phi39
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by phi39
-
-
Your seminary president followed my fellowship's (Assemblies of God) General Superintendent. I read a summary of the transcript. Dr. Mohler focused on religious liberty, and one of the most interesting lines was something to the effect that LDS and Baptists may not walk together into heaven but they may join in going to jail.
Interesting!
And yes, I think a lot of us may live to see a day when we end up in jail or persecuted in various ways along with others we don't expect.
-
I am curious to hear what reactions might be to the content of his speech from those who were there or read the transcript. I was actually excited that he was there at all. Do Evangelical, let alone Baptist speakers often come to BYU? I don't know what the context of the speech was, whether a chapel service or some special event. What can I say? It jumped out at me.
P.S.
I actually had an issue with horn removal a while back. The doctor said the operation would be impossible and unnecessary due to the growth locations. So now I just wear I giant chicken suit.
-
I am a student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. Dr. Mohler is our president and they always post his articles on a bulletin board in the hallway. I did a double-take and spun around to read this when I saw where he delivered this speech: BYU! Just curious what you guys think. Here is the website, article/transcript is frontpage:
-
If we lose an appendage, we have no doctrine or revealed truth whether or not we lose a portion also of our spirit body as well. I would venture to say "No" we would not be losing our spirit body as well. Similar thought, if a person is pierced with a spear, will their be a hole in the spirit body as well. Don't know, and probably will not be revealed in this life.
Question: When Jesus rose from the dead and the disciples felt his wounds, was that his spiritual body or actual physical body that was beaten and killed a few days before?
-
I read a while back that for LDS, spirit is a higher form of matter. For them there actually is no such thing as the immaterial unless you count concepts. I don't think they would even consider intelligences to be immaterial, at least not in the sense that we would. Intelligences, spirit and physical matter are all eternal things in and of themselves, independent from God. God forms them to create, and he himself is even "made-of" the same stuff. God exists within the universe (or multi-verse?) along with us.
Their view I think is surprisingly materialistic, sharing a lot in common with ancient paganism and modern science. Of course, we classicals are the weird ones, worshiping a God who transcends creation, calls it into being and holds it together by his power, because of his grace and for his glory.
-
I think I know what you mean by infinite atonement, that it applies to all people (except Satan and his best friends). What do you mean by continuous atonement?
-
Question to ask: "What did Jesus actually accomplish on the Cross?"
-
... I am curious, though: Why, then, do you believe He wept?
I think that a major theme of the story in John 11 is that Jesus really was heartbroken over Lazarus' death. Yes, he is "deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled" by the tears of Mary and Martha, but he was able to hold it together and comfort them, as painful as it was to see their pain. He doesn't actually burst into tears until he sees the tomb. That's when the onlookers say, "See how he loved him!"
I bring up this example of Jesus to show that while I agree that we do not need to fear death, it is still a horror, a tragedy in and of itself, no matter how temporary. I've been to an open casket funeral for a young girl once, and I've had to deal with my grandparents being cremated before I could fly home and see them and "say goodbye." There is hope, and even joy to answer the pain, but there is a definite "not-right-ness" to death.
... the strict reading of Revelation 21 that you propose becomes just as problematic for you as an evangelical Christian as it is for me as a Mormon. Because under your own theology as I understand it, in the resurrection a damned family member would remain dead to God and so, effectively, dead to you.Yes, and in my theology, such a thing will never happen again.
I find this to be simply a better story as silly as that sounds, and I hope you will consider it. The ending is final and complete, a true "happily ever after" in the greatest possible sense you could ever imagine.
This discussion has taught me that those of us (Mormon or otherwise) who point to scriptural passages like "death will be defeated once and for all" often haven't put a lot of thought into the implications, natural consequences, and inherent limits of those passages. I appreciate the way your comments have inspired me to re-evaluate some of my conceptions.Thank you my friend! I am relieved to hear that.
-
(IMHO) = In My Humble Opinion.
Ah, got it. thx!
-
Just_A_Guy;700115]
As a Mormon I would argue that Revelation 21:1 can be read as limiting the scope of these things to the new heaven and the [new] earth; and within that sphere, verse 4 is absolutely correct.
This is just our different views of the universe and is a whole different subject I think. You believe that there are other new heaven/earths out there in the (multi?)universe because you believe in the other LDS scriptures, and of course I do not. I think that's where that conversation would stop. We just don't have common ground there.
Your assertion that "the way things will be going forward . . . will not be like the way things were to get there", IMHO, proves too much. If "the way things were to get" to heaven involves accepting God, loving Him, and worshiping Him, does it necessarily follow that once we get to heaven we will no longer accept, love, or worship God? Surely not. Many things will indeed change; but at least some things (including, I daresay, God Himself, and the way He saves souls) will remain the same.
Clarification: I'd say we actually agree here! But I think the passage is talking about something else. It lists death, mourning, etc., and then says "the former things have passed away." All those bad things were part of the salvation story, death was part of the road to heaven, but they won't be anymore. The text is certainly not saying love and worship will not continue, but I am sure that even those things will not be the same.
Not sure what IMHO stands for.
Remember, Mormons don't believe in the "big sleep" idea of death. ... So if a resurrected Mormon creates children, who then are sent to an earth and die at the end of their mortal experience--that "death" is not an alienation, from the standpoint of the parent. It's a homecoming. ...
Yes, evangelicals do not believe in big sleep either: to be absent from here is to be present with the Lord. But remember Jesus who cried at death even when he knew that in the next five minutes he would raise Lazarus. And aren't unbelievers spiritually dead at this very moment as they go through life? I think Paul would say so (Eph. 2:1-3). Also, if that future exalted Mormon has a three-kingdom system in heaven with Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial levels, won't that also cause a degree of separation? And finally there is eternal/spiritual death in outer darkness. I do not think your system protects you from any of these pains and reasons to mourn that come from death. If that is the case, then the promise of Rev 21 is made void for you individually.
... as Mormons we believe that through Christ Jesus, God has indeed provided a way for those inconveniences [the separations caused by death] to be overcome once and for all.
I do not think Jesus ever wept over an inconvenience. Yes, death is no boogeyman, it is the last enemy to be defeated (1 Cor. 15:26)! I do not think you can say "death will be defeated once and for all" like I can. My best wishes to you my friend!
-
Thank you all for your answers! You have been clear and concise!
For an evangelical like me it is somewhat startling to hear you acknowledge a probability that death will recur after Rev. 21, and that you seem to be "okay" with that.
You also read Rev. 21 as if it says "death will be no more for us" vs. "death will be no more." Of course, we are starting from different assumptions: you read our creation as being a part of a larger context of multiple (infinite?) creations, and I count this creation as the entire context.
About death being a part of the plan of salvation I agree. If God allows evil (and in turn death) to exist, it is for His ultimate good purpose of conforming us to the image of Christ and allows us to go from knowing Him as Father, to knowing Him as Savior. I would never give that up, not even if I were given the chance to change the past.
So as a follow up to the previous questions, my issue is not with the existence of evil, sin and death, but with the promise of Rev. 21 being nullified.
It not only says that "death will be no more" but also that "the former things have passed away," and in verse 5 God is "making all things new." In other words, the way things will be going forward after Rev. 21 will not be like the way things were to get there.
Also, I do not believe that your view, if true, actually frees you as individuals or humanity as a whole from death. Even though you yourselves will not die, you will experience the pain and mourning that will come with the deaths of your future children. And in the sense of experiencing separation from them, whether temporarily or in some cases eternally, you will experience that kind of death countless more times.
I say all this because I would appreciate a response to learn how you process these things, but also I cannot hide my evangelistic concern for your sakes. The thought of this kind of a future makes my heart heavy for you!
But imagine: what if death were truly defeated in the most complete way? What if all we know about the New Creation is that all creation will be free and completely new? What if all we know is that we will be with our beloved God and serve Him? Beyond that, who knows what is in store? That future would be entirely open, a mystery and an adventure! The truest happy ending you've ever heard of!
-
A few weeks ago, Glenn Beck (yes I'm a fan) opened an email address to take questions on Mormonism and did a show addressing the various issues outsiders take. I didn't see the show ('starving' students can't afford the subscription) but I read the article, and it was good stuff. I have a feeling however, that his inbox is backed up till the Millennium.
So if you guys don't mind I'll ask you the same question (full disclosure I'm thinking about using this to guide my research for a paper in the future). I started this way:
Would a Mormon couple who achieved exaltation continue to have spirit children into eternity? If so, would those children need to live mortal lives on a future sinful world in order to have a chance at exaltation themselves?
I'm expecting answer to be "yes," to both questions in light of D/C 132 and 2 Nephi 2.
Then my follow-up question is this: If the above is true will death ever be defeated once and for all?
I'm thinking the answer would have to be "no," but that does not jive with Revelation 21: "death will be no more" (v4).
So here is finally the real question(s): how do you resolve that tension? is there a tension? do you expect death to recur, why/why not? how do you feel about that?
I am actually curious to hear your answers, and while I'm hoping for a good debate, I'm not here for a fight. My responses will be minimal.
-
"... τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ..." (John 3:16 BGT)
"...the son the one-of-a-kind..."
"58.52 monogenh,j, e,j: pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class - 'unique, only.' ..." -Low & Nida
"18705 monogenh,j, e,j of what is the only one of its kind of class unique; (1) an only child born to human parents one and only ( LU 7.12; 8.42); substantivally only child (LU 9.38); (2) as a child born in a unique way; (a) used of God's Son Jesus only, only begotten; substantivally (JN 1.14); (b) used of Abraham's son Isaac only; substantivally o` m. his only true son." -Friberg
"μονο" means "only," "one," and "γενῆ" means "kind." There is no one or thing like Jesus. The phrase "only begotten" is misleading nowadays because we think it implies "having kids." I was used more generally to describe uniqueness.
The Christians at Nicea who spoke Greek used the word properly when they said Jesus is "eternally begotten of the Father ... begotten, not made." They certainly did not mean that Jesus was "procreated" by the Father when they were refuting a man who taught that there was time when Jesus was not. Instead Jesus is the eternal unique one who is of or from the Father.
-
Here is an "at a glance" response to your answers. There are also some very good posts that I want to respond to more specifically.
You all gave a wide spectrum of answers, but with two common denominators. The consensus seemed to be that whether there will be less or more, finite or infinite numbers of people in outer darkness, it is irrelevant because they have sent or relegated themselves to it. Your main concern is to maintain God's justice by affirming their free agency. Also, no one here likes the thought of massive quantities of people suffering that fate and so you want to believe that a minimal number end up that way, and some of you even said that those who do may eventually cease to exist (though there is no LDS source that would go that far).
In a sense then, you have indirectly answered my question by exposing the Elders' argument as self defeating. You cannot criticize the Evangelical view of hell (that is, how many will be there) when you yourself admit that God is righteous to allow (even passively) such a thing to happen to even one person. Did you know that you were Calvinists already? (wink-wink). 'But God tries to save them, and they refuse!' Yes, but it was God who was righteous in allowing a world of sin to exist which would guarantee the fall of some. Doesn't the PGP teach this? Big hell, little hell, infinite hell, or even the cessation of existence, God is still holy and righteous to allow it.
Something that also struck me was this: while you see yourselves as owing general salvation and the opportunity of exaltation to Jesus' Atonement, you must then save, progress, grow ,or advance yourselves to attain the complete eternal life/exaltation. Likewise, those in outer darkness fail to do so. You then make yourselves into your own personal saviors or condemners.
But it is the Lord who saves (Jesus means "Yahweh Saves," Matthew 1:21, Psalm 37:40). Have you ever given thought to the possibility that our agency is corrupt and cannot save us (Romans 8:7)? What if we do not begin at a neutral stance with God, but as something more like apostates in outer darkness (Romans 1:21, 3:10-12)? What if God then, is in the business of saving his apostate enemies (Romans 5:8-10)?
-
To everyone:
Thank you for satisfying (humoring?) my curiosity! It was very kind of you. I cannot respond in full now, but I will soon.
Outer darkness plays dirty, but Mother Theresea has been studying karate since she got here. --Loudmouth
dude, you get the awesome award for the day in my book. that was hilarious!
-
I talked with a few elders about 3 weeks ago, and we definitely left as friends. They made this point which i've been contemplating:
"Mormonism has a very big heaven and a very small hell, while evangelical Christianity has a very small heaven and a very, very big hell."
I believe I answered them with Romans chapter 1 and 9 saying essentially that we have rebelled against God and that he has a right to do whatever he wants with his creation in the first place. Of course, we agreed to disagree. We can go down this track if you want, however...
My question (which did not come to me at the time) is this: wouldn't the Hell/Outer Darkness of Mormonism have an infinite population that is always increasing?
I know that no LDS scripture or revelation would say so, and that this is more speculation than anything else, but here is why I ask: I know that it is a commonly held belief among LDS (though not official canonized doctrine) that the process of exaltation has been going on from all eternity, there was never a beginning to it, nor will there be an end. Also, in D&C 132 it describes exaltation as procreating new spirits forever, and logically those spirits would need to live an earthly life themselves to have an opportunity for exaltation. Those earthly lives would need to be lived on a world with sin in it in order for exaltation to be possible (2 Nephi 2), and where there is sin there will inevitably be sinners who end up in hell. I do not know of any provision in LDS teachings for this process to end.
So if the process of exaltation which requires the existence of sin has been going on from all eternity then the population of hell/outer darkness must be infinite. And if the process will continue forever it will infinitely increase. Granted, that would also mean that the populations of the 3 heavens would also be infinite, but the point is that hell in the LDS view may turn out to be infinite and increasing as well.
In the evangelical view however, there will only ever be a finite number of people who will ever exist. Some are elect and some are not, but those numbers are rightly and sovereignly set by God (Isaiah 10). If a smaller hell is the best possible outcome (and I agree) then doesn't the evangelical view win on this score?
-
"They retained the Bible, the commandments, and a desire to follow God. They had enough to be saved in heaven (at least the Terrestrial Kingdom), but did not have the priesthood authority and power, ordinances and covenants necessary for exaltation." -rameumptom
The BoM also says that many things were taken out of the Bible. My question related to the apostasy is about logistics: how would that removal have happened, and what might have been the content of the things lost?
I raise that because last semester I finished my second (and probably last) semester of Greek. We spent a fair amount of time studying and reading about how the NT text was transmitted to us and how to determine the best reading when there are variants to choose from. One thing became clear: as the books of the NT were written and went into circulation they went "viral." It was haphazard at best, and that was the saving grace. If anyone or group actually tried to change or erase parts of the NT they could never track down all the random copies. Likewise, if mistakes crept in there were always better renderings elsewhere. So how did we loose those "plain and precious truths" that would have shown us the way to the celestial kingdom?
-
... Gives me great anxiety knowing I might not even make it to the spirit world and that I will be stuck in between worlds. ...
If you trust solely in the work of Jesus on the cross to justify you before the throne of God, then you not be anxious about this sort of thing at all. The prospect of being welcomed into the presence of your Heavenly Father will never be in question if it has nothing to do with how hard you try, but only what he has done for you.
-
Interesting topic! For what it's worth, in the traditional/non-LDS Christian context, angels are not actually human spirits, but another order of creation.
-
It's probably way too late for this reply but here goes:
C'mon now, you don't expect me to believe that since you believe there was a period before time began that that explains how God existed for an eternity but did not create time or a universe? That's like saying since I've never been to Russia that means it doesn't exist. God existed, whether in time or eternity (doesn't make any difference), and you believe He existed alone because He had to be before all things, and that He existed for an eternity before He created man.
Justice, you are misunderstanding me because you do not use the word "eternal" properly. When you say "an eternity" you mean a really long time. And when you say "throughout all eternity" you mean a really long time that never ends. And that is natural, because we usually use the word that way. But eternal means timeless, without beginning or end. So no, there was no "period" before time. There is a difference between time and eternity and it does matter.
We both believe that timeless/eternal things exist. I believe it is God himself. LDS (as far as I understand it) believe matter/intelligences are eternal.
... I never said God had to do anything. I'm just making a logic based argument that if God knows all, then He would have known to create time, space, a universe, and man long before this time, space, universe, or us. Throughout all eternity He would have been able to do this an infinite number of times. It's a pure logic argument and it points out a flaw in the belief of the Trinity.
I did not mean to say that you are ordering God around, but that your argument does not actually follow. Just because God can create infinite universes, does not mean that he must or that he would want to, or that doing so would actually be the best way to show his glory.
-
thank you guys! I bookmarked the sites.
-
I'm attempting (again) to read the BoM and D/C straight through before the end of January when I'll be taking a class that will cover Mormonism. I was wondering where I could find any verse by verse commentaries, either online or in print. I have a triplet edition with footnotes that correspond to a Topical Guide, but I don't have that.
I would appreciate any pointers.
-
Isn't it interesting that the God of the Trinity existed for an eternity, without anything else, then created a universe out of and for His love, joy, and glory? Didn't God know LONG before he created the universe that it would be better with the universe?
This is my major complaint about the Trinity, that "In the beginning" in the Bible refers to the ultimate beginning of all things. If God knew creating a physical universe and man was the best way to express His love and acheive joy, He would have already done it an infinite number of times.
If your God is the God of the Trinity, then yes. But, if God needs a wife to have a family then everything changes. The entire paradigm of your comment becomes baseless and pointless. Family relationships are, to a certain degree, obligatory, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I love my wife with all my heart AND I needed her in order to have children.
So many people go wrong in their thinking about God when they think things have to be one or the other, like your comment, "It is no longer pure love and grace." When in actuality the answer most often is both... just like faith and works, and like I demonstrated with my example of my mine and my wife's relationship.
Don't get me wrong, there is love and grace in the family relationships between husband/wife, parent/child, and yes the partly "obligatory" nature of it is good. Those picture in part what we may have with God.
But would it be good, or "as good" for someone to "need" a child to be happy and fulfilled? True, we are made to "be fruitful and multiply" (whoohoo!), but if someone thinks they "need" to have children it is usually not healthy or it is for the wrong reasons. Isn't it better when a couple wants to start a family simply because they see it as a joy to do so? Now, I don't even have kids, but I've seen both cases.
So if God "needs" me in any sense as means to be happier or to gain more glory, then what was pure grace when He adopted me is not so any longer. In fact, wouldn't I then be in a place to make certain demands on him, or have certain expectations for Him to fulfill towards me? If we say God needs anything, then we go down some strange paths.
P.S. If time actually started "in the beginning" then there was not a long boring time before where God was getting bored. Also, who is anyone to say that God should do anything an infinite number of times?
-
You seem to easily separate love and grace from the recipient of the love and grace. If God is God because of His love and grace then He "needs" someone to give it to.
You are right. Love, especially that agape love which disregards itself for the the loved one, cannot exist without the one to love. Enter the Trinity: if God is a community of 3 then love can exist--then God can be Love.
Al Mohler @ BYU!
in General Discussion
Posted
I have never understood why someone would protest a religion. In any case, even if Billy Graham said something to them I'm sure they would demand to check him for signs of horn removal. I've heard about the really offensive things they'll do; for what it's worth I apologize since they won't.
Part of why I am so glad that Mohler spoke there is because I hope he will set an example for our side to follow. If we actually don't think we are going to heaven together and truly do want to win you to Christ, then dialogue like that is the better way. At least you get to see that we aren't all crazies!