dberrie2000

Well, that might be said of any reference in the Biblical text the LDS point to in order to support their doctrines. I don't think I have ever used this scripture as proof texting to support baptism at eight years old--only that it is an interesting scripture that contains some relative wording. I find that most LDS get eaten for lunch, when trying to use the Biblical text, no matter what the subject is, or given a knowledgeable person. The number eight is a figure--no matter how knowledgeable a person is that takes up this argument. To take it beyond that--one has to enter a world that only a few can understand to begin with. And if we depend on that kind of academic involvement for every point we read within the Biblical text--then the Bible is only meaningful to those few, and reduced to an enigma for the rest. That might be a good point--but considering that the BOM prophets knew of baptism at eight--then the LDS could also believe that baptism at eight was known to Peter. Knowing that--it is not out of the question that the scripture could have been a reference to that very figure. I am in no way am postulating it as a definitive definition of scripture--only that, as written in the KJV-- it is an interesting thought and possibility--and one connected to LDS beliefs.

And every Sacrament meeting.

Well--"figure" is an English word. In the translation process, the translators, in a translation from Greek to English--usually look for the English word, of that day, that most closely defines the Greek counterpart, if there is one. One does not have to go back to the Greek to look up the definition of the English word. Our English translations would not be a very accurate source of truth if it did not reflect the meaning of the Greek texts. And there would be but a few who could understand it, if the English only reflected only what the Greeks would define it as.:)

Or, according to Merriam Webster: fig·ure noun \ˈfi-gyər, British & often US ˈfi-gər\ Definition of FIGURE 1 a : a number symbol : numeral, digit b plural : arithmetical calculations <good at figures> c : a written or printed character d : value especially as expressed in numbers : sum, price <sold at a low figure>

Pretty interesting thought, PC--"evil act of rebellion" as a lead-in to becoming more like God.

Hi Justice. Hope you had a merry Christmas. I read that no telling how many times before I connected it. But that may be just me. I brought that up in Sunday School class, when we reached that scripture this last month--the SS class just stared at me. I dropped it without further comment. Two people did inquire about it afterwards, though. Allowed me to believe that at least it could be considered.

And, to be sure--the number 8 is also a figure, literally. 1 Peter 20 connects the two together, for me--both eight and water. Interesting. I have not ever considered that before.

Of course, then we could say that it would only have relevance to baptism, if we baptized in and during flood waters.

Water baptism at eight years old.

1 Peter3:20-21--"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" Has anyone ever considered this like figure--eight, and water---as the very practice the LDS church has?

Another observation, Michael Heiser: "Monotheism as a term was coined in the seventeenth century not as an antonym to polytheism, but to atheism.32 A monotheist, then, was a person who believed there was a God, not someone who believed there was only one spiritual entity that could or should be named by the letters G-O-D. This understanding of the term has been lost in contemporary discourse, and so it would be pointless to call for a return to its original meaning. A more coherent approach is to describe what Israelites believed about their God rather than trying to encapsulate that belief in a single word. When scholars have addressed this tension, however, a shift to description over terminology has not been the strategy. Rather, scholars have tried to qualify the modern vocabulary. Terms like inclusive monotheism or tolerant monolatry have been coined in an attempt to accurately classify Israelite religion in both pre- and postexilic stages.33 These terms have not found broad acceptance because they are oxymoronic to the modern ear." dberrie---The way we define "monotheism" is foreign to it's original meaning. The belief that if one even believes there are other Gods--they are polytheistic--would be foreign to ancient Israel, or it's original understood meaning of monotheism That is a modern add-on to the word. As the modern scholars agree now--trying to impose that thought now would fall on death ears--tradition is always stronger than truth. More from Michael Heiser: "Psalm 82 is considered late in composition on several grounds, most notably because of its placement in Book III of Psalms and its use by Deutero-Isaiah.12 The clear reference to a pantheon over which Yahweh presides must be explained since by this time Israelite religion is assumed to have evolved to an "intolerant monotheism." As a result, many scholars consider Psalm 82 to be either a vestige of polytheism overlooked by monotheistic redactors or perhaps a deliberate rhetorical use of Israel's polytheistic past to declare the new outlook of monotheism.13 After the exile, so it is put forth, the gods of the nations are relegated to the status of angels. Both proposals fail on a number of levels. With respect to the first option, it is evasive to appeal to inept redactors when one's theory of a campaign to stamp out polytheistic texts encounters a "problem passage," especially when Psalm 82 is by no means the only text evincing divine plurality and a divine council "missed" by redactors. To cite but one example, there are explicit references to gods and a divine council in Second Temple period Jewish literature. In the Qumran sectarian material alone there are approximately 185 occurrences of ʾĕlōhîm, hāʾĕlōhîm, bĕnê ʾēlîm, bĕnê ʾêlōhîm, and bĕnê hāʾĕlōhîm in contexts where a divine council is mentioned with the same vocabulary (ʾēdāh, sôd, qāhāl, ) utilized in texts of the Hebrew Bible for a divine assembly.14 In fact, it is apparent that some of these references allude to or draw on canonical material. If there was a campaign to allegedly correct ancient texts and their polytheistic views, the postexilic Jewish community either did not get the message or ignored it."

Which means, for the LDS---that you worship one more God that the LDS do. Which, at that point, would be as false as the orthodox claiming they only worship one "God-being"? I personally believe that is a problem for the LDS, which they will work that out over time, just as the 1st century church worked out the circumcision and Gentile problems--which caused much strife in the church, but they survived it. The Divine council was not made up of false Gods, but a council that was headed by El, and attended by the Gods who made up that council--which numbered in excess of 70.

1 Cor8:6--"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." Why did Paul separate out Jesus Christ from the "one God" and place Christ is a different designation apart from the Father--as the "one Lord"? Why is there not a single reference in the NT that connects the "one God" to anyone but God the Father? IE-- Ephesians4:4-6--"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Trinitarianism lists their Godhood as such: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Which is the same as the LDS do. But if they were indeed the same God--would it not be listed as follows? : God---the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Well hear, hear, PC!!! Most all Christians worship both the Father and the Son--don't you? Worship of both the Father and the Son was mentioned in the NT. I believe most LDS balk at the worship of the Son because they believe the object of their worship is the Father, not because of it's association with polytheism. It has been shown that early Israel did believe in the existence of more than one God, as evidenced by their written accounts of the Divine Council, even the Biblical text still have vestiges of that belief. Revisionism has taken over most of the evidence of henotheism, so some scholars state, which I believe is true. As Michael Heiser stated--"Anyone doing serious research in Israelite religion is soon confronted with the powerful evidence for a pantheon in the Hebrew Bible." Something the orthodox Christians reject as true, but then--they have a dog in the fight. But alas!--satan can be a god--but the children of God cannot: 2 Cor4:4--"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." So--you talk about little g and big G gods. Are you saying that there can be gods, as in little g--and the fact of monotheism still remain in tact? IOW--the parameters are only breached if it is a big G?

And so did early Israel consider themselves--who believed in the Divine Council, which consisted of a number of Gods. As of today--anyone who espoused Trinitarianism to a Jewish audience would be considered a polytheistic religion. The discovery of the Ugarit material changed a lot as thinking, as to what the scholars believe today. There is not many scholars left who believe that psalm 82 is referring to judges or mortal humans. That may be so--but what are those who participate at this level: Revelation3:21--"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Revelation3:12--"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." What would one consider those who sit on the throne of God, and have the name of God upon them, and are one with the Father and the Son? As Michael Heiser commented: You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82 Michael S. Heiser Over the course of the last eight years I have read several papers dealing in one way or another with that feature of Israelite religion known as the divine council. Anyone doing serious research in Israelite religion is soon confronted with the powerful evidence for a pantheon in the Hebrew Bible. Position statements on Psalm 82 and the divine council with which many evangelicals would probably disagree and with which many Latter-day Saints would likely agree: 1. The plural ʾĕlōhîm of Psalm 82:1, 6 are divine beings, not human judges or humans fulfilling any role. 2. The term monotheism is inadequate to describe what it is Israel believed about God and the members of his council. As the text explicitly says, there are other ʾĕlōhîm. 3. References to "us" and "our" in passages like Genesis 1:26 do not refer to the Trinity. The plural ʾĕlōhîm of Psalm 82 are also not members of the Trinity. 4. The denial statements of Isaiah and elsewhere ("there is no god beside me") do not constitute denials of the existence of other ʾĕlōhîm. Rather, they are statements of Yahweh's incomparability.

Personally--I didn't see anything that I would consider "brusque" in your posts. Heck--you would be considered a pariah of good manners in some of the forums I have been on. I consider you a friend--so don't be too hard on yourself, I think your posts are good. I grew up with an Army Major, you would be timid compared to him. I agree with you--it is a false perspective--but one we as LDS have to face. Here is how the rabbits eat a head of lettuce, according to my perspective: The LDS have been asked to join discussions on the internet. They participate in the discussions, and make statements that they do not worship Jesus Christ. Those who are looking for something immediately cross them off as Christians, or something they want to be part of. In real time--just an example--I was on a forum this year where the LDS were asked to respond to this very question--do the LDS worship Jesus Christ? There were eight of us on the forum that day. No one, with the exception of me--answered yes. 7 no, 1 yes. I clicked to check how many were watching that discussion--63. Before the end of the week--more than 200 hits. That is probably more people than I will have in my home to discuss the gospel in my lifetime. And on a one-on-one discussion, I can correct any misconceptions, but on the internet--that may not be so. And it remains on the internet for years, possibly. After those comments of the LDS--I noticed those who were lurkers(and there may be five lurkers to every poster)--they kinda disconnected to those who posted a no response. I don't blame them--if I were not LDS, and looking for something--that would be one I would cross off my list, seeing I would probably consider the LDS to be non-Christian, at that point. That is what we, as LDS have to realize about the internet--comments such as those reach, and turn off a number of people, it is a statement that is counter-productive to the church, no matter how we feel about it. It digs deep holes of obscurity for the LDS church. I replied to the stake president this year that before the LDS church can bring itself out of obscurity, and be recognized as a Christian church, first, the members have to discover just who it is they worship, and gain a testimony of it. If they decide they do not worship Jesus Christ--and make those statements openly--they need not believe they are going to have acceptance in the Christian community--as that is the foundational basis for Christianity for most people, no matter what our rationalizations are for denying we do not worship Christ. For me--I worship Jesus Christ. The LDS official position is--the LDS worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God. That may or may not be true--but when a statement is made that they do not worship Jesus Christ--the reasoning is nothing but fodder, at that point, as far as missionary work goes. One has just walked into the face of prejudice, and plugged themselves into the non-Christian circuit board.

You have some qualities that are not seen by the LDS in every Evangelical--you are probably very likable to the LDS, and I enjoy your ideas. You make discussion fun. I doubt very seriously that big G or little g's are of any consequence to the LDS. As a matter of personal opinion--I believe the LDS could care less about what one becomes after death, as long as they are with Jesus Christ and His Father--they are too occupied in the here and now, like everyone else, to delve into such things, as a rule. It makes an interesting debate--but not not a pre-occupation. To be sure--I have been a part of the LDS culture for some time now--and I can't remember a single Sacrament meeting talk that touched on such things.

While I agree with this statement--there is one clarification that I believe needs to be made, when this statement is directed toward the LDS. The Jesus of the LDS may be different from the Protestants and the Catholics--but very much the same as the Biblical Jesus. IOW--What the Biblical NT record teaches--the LDS usually have matching doctrines.

When, the clarification is self-contained right in the words you quoted... "as the divine Son of God." My statement was that the church printed this statement: "Like other Christians, we worship Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God." And my comments were that the LDS church did not clarify that statement. The full statement. I did not make any claim there was no clarification within that statement. How does worshiping Christ as the Son of God change the fact that the LDS worship Jesus Christ? If you were asked if you worship Christ--how would you answer?

If it were limited to His disciples--then one could limit it to your focus. It was not. It was a prayer, to His Father, that the disciples be united in oneness, the same way Christ and the Father are united in oneness. That reaches further than most are willing to admit. But, no different than many of the doctrines taught within the Bible: Revelation3:21--"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Revelation3:12--"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." The end question being--what does this oneness mean? What are those who are one with the Father and Son,as they are, have the name of God written upon them, and sit on His throne? Maybe not--but if indeed the Father and Son do share in a divine nature in oneness--then what do the disciples share with them, if they are indeed one with the Father and the Son--just as they are one? For me--this leaks into the theology basement of Trinitarian theory. I really don't see where I have postulated that thought--nor do I limit St John17 to such a conclusion. But if you do not limit it to such, please do take note--wherever you take it from there--the disciples are attached to it.

Well, forgive me for all the direct statements--but, looking at it from the perspective of those outside of the LDS church, and many within--the conclusion there might very well be--how can one claim to be Christian, and is not sure of who he worships? OK--but I'm trying to understand how that somehow changes the worship fact? How does that, the worship of the Son as the divine Son of God, create the difference of whether the LDS worship Jesus Christ? Would that create the same confusion if someone asked you if you worshiped God the Father as the Father? Why should the title affect the way we worship Jesus Christ, or whether we do? Just a note here, Vort. I'm not here to criticize your statements--but to ask some hard questions from a different perspective. My approach may be challenging, but I hope you do not believe that I am attacking you personally. I have learned, from hard experience--that the LDS do very well from the spirit perspective--but very poorly, in many respects, when explaining their beliefs, as far as communication goes. Don't be fooled--anyone who is not a member, and views or hears some of the statement made by the LDS--are immediately convinced that they are not Christian, and want no part of their experience. I believe that is the reason that Dallin H. Oaks gave the talk some years ago about answering the question--"are you saved"? Because, in the ensuing answers--we blow people away. He stated that when we are asked, are you saved--we just answer yes, and not feel compelled to delve in a long explanation--we sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater when we do. Most are not ready for our long answers, do not understand them, or are flat turned off by them. They have already been prejudiced by the prevailing winds--and we sometimes walk straight into those prejudices. The same applies, for me, with questions, such as--do you worship Jesus Christ--- do you believe the Bible is the word of God--etc. If we are to bring the LDS church out of obscurity--it won't be with answers that we are not sure whether we worship Christ or not.

And how would you consider the position of the LDS church that they worship Jesus Christ any different, in light that it conflicts with McConkie's statement that the LDS do not worship Jesus Christ? Vort---How would you answer the question--do you worship Jesus Christ, if asked? If not--how do you qualify your statement? And how do you believe the quote does not state that the LDS worship Jesus Christ, or it is not the official position of the LDS church : "Like other Christians, we worship Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God." Maybe you are right--I missed it. Would you mind quoting where you explained that--I cannot locate it.

Would you be any quicker to discard McConkie's teaching that the blacks would not hold the priesthood? Yet--it is something the LDS church never embraced. I would agree--the teachings of the apostles should not be discarded quickly or without substantial cause--but when their personal teachings collide with the Church's official stance--then I choose the official position every time. Vort--the Church official position that the LDS worship Jesus Christ is not a "general definition"--it is the official position of the LDS church. You still have not explained how you believe that McConkie's position that the LDS do not worship Jesus Christ--and the LDS position that they do--does not necessarily conflict. Could you explain how? In what way?

But really not that different from the doctrine of Jesus according to Paul: 1 Cor8:6--"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." And not that different from the Jesus of the author of Hebrews: Hebrews1:2-5--"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; 3Who 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: 4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And probably not that much different in doctrine from the Jesus of Peter: 1 Peter1:3--"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"

Acts14:14--"Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out," The only qualification I see in Acts1:22-23 is that they be a witness of His resurrection, and Paul was certainly that: Acts2:22-23--"Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. 23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias."