridges
What of the Mormons. . . , Gordon B. Hinckley
Lost Legacy, Gary Smith, Winner of the Utah Mormon History Association Best Book Award, 1997
2-Hour Book of Mormon: A Book of Mormon Primer, 2000, Larry Anderson
Additionally, within a few minutes more I found books like A Marvelous Work and a Wonder by Legrand Richards and A Study of the Articles of Faith by James Talmage. Given many LDS still consider these books timely, I have no problem including the authors as semi-current.
You can add Rough Stone Rolling and American Moses to the ND bookstore list. Found them there too. Also, the only Hugh Nibley book is his war memoirs.
-
I went to the Notre Dame book store. ND is generally acknowledged as a liberal university. I searched under Mormon and got 419 works available through the bookstore. I looked through most of them and found NO modern LDS writers. Jan Shipps' works were there but no LDS writers since B.H. Roberts. I found multiple modern books by non-LDS writers but no one to represent current LDS thought, practice, church policy or discussions of LDS theology. However, the shelves were amply represented with works by Mormon haters. I did not find one work by a BYU professor, general authority, or authoritative LDS writer. Certainly I could have overlooked one.
Did a search on their library catalog, they have "Rough Stone Rolling" and the anthology "Pro-Mormon writings of the twentieth century" which does contain a Hugh Nibley essay. They also have Arrington's "American Moses" and "The Mormon Experience" co-authored with Bitton. Another title I found is Wilkinson's " Brigham Young University : the first one hundred years."
It certainly appears that you overlooked one. Several, in fact.
-
Not so. Scholarly criticism is different than bigoted anti-Mormon criticism. In the first instance, the reviewer actually reads and studies the subject work and the in the other the writer never gets a fair reading. You are young my friend and hopefully you never have to face the lies, distortions, misrepresentations and prejudice many of us older members have had to live with all our lives. Bigotry is very real and suggesting it has no impact on LDS scholars is ignoring the facts. I suggest the hotbeds of anti-Mormon scholarly bias are the traditional Christian universities. If I am wrong you will be able to go to the book stores at those schools and find at least a few LDS authored scholarly works in the stacks or on at least one instructor's required reading list. I hope you can prove me wrong. I would like to be but I think I am not.
No one is claiming that divinity schools don't often have an anti-Mormon bias. What I am saying is that their bigotry towards LDS scholars is no more rabid than it is towards E. P. Sanders and others of the "new perspectives on Paul" school.
Just google on the SBL being sponsored by evangelicals and you'll see that divinity school bigotry is not even primarily displayed towards LDS. These guys are of the same ilk of those who write the editor of BAR to cancel their subscription because the magazine showed a picture of a Canaanite idol.
Spare me the condescension. I may be younger than you, but I certainly haven't lived a cloistered life.
-
-
-
Here's an interesting unbiased site:
Godhead, Not Trinity - Mormon Beliefs - ReligionFacts
Read what the links within this link says. While it says Jews recognizes the trinity as polytheistic, this site recognizes our belief about God as monotheistic.
Lets be honest, for Judaism, both the Trinity and the LDS concept of Godhead are considered polytheism.
-
Ask any religious scholar at any traditional Christian university about Nibley or any LDS scholar for that matter and see what kind of response you get.
Those in divinity schools that have heard of him might respond to him much the same as they would respond to any mainstream scholar. You do however seem to equate criticism of Nibley with antimormonism. I dare say that you are wrong in this.
-
I think your instructors didn't do a good job of picking their words. Jesus is part of the godhead. He wouldn't have been called Jesus, but he had the name-title of Jehovah. If you believe that Christ was the God of the Old Testament, then this creates no problem.
-
Nibley on the other hand was read by a wider readership than the commenter above seems to believe. I don't say everyone agreed with him because of widespread anti-Mormon bias.
Nibley was a mixed bag. Some of his work was superb, such as his essay on Christian envy of the temple.
In the introduction to section 1 of the third volume of his "The Wisdom of the Zohar", Isaiah Tishby wrote "These two tendencies: the positing of a Temple in the upper world, and interpretation of the Tabernacle, the Temple, and all their related equipment as symbols of cosmic and supernatural phenomena, are developed and expanded much further in rabbinic aggadah[3] and Christian theology[4]."
Footnote number four references H. Nibley, "Christian Envy of the Temple."
"The Wisdom of the Zohar" is an important work in the study of Jewish mysticism, and won Tishby the Bialik and Nordau Prizes.
On the other hand, Nibley's essays on Jaredites as steppe nomads are plagued by severe methodological flaws and other errors, such as the validity of a comparison between Eurasian steppe nomads, an equestrian society in a different geographic area, and ancient Mesopotamian culture, which was decidedly not equestrian.
I sat down in Deseret Books and read the chapter on the Sefer Yetzirah in "One Eternal Round." In one sitting I spotted dozens of errors.
The idea critcism of Nibley is motivated by anti-Mormonism reminds me of a Jewish comedian telling the story of how his family gathered to watch a game with the first Jewish quarterback. His uncle started yelling at the TV, "How dare he! He tackled him! That anti-Semitic @*&$#! tackled him!"
-
ram
I don't understand why you would make such a statement. John 1:14 says "the Word became flesh". Phill 2: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:.
Jesus, "being in the form of God", or the same form as the Father and the Holy Spirit, prior to the incarnation, (spirit, no body of flesh and bones) then "took upon Himself" an added nature, that of a man.
You state yourself that;
Does one go from almighty God to godman to then "fully divine"? Was that the path of the Father in LDS teaching?
Except you haven't answered Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Volgadon suggests that
Does that suggest that God is only God until the end of the age:confused:I am no Hebrew expert but for what it's worth, Strong's Number: 5769 "olam"
always, ancient time, any more, continuance, eternal, for, everlasting, long time,
Or lolam {o-lawm'}; from alam; properly, concealed, i.e. The vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always -- alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end).
From NAS exhaustive concordance
Definition
long duration, antiquity, futurity
NASB Word Usage
ages (1), all successive (1), always (1), ancient (13), ancient times (3), continual (1), days of old (1), eternal (2), eternity (3), ever (10), Everlasting (2), everlasting (110), forever (136), forever and ever (1), forever* (70), forevermore* (1), lasting (1), long (2), long ago (3), long past (1), long time (3), never* (17), old (11), permanent (10), permanently (1), perpetual (29), perpetually (1).
I don't see "either an age or a world. The usual construct was from age to age".
One would have to read that into the text.
Please note, I have quoted no creed or philosopher just scripture and Hebrew dictionaries.
Thanks
You aren't using a Hebrew dictionary, you are using Strong's concordance. Strong's concordance is an index of KJV words and the Hebrew or Greek they are translating.
You can find the original word quickly, that is about all that Strong's is useful for.
Strong's doesn't give you the semantic range, nor lexical classifications and usage of a word.
Even the theologically-loaded "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" writes that the OT "has no special term for 'eternity' that can be contrasted with 'temporality.' The Hebrew word most often used to express 'eternity' is olam. It is the same word that expresses duration of time, and it designates 'eternity' only in such statement as 'from olam' and 'until olam' (Ps. 90:2). Its meaning also shifts from a quantitative/temporal sense of a long span of time to a qualitative sense conveying the idea of permanence or immutability (2 Sam. 23:5; Ps. 78:69). Use in this latter sense does not deny the essential temporal quality of all OT thought when olam is used. While this word can shift in meaning to the qualitative ideas of greatness, power or transcendence when refering to God, it must be noted that these are qualities of God and are not implied in olam itself."
CHALOT (an actual lexicon) says of olam , " I. long time, constancy, all (coming) time (in Eng. usu. 'eternity,' 'eternal,' but not to be understood in philosophical sense)... 3. long time ago, the dim past:... so mehaolam wead haolam Ps 41:14 &c.;"
-
I understand however wandering off doesn't mean forbidden, just unexplored.
If you understand, then why bring up the frankly irrelevant point of established doctrine?
-
That is my point exactly. The two you mention have stumbled when they got away from established doctrine. Wandering off into the dark does leave one open to stubbing his toe. I will have you know even I make mistakes. Just ask my wife. At times I am amazed at how often I can be so wrong on so many subjects at the same time.
I think you missed my point entirely. I'm talking about their use of primary and secondary sources as well as historical analysis. They have not wandered off in the dark into forbidden paths, they made some mistakes in their academic work. This despite their association with FARMS.
-
Let's put it this way: Every one has an opinion. I can provide lots of opinions by well-meaning people that end up being so off track that it spoils just about everything they say/write thereafter. I recall one particular geologist from Arizona some years back who had everyone glued to their chairs where ever he went when he spoke about ancient writings only to be shown that he was somewhat less informed than he originally thought.
If everyone was required to provide their bona fides and a CV that might be different. But we do not for a good reason: we do not want to beheld accountable for what we say. It is hard enough for even the general authorities to get it right all the time. Think the first edition of Mormon Doctrine, The JoD and Mark E Peterson. Maybe in some venues speculation is appropriate. But in this forum I feel uncomfortable going down that road. Too many will take speculation as doctrinally based rather than just an exercise in a particular discipline such as was intended by the writer of the piece you referred me to. This isn't a High Priests group although it would be very interesting if it was.
Bona fides and CVs don't show much. Hugh Nibley and Matthew Brown (to name but two) have been wrong many times. That is why an argument needs to be evaluated on its own merits and methodology, not according to reputation. If you can check a reference, then please do.
-
I've done some research about the differences in the two and they're interesting. Fairlds also talks about the differences as well as how the New Testament comes into play with it. I'll use the following verses for example:
(Septuagint) Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, And let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; For he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.
(KJV) Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice O ye nations with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.
The two phrases in bold are not in the KJV Old Testament. However, they do appear in the New Testament.
Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Romans 15:10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.
So as far as the literal translation in wording goes would you rather use the KJV Old Testament or the Septuagint?
The problem here is not between the KJV and the LXX. The KJV translates the textual family known as the Masoretic, and the LXX is a Greek translation of a different textual tradition. One of the copies of Deuteronomy 32 found at Qumran reads sons of God, that is- gods. The LXX translated it in keeping with the contemporary view that the refernces to gods and sons of God were references to angels. The wording in the texts that became the basis of the later Masoretic one was changed deliberately.
The disadvantage to using the LXX is that you would be reading a translation of a theological translation. There are far better choices than just it or the KJV.
In this specific example the LXX is actually not a literal translation, though it is closer to the original.
-
Do you have examples?
I do, but I thought you wanted to focus on the Bible. This isn't a derail attempt by any chance?
This could also be said of you, but this will get us nowhere.
Really? Where have I been reading philosophical terms into the Bible?
Time for the ancient Hebrews was not the abstract philosophical idea that we are familiar with now. Eternity (olam) can be rendered as either an age or a world. The usual construct was from age to age. Why is this important? It changes the entire way we read statements regarding eternity. There is no reason to conclude that the text has much to do with questions such as the ultimate origins of anything.
I agree with you the Bible was;
But we should certainly start with scriptures first and see what they say.
Wow, you've completely missed the point. The very first thing we ought to do is check our cultural bias and assumptions. Seeing what the scriptures say all too often means read it through the lens of your own time and culture. For example, were the Pharisees upset that the 12 disciples had lousy personal hygiene?
Do you have a biblical reverence for the Father being a man "like us"
That happens to be the premise of the New Testament. God once being man like us, I mean.
and Jesus being once just an "intelligence"
Just as soon as you provide me with the exact formulations of Nicene Trinity in the Bible.
and they both progressed to Godhood?
Hebrews 1.
Or even a BOM reference?
Roses are red, herrings are too.
My point is; "God cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13) That part is clear. Therefore I have nothing to show you. Only Man is tempted.
Let me ask you another question. For the sake of argument, lets say that Christ gave in to the temptation in the desert. Would the divine nature have been affected? Basically, what I'm getting at is that for your premise to work, we need to assume that there is a complete and total separation between two essences, something that I would dearly love for you to show from the Bible. I won't hold my breath. You have to read that idea into scripture. The text does not require, let alone support it.
I believe He never surrendered His divinity. How does God cease to be God? He was God before He "became flesh"(John 1:1) God while He was flesh (John 1:14) He is both the Son of God and the Son of man.
Thanks
What would have happened had Christ not completed his mission, would he have remained divine?
What is the point of Hebrews presenting a picture of Christ being enthroned as divine because of his success on earth?
-
Rameumpton knows his stuff. I may disagree with him from time to time, but his posts are good.
-
Sorry old buddy. I don't know who you are and why is affirmation so important? Send me an email with your real name and I just may become an enthusiastic supporter- if you are a Republican:)
Perhaps that silly attidue found in your post of FARMS adulation on the one hand, and a condemnation of things not found in the standard works on the other raised some hackles.
That being said, scroll down to the comments here.
Arguments need to be considered on their own merits. FARMS good others bad is really the logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority.
-
volgadon
I believe the Bible to be the word of almighty God, using biblical illustrations is how you will convince me. Does the BOM teach this? (just curious)
Oh, you are convinced already?
Yes, the BoM does teach the same kind of kinship theology that the Old Testament does, the concept is crucial to understanding teachings regarding a redeemer.
I thought I was reading the Bible.
So do LDS. The point is that you are reading philosophical terms INTO the Bible.
Jesus is God the Word.(John 1:1) The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.(John 1:14) The incarnation.
In His divinity we say " God cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13) in His humanity He was. (Matt 4:1) Yet without sin. (Heb 4:15)
Just a note to the tempting; Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me".
Jesus knows Who He is right.(The Creator of all the devil is showing Him) It already belongs to Jesus, He (Jesus) knows its not the devil's to give. How is that a temptation for His divinity? It's like me saying "I will let you have the computer that you are reading this on if you will worship me"
Why don't we save ourselves some time and energy by having you state what a temptation for his divinity would have looked like. I'm afraid your position is far from clear.
Forgive me but do LDS now believe Jesus wasn't a god until the ressurrection?
John 1:1 and Micah 5:2 as quoted before says Jesus was God from from all eternity, not "as a result of what he did on earth"
Thanks
Then Hebrews must be in conflict with John and Micah.
The point I was making is that the author of Hebrews believed that Christ was divine before his mortal life, but that he regained his divine position as a result of his triumph.
-
When we get to the point where we start looking outside the scriptures for secondary sources we are walking on uneven ground. It is certainly interesting but I can't think that they are more helpful that prayerful reading of the canon. I read these other sources too. But I love the bible and Book of Mormon and others more.
I just wonder if Soninme opens his heart to the promptings of the Holy Ghost when he reads scripture. I asked one guy that question and he whipped back that he was inspired that the Church was evil. So I can't say which spirit he was listening too.
When we realise that the Bible (and the BoM) wasn't written for and by a 21st century American but were written by people separated from us by a wide gulf of time, language, geography and culture, we start looking at other sources that will help elucidate the scriptures. The Holy Ghost is of course the best source for applying a spiritual message in our lives. For instance, do we insist on reading the phrase vain repetition as if it were modern usage without even thinking that the text doesn't read vainglorious?
-
Hello volgadon
We disagree.
Feel free to take the matter up with the parents of Ahijah the Shilonite. Ahijah = "YHWH is my brother." In case you think that my only evidence is the name, then I'll be happy to provide many more illustrations from the Bible.
Except that He says He is "from everlasting to everlasting" (Ps. 90:2) and " Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!”. (Rev. 4:8)
1000 gozillion million years ago He is the One “Who was and is and is to come!”
You are reading philosophical terminology into places where it doesn't belong. I'll expand on this later.
I believe His humanity was tempted but not His divinity.
What does that mean and where do you see that in the text.
Which verse/s are you referring to? The Bible says Jesus has been God from all eternity. (John 1:1) (Micah 5:2)
Thanks
Chapter 1 of Hebrews. As a result of Jesus's triumph, God declares that today he has begotten him, that he has anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows, and that he has enthroned him on his right side. All these verses from Psalms paint a picture of Christ becoming a divine figure as a result of what he did on earth, despite his serving as God's lieutenant during the creation.
How Does LDS Church resolve conflicts with the Bible ???
in Christian Beliefs Board
Posted
When reading that God is one, we need to consider what this would have meant in the biblical world.
The following text is most instructive, coming as it does from a pagan source.
"THOU ART the sole one, WHO MADE [ALL] THAT IS,
[The] solitary sole [one], who made what exists,
From whose eyes mankind came forth,
And upon whose mouth the gods came into being."
-Hymn to Amon-Re, Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ANET), 3rd ed. with supplement, pg. 366.
So here we have a creator god who at the same time is both the ONLY god and also the creator of other gods.
From the mountain of sunrise to the mountain of sunset,
There is no (other) lord in the land, you alone are king,
Enlil, in all the lands there is no queen, your wife alone is queen.
-Hymn to Enlil as the Ruling Deity of the Universe. ANET, pg. 576.
Moshe Weinfeld, in his book, The Decalogue and the Recitation of "Shema": The Development of the Confessions, points out that all these texts are hymnodal-liturgical, and that the Shema is confessional-liturgical (pg. 128).
On page 130 Weinfeld states that "there appears to be a deep connection between the definition of God as 'one' and the obligation to love him." He provides two passages from the Hebrew Bible which make the connection obvious.
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest...
-Genesis 22:2.
Isaac, as you'll recall, was not Abraham's only child.
My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her...
-Song of Solomon 6:9.
The lover states in chapter 1 that she has siblings.