Need A Little Help

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 17 2005, 07:42 AM

Dale,

Wasn't it Zondervan who published the "new" LDS BoM?

Of course they'll publish stuff on variations of the Trinity, why wouldn't they?

Nope. It was Doubleday, a major secular publishing house.

[Dale]

Hi,

Jason while I try & affirm the Trinity because it is RLDS doctrine. LDS can make a case that Book of Mormon is not Trinitarian. Ether 3:15 has men created after the image of Christ's spirit body. If the Father is a distinct person then they are two God's presented in orthodox mono-theistic language. I am not sure the book really teaches modalism myself.

I once e-mailed a Rabbi called Tovia Singer. He's with Outreach Judaism a Jewish Apologetics group. He told me he felt the Trinity idea as placing other gods beside the True God. They don't unless they are liberal Jews see the Trinity idea as orthodox mono-theism. I only hear some liberal Jewish acceptance of Christians as mono-theist. Hard core Jews & Moslems see the Trinity idea as polytheistic. Also they believe Christians misinterpret the Old Testament to see the Trinity idea there.

Here's a link to his website: http://www.outreachjudaism.org/index.html

Sincerely,

Dale

[Jason]

Snow,

That's akin to saying that the Orthodox Church is polytheistic because they believe in Saints.

Saints are not Gods.

That is, I am defining both what the Orthodox worship and what that means while ignoring what the the Orthodox think of themselves.

Orthodox worship the Trinity.

Orthodox venerate the Saints.

Those who blur this definition haven't done their homework. Really Snow, I expected more from you.

By the way, plenty of theologians or scholars say that it makes more sense to talk in terms of polytheism for the religions that venerate Saints so I am not making that up. 

Clearly poor scholars who don't know the difference between worship and veneration.

Me personally - I don't believe it but regardless, you can't define other religions in ways that defy their own self-understanding. Ask a Mormon, like me for instance, it they are polytheistic. Their answer would probably be no. Mine is.

As a Mormon, I was polytheistic. I accepted the BoA as teaching that there are many gods, and that a council of gods decided to create this little world of ours. I knew many Mormons who were polytheistic. The fact that you don't define yourself as polytheistic is one thing, but if you accept Mormon doctrine at face value, then, de facto, you are a polytheist.

On the other hand, you define us as polytheistic because we believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are materially or ontologically seperate. Okay, well, who made that rule?

The Bride (aka The Church, in refuting heresies of the early centuries).

Trinitarians don't even believe that God is material...

Actually, the Son is fully God and fully Man.

...so when they are defining themselves as polytheistic they are not considering ontological unity. So that's defining the word one way for yourself and one way for others. Again, what rule says that it is materiallity and not, say, purpose of some other measure is that which defines oneness?

Accepting the authority of a Church Canon (much like you accept the D&C) is central to being an Orthodox Christian. Throw away that authority, and anyone who professes Christ is part of the "church".

That's why you're a Mormon, Snow. Because you accept the fact that without authority, there is nothing but non-denominational chaos.

[Jason]

Dale,

Jenda is a Modalist. It is my understanding that many RLDS variate on their brands of the Trinity.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 18 2005, 10:08 AM

Dale,

Jenda is a Modalist. It is my understanding that many RLDS variate on their brands of the Trinity.

Actually, Jenda was a modalist. After studying the scriptures regarding this issue for a while, I have moved to a Trinitarian position. Yes, there are still some things that are very hard to understand and accept about the Trinity, but I evaluated the scriptures that led me to modalism in the first place, and they don't say what I believed them to say to begin with.

But the rest of your statement is true.

[Jason]

Actually, Jenda was a modalist. After studying the scriptures regarding this issue for a while, I have moved to a Trinitarian position. Yes, there are still some things that are very hard to understand and accept about the Trinity, but I evaluated the scriptures that led me to modalism in the first place, and they don't say what I believed them to say to begin with.

But the rest of your statement is true.

Funny how things change, eh? I remember when I was first grasping at the Trinity, and you said that my description of beliefs was actually modalism. So I owe it all to you, babe!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ex,

I'm not sure you're catching the irony of your response to Snow.

Your point is that you define veneration as a separate concept from worship, so Orthodox are not polytheistic. Fair enough.

But then you say that Mormons' belief that while the Son may be of the same substance as the Father, but is not the same substance makes them polytheistic, notwithstanding their express canonical declaration that the Godhead is one God.

In other words, you demand that others accept your definition of the concepts of worship vs. veneration as separate concepts, but you insist on forcing your definition of polytheism on Mormons.

[Maureen]

I know that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is not a standard work, but it still paints a picture of a polytheistic belief:

The Godhead

Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (A of F 1). These three Gods form the Godhead, which holds the keys of power over the universe. Each member of the Godhead is an independent personage, separate and distinct from the other two, the three being in perfect unity and harmony with each other (AF, chap. 2)….

Although the three members of the Godhead are distinct personages, their Godhead is "one" in that all three are united in their thoughts, actions, and purpose, with each having a fulness of knowledge, truth, and power. Each is a God. This does not imply a mystical union of substance or personality. Joseph Smith taught:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for those that thou hast given me…that they may be one as we are."…I want to read the text to you myself—"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which thou hast given me out of the world,…that they all may be agreed," and all come to dwell in unity [TPJS, p. 372; cf. John 17:9-11, 20-21; also cf. WJS, p. 380].

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/g...Godhead_EOM.htm

M.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 18 2005, 12:29 PM

Ex,

I'm not sure you're catching the irony of your response to Snow.

Your point is that you define veneration as a separate concept from worship, so Orthodox are not polytheistic. Fair enough.

But then you say that Mormons' belief that while the Son may be of the same substance as the Father, but is not the same substance makes them polytheistic, notwithstanding their express canonical declaration that the Godhead is one God.

In other words, you demand that others accept your definition of the concepts of worship vs. veneration as separate concepts, but you insist on forcing your definition of polytheism on Mormons.

God is plural. It is only our limited language which makes this a confusing issue.

[Jason]

PD,

Your point is that you define veneration as a separate concept from worship, so Orthodox are not polytheistic. Fair enough. 

Even if Orthodox worshipped (as opposed to venerated) the Saints, that hardly makes them polytheistic, since Saints are not Gods. Until relatively recently, the Western Churches would use terms like "worship" in modern languages to describe activities directed toward Mary, the Saints, icons and relics. Historically there were distinct terms in Latin for the same things (dulia or veneration due Saints, etc., hyperdulia or superveneration due Mary, and latria or adoration due God alone), yet "worship" was often used to describe all three. Probably due in large part to Protestant criticism, Western Churches have been more diligent in the use of "worship" when speaking of Deity alone.

As a practical matter, many old school Protestants consider it hardly worth the effort recognizing that Catholic theology doesn't allow for the worship due to God alone to be given to anyone else, including Mary. Yet in the popular piety to the casual observer, it can very often seem that some Catholics treat Mary the same way they approach God.

  But then you say that Mormons' belief that while the Son may be of the same substance as the Father, but is not the same substance makes them polytheistic, notwithstanding their express canonical declaration that the Godhead is one God.

Using the term "of" the same substance (or essense) is just fine, it's the notion in Mormonism that there was once a time when the Son did not exist that Orthodoxy rejects.

As for this "canonical" declaration, would you please quote it for me? My understanding of Mormonism clearly states that there are many gods (See Abraham 4), but they are one in purpose only.

In other words, you demand that others accept your definition of the concepts of worship vs. veneration as separate concepts...

Im not demanding this of anyone. Im stating that in the West, there has been some misinformation produced by Protestant "Rome-haters" who've purposely mis-educated the masses about Catholic worship verses veneration.

In the East, this has not been a problem. We've always had the understanding of the difference between worship and veneration.

...but you insist on forcing your definition of polytheism on Mormons.

Until Hinckley or some other LDS "prophet" redefines the BoA, Im afraid you're stuck with it.

[Amillia]

Semantics seem to be the big un-resolvable issue.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ex,

From Mosiah, chapter 15:

1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

From Alma 1:44:

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

From Mormon 9:9:

For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

From D&C 20:17:

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

***

Now a few thoughts:

Nowhere in canonized LDS scripture does it state that the unity of the Godhead is limited to unity of purpose. The phrase "one in purpose" does get used quite a bit as a kind of shorthand for the fact that the unity of the Godhead is not an integral unity, in the sense that there is one Proud Duck (i.e. one 33-year-old body of flesh and bones, slightly overweight at 5'11 and 185 lbs, with a head full of all kinds of useless trivia), but rather a mystical unity. Mormons don't do mysteries; we like to think we can package everything up in a nice plan-of-salvation flowchart. But our canonized scriptures describe a God whose ways are beyond ours. They are to some extent sacred mysteries, in other words.

There appears, at first glance, to be a disjunction between the scriptures I quoted above and the "plurality of gods" doctrines of the Book of Abraham and the Nauvoo period. Mormons believe that whatever conflict there appears to be on the surface of the relevant passages is actually no conflict -- that they can be reconciled, even if we don't now understand how this can be so. This reconciling of two apparently contradictory concepts is not substantially different from the creedal doctrine of the Trinity; creedal Trinitarians believe that there is ultimately no conflict between God being both three and one, even though the precise mechanics of the Trinity remain a mystery.

You, on the other hand, are taking hold of the Book of Abraham passages and holding them up as superior Mormon doctrine -- that is, you're saying that they supersede the one-God passages I quoted. What right do you have to do this?

As for the veneration/worship difference, all you've done is point out that you disagree with the Protestant conflation of the two. I happen to think you're right -- that your explanation of how the concepts are different is satisfactory -- but the Protestants who take a different view have rational arguments for their positions, too. Nevertheless, those Protestants are not entitled to define your doctrine for you, any more than you are entitled to define Mormon doctrine for Mormons.

Until Hinckley or some other LDS "prophet" redefines the BoA, Im afraid you're stuck with it.

If it came down to a choice between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, there's no question the Book of Mormon would prevail -- "keystone of our religion" and all that. So why do you treat the Book of Abraham as superior?

[Jason]

PD,

From Mosiah, chapter 15:

1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Course, Orthodoxy would say that this is blasphemous. The Son is not the Son because He took on flesh. He was the Son from all eternity. Mosiah contradicts the following: "In the beginning was the Word..." (St. John 1:1) If the Son was not the Son until his mortal existence, then what was He before?

From Alma 1:44:

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

From Mormon 9:9:

For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

From D&C 20:17:

By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

***

Mr. Obvious would say that the Book of Mormon was written by a young man who had a very imperfect understanding of the Blessed Trinity (can't blame him much though), who, without formal seminary training, had no clue what he was writing about, and wrote a book based on his poor understanding of the Trinity.

Finding this uncomfortable, Smith developed a much simpler (read that: humanly understandable) theology in later years (aka Nauvoo) where he promoted a new idea of the Godhead that contributed to the Mormon idea of divinization (D&C 131,132) and a creation which included more than One God (non-trinitarian).

Tie this in with his recent elevation in the Blue Lodge ceremonies, and you have the makings of a great, nineteenth century mystery-cult religion.

Nowhere in canonized LDS scripture does it state that the unity of the Godhead is limited to unity of purpose. The phrase "one in purpose" does get used quite a bit as a kind of shorthand for the fact that the unity of the Godhead is not an integral unity, in the sense that there is one Proud Duck (i.e. one 33-year-old body of flesh and bones, slightly overweight at 5'11 and 185 lbs, with a head full of all kinds of useless trivia), but rather a mystical unity. Mormons don't do mysteries; we like to think we can package everything up in a nice plan-of-salvation flowchart. But our canonized scriptures describe a God whose ways are beyond ours. They are to some extent sacred mysteries, in other words.

Sure, one might say that one requires just as much "faith" to accept this mystical union of purpose (considering the contradiction between the BoM and the BoA) as much as one does for the acceptance of the Blessed Trinity. The biggest difference is that you actually have a text that uses the word "gods" whereas we do not.

You, on the other hand, are taking hold of the Book of Abraham passages and holding them up as superior Mormon doctrine -- that is, you're saying that they supersede the one-God passages I quoted. What right do you have to do this?

Im not trying to say "superior" as you've stated. Although I could be saying: "More recent theology," or perhaps "theology more closely alligned to the Temple ceremony" therefore it is more "accurate" a description of Mormon theology as a whole.

As for the veneration/worship difference, all you've done is point out that you disagree with the Protestant conflation of the two. I happen to think you're right -- that your explanation of how the concepts are different is satisfactory -- but the Protestants who take a different view have rational arguments for their positions, too. Nevertheless, those Protestants are not entitled to define your doctrine for you, any more than you are entitled to define Mormon doctrine for Mormons.

Protestants certainly have a right to describe our doctrine (though few have bothered with Orthodoxy thus far...) but no, they cannot define it.

But let's be accurate here, PD. You cannot define Mormon doctrine any more than I can. Only a General Authority of the LDS church has the right to correctly interpret and define Mormon doctrine. Yet you can describe it, as I can, and try to understand it as best as possible. Which leaves us both on an equal plane (as much as you might dislike that).

If it came down to a choice between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, there's no question the Book of Mormon would prevail -- "keystone of our religion" and all that. So why do you treat the Book of Abraham as superior?

Because there's little question that the most important thing to Mormons is the Temple. And the ceremonies linked to the Temple have a closer connection to the Book of Abraham than they do to the Book of Mormon. To abandon the BoA is to be the new Reorganized LDS Church!

I totally disagree with the BoM "Keystone" argument. Though it is an opinion of GA's, I'd argue that the true keystone of Mormonism is the Temple ceremonies developed by Smith in the Nauvoo period from his experiences in the Blue Lodge degrees.

But that's my opinion.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 18 2005, 10:17 AM

Actually, Jenda was a modalist. After studying the scriptures regarding this issue for a while, I have moved to a Trinitarian position. Yes, there are still some things that are very hard to understand and accept about the Trinity, but I evaluated the scriptures that led me to modalism in the first place, and they don't say what I believed them to say to begin with.

But the rest of your statement is true.

Funny how things change, eh? I remember when I was first grasping at the Trinity, and you said that my description of beliefs was actually modalism. So I owe it all to you, babe!

So..........................is that good........or bad?

[Jason]

It's all good Dawn...It's all good!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ex,

I have to say, this is kinda fun.

Finding this uncomfortable, Smith developed a much simpler (read that: humanly understandable) theology in later years (aka Nauvoo) where he promoted a new idea of the Godhead that contributed to the Mormon idea of divinization (D&C 131,132) and a creation which included more than One God (non-trinitarian).

The Nauvoo-era theology is "simpler" only if you are smoking a controlled substance. I think it's the other way around -- the Book of Mormon-derived Kirtland-era theology is a lot easier to comprehend.

The Son is not the Son because He took on flesh. He was the Son from all eternity.

I don't read the Mosiah scripture as saying the Son became the Son at the moment He became incarnate. I read the Mosiah passage as an attempt to describe why the divine person who St. John describes as the "Word" is referred to as the Son. This reading is consistent with the other Mormon scriptures which indicate that the Son is God -- unchanging and uncreated, God from everlasting to everlasting, the Alpha and Omega, and all that.

Sure, one might say that one requires just as much "faith" to accept this mystical union of purpose (considering the contradiction between the BoM and the BoA) as much as one does for the acceptance of the Blessed Trinity. The biggest difference is that you actually have a text that uses the word "gods" whereas we do not.

Seems to me that this difference merely means that Mormons have to jump through a couple more philosophic-linguistic hoops to reconcile the peculiar contradictions of their Trinitarian doctrine than do creedal Christians. The Book of Abraham merely made explicit what the New Testament implied -- that there are multiple persons, apparently separate, who are called gods, who must be stuck together in some mystical way to consider them one monotheistic God. Since it took the early Christians three centuries and a lot of lopped-off heads to get themselves straightened out on this point (and still haven't gotten entirely on one page, as your reference to the persistence of modalism points out), it hardly seems to me that creedal Christians have any cause to pull a Star-Bellied Sneech act on people who understand the mechanics of the Trinity differently while still recognizing that there is one God, and that Christ is divine.

Im not trying to say "superior" as you've stated. Although I could be saying: "More recent theology," or perhaps "theology more closely alligned to the Temple ceremony" therefore it is more "accurate" a description of Mormon theology as a whole.

Of course, since the Temple ceremony changes every decade or so, it may not be the best source for basic Mormon doctrine. As between the Book of Mormon theology and the theological innovations of the Nauvoo period, I see the Church over the last decade or so as moving towards the latter and away from the former, with "I don't know that we teach that" and so forth. (Although I have noted a little backpaddling in the last few General Conferences, with President Hinckley going out of his way to call attention to the differences between Mormon and creedal theology, especially the concept of the Father and the Son as two separate "personages." I wonder if that's in part a reaction to his having earlier attempted to reach out to creedal Christians and having been snubbed for his trouble.)

Because there's little question that the most important thing to Mormons is the Temple.

There's certainly more than a little question as to that point for this particular Mormon.

To abandon the BoA is to be the new Reorganized LDS Church!

That might have been true some decades ago, but the two branches of Mormonism have diverged so far since the split that even without the Book of Abraham, the Utah church and the CoC would have very little resemblance to each other. And in any case, I'm not saying the Church is in the process of abandoning the Book of Abraham, but rather that its more exotic theological points have to be understood in the context of the basic gospel taught in the Book of Mormon, and harmonized with that basic gospel, not allowed to supersede it.

The concept of the Book of Mormon as the "keystone of our religion" is not just the opinion of some general authorities; that was Joseph Smith's phrase.

But let's be accurate here, PD. You cannot define Mormon doctrine any more than I can. Only a General Authority of the LDS church has the right to correctly interpret and define Mormon doctrine. Yet you can describe it, as I can, and try to understand it as best as possible. Which leaves us both on an equal plane (as much as you might dislike that).

Disagree. First, not even a General Authority of the LDS Church has the right to correctly interpret and define Mormon doctrine. Not even Apostles do, which is why McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is not an authoritative statement of Mormon doctrine (thank heaven). I actually don't really know what constitutes official Mormon doctrine, other than the canonized scriptures and possibly certain official signed pronouncements of the First Presidency. It does seem sometimes that the Church has a much fuzzier approach to establishing an authoritative doctrinal corpus than, say, the Catholics; this may either be by design or by accident.

But we're not on an equal plane here. As an individual Mormon, I may not be able to define what all Mormons believe, but I can state authoritatively what it is that this particular Mormon believes. You, however, along with many Christian groups, have taken on yourselves the right to tell me what I believe. If, for example, I were to attempt to join another church, I would have to be re-baptized -- notwithstanding that those churches recognize the baptisms of other Christian churches. You would ignore my self-definition as a Christian, and my explanations that I believe in one God, one of whose persons is a divine Christ, and insist, based on your interpretation of the meaning of Mormon writings, that I actually am polytheistic. That is presumptuous.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 18 2005, 05:22 PM

The concept of the Book of Mormon as the "keystone of our religion" is not just the opinion of some general authorities; that was Joseph Smith's phrase.

That might have been true before the Nauvoo era, but once the beliefs of the early church started changing to include things like temple ordinances, etc., the BoM had been left far behind. And from that time on, the BoM is a footnote in LDS theology. It is used as a conversion tool and then quickly discarded, because there is nothing in post-Kirtland LDSism that in any way resembles BoM theology.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 18 2005, 09:06 AM

Snow,

That's akin to saying that the Orthodox Church is polytheistic because they believe in Saints.

Saints are not Gods.

That is, I am defining both what the Orthodox worship and what that means while ignoring what the the Orthodox think of themselves.

Orthodox worship the Trinity.

Orthodox venerate the Saints.

Those who blur this definition haven't done their homework. Really Snow, I expected more from you.

By the way, plenty of theologians or scholars say that it makes more sense to talk in terms of polytheism for the religions that venerate Saints so I am not making that up. 

Clearly poor scholars who don't know the difference between worship and veneration.

Me personally - I don't believe it but regardless, you can't define other religions in ways that defy their own self-understanding. Ask a Mormon, like me for instance, it they are polytheistic. Their answer would probably be no. Mine is.

As a Mormon, I was polytheistic. I accepted the BoA as teaching that there are many gods, and that a council of gods decided to create this little world of ours. I knew many Mormons who were polytheistic. The fact that you don't define yourself as polytheistic is one thing, but if you accept Mormon doctrine at face value, then, de facto, you are a polytheist.

On the other hand, you define us as polytheistic because we believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are materially or ontologically seperate. Okay, well, who made that rule?

The Bride (aka The Church, in refuting heresies of the early centuries).

Trinitarians don't even believe that God is material...

Actually, the Son is fully God and fully Man.

...so when they are defining themselves as polytheistic they are not considering ontological unity. So that's defining the word one way for yourself and one way for others. Again, what rule says that it is materiallity and not, say, purpose of some other measure is that which defines oneness?

Accepting the authority of a Church Canon (much like you accept the D&C) is central to being an Orthodox Christian. Throw away that authority, and anyone who professes Christ is part of the "church".

That's why you're a Mormon, Snow. Because you accept the fact that without authority, there is nothing but non-denominational chaos.

Now you're just being silly. You say that those who think that believers in Saints may be polytheistic are clearly poor scholars. That's defining good scholarship in terms of whether you approve of the conclusion - something that is not scholarly. In fact the person I heard that last made the point was Robert Oden, Carleton College, Ph.D., Harvard University (Dr. Oden, who holds both a doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations and a master's degree in Theology (two of the latter, in fact), has taught at Harvard University and Dartmouth College over a long and exceptionally distinguished career as both teacher and college president. He was the recipient of the very first Dartmouth College Distinguished Teaching Award, determined by vote of the senior class from among the entire faculty. Far from being a poor scholar, he is a distinguished and accomplished scholar with opinions worth hearing. He has undoubtedly down more homework than either of us. BTW - to say you expected more of me is just a cheap trick to avoid the issue. That kind of passive insult works with the kiddies but not me.

You consider yourself monotheistic because you venerate the Saints and worship God but Mormons worship God, in the name of Christ or as represented by Christ. Ever hear of a Mormon who prayed to anyone but God? No, Yet believers in Saints pray to someone other than God all the time. You say venerate and I say that when you ascribe the powers and actions that are ascribed to Saints, it makes some sense to talk in terms of polytheism. I don't call you polytheistic however because it is wrong to talk about your religion in terms that defy your own self-understanding.

I appreciate your answering the question on who makes the rules but since I don't recognize the legitimacy of the the Orthodox Church (as a duly ordained institution to speak for God, I am not much inclined to agree.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Apr 18 2005, 06:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Apr 18 2005, 06:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 18 2005, 05:22 PM

The concept of the Book of Mormon as the "keystone of our religion" is not just the opinion of some general authorities; that was Joseph Smith's phrase.  

That might have been true before the Nauvoo era, but once the beliefs of the early church started changing to include things like temple ordinances, etc., the BoM had been left far behind. And from that time on, the BoM is a footnote in LDS theology. It is used as a conversion tool and then quickly discarded, because there is nothing in post-Kirtland LDSism that in any way resembles BoM theology.

Are you nuts? The BofM was central to everything taught or done, not discounting continuing revelation. It was taught that the BofM contained events that would correlate with happenings in the latter days and most everything done in early history of the church was founded upon the teachings of the BofM. It is the truest book, not the most complete. Remember it is an abridgment made with a very specific purpose in mind.

[Dale]

Hi,

I suggest this apologetic approach in talking about the Book of Mormon. Ether 3:15 has men created after the image of Christ's spirit. I see some Trinitarianism in the Book of Mormon. If Jesus pre-mortal spirit body could have form the Father could have form. Two God's are two God's. Richard Hopkins How Greek Philosophy Corrupted The Christian Concept of God's get's into solving problems I see related to the Book of Mormon idea of God. I prefer Trinitarianism. I am not in agreement with all he say's but others like him just fine. He's a popular LDs apologist. He's has defended his faith with several good books.

Sincerely,

Robert

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Dale@Apr 19 2005, 02:06 AM

Hi,

I suggest this apologetic approach in talking about the Book of Mormon. Ether 3:15 has men created after the image of Christ's spirit. I see some Trinitarianism in the Book of Mormon. If Jesus pre-mortal spirit body could have form the Father could have form. Two God's are two God's. Richard Hopkins How Greek Philosophy Corrupted The Christian Concept of God's get's into solving problems I see related to the Book of Mormon idea of God. I prefer Trinitarianism. I am not in agreement with all he say's but others like him just fine. He's a popular LDs apologist. He's has defended his faith with several good books.

Sincerely,

Robert

One thing is for sure, "this is eternal life, that ye may know God...."

So we best get to KNOW HIM!

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amillia+Apr 18 2005, 09:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Apr 18 2005, 09:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Apr 18 2005, 06:32 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 18 2005, 05:22 PM

The concept of the Book of Mormon as the "keystone of our religion" is not just the opinion of some general authorities; that was Joseph Smith's phrase.  

That might have been true before the Nauvoo era, but once the beliefs of the early church started changing to include things like temple ordinances, etc., the BoM had been left far behind. And from that time on, the BoM is a footnote in LDS theology. It is used as a conversion tool and then quickly discarded, because there is nothing in post-Kirtland LDSism that in any way resembles BoM theology.

Are you nuts? The BofM was central to everything taught or done, not discounting continuing revelation. It was taught that the BofM contained events that would correlate with happenings in the latter days and most everything done in early history of the church was founded upon the teachings of the BofM. It is the truest book, not the most complete. Remember it is an abridgment made with a very specific purpose in mind.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. I agree with you, in theory, about the BoM, but you need to look at things historically. After BY came into the church and started becoming prominent, the BoM fell out of favor. Nobody preached it, not even Joseph Smith, and other things became the focus. The theology of the BoM, which is very Biblical in nature was left behind and "self" became the focus. What can I do to further myself? to progress as high as I can? That is the whole purpose of the temple ordinances.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Apr 19 2005, 09:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Apr 19 2005, 09:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Apr 18 2005, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Apr 18 2005, 06:32 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 18 2005, 05:22 PM

The concept of the Book of Mormon as the "keystone of our religion" is not just the opinion of some general authorities; that was Joseph Smith's phrase.  

That might have been true before the Nauvoo era, but once the beliefs of the early church started changing to include things like temple ordinances, etc., the BoM had been left far behind. And from that time on, the BoM is a footnote in LDS theology. It is used as a conversion tool and then quickly discarded, because there is nothing in post-Kirtland LDSism that in any way resembles BoM theology.

Are you nuts? The BofM was central to everything taught or done, not discounting continuing revelation. It was taught that the BofM contained events that would correlate with happenings in the latter days and most everything done in early history of the church was founded upon the teachings of the BofM. It is the truest book, not the most complete. Remember it is an abridgment made with a very specific purpose in mind.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. I agree with you, in theory, about the BoM, but you need to look at things historically. After BY came into the church and started becoming prominent, the BoM fell out of favor. Nobody preached it, not even Joseph Smith, and other things became the focus. The theology of the BoM, which is very Biblical in nature was left behind and "self" became the focus. What can I do to further myself? to progress as high as I can? That is the whole purpose of the temple ordinances.

Actually not. The whole purpose of the temple was to turn the hearts of the father to the sons, and the sons to the fathers. ~ Not to mention the irreplaceable knowledge of how to pray and receive visitation, and power from on high ~ that can not be found anywhere else.

The temple work was so far reaching beyond anything anyone has even comprehended since Christ, Himself was on the earth, unless they have searched it out and experienced the highest gifts given, that not even a lot of the LDS know what it can give. BNut they have to seach, ponder and pray...most don't.

It is the farthest thing from focussing on selfish there is. The work done is done for others, loved ones, strangers, lost and saved alike.

So, I totally disagree with your understanding of both the BofM and the Temple....in the historical and modern experiences.

[Jason]

PD,

I have to say, this is kinda fun.

Yeah, I enjoy arguments where nobody's pride is gonna get hurt, but still requries a bit of thinking.

The Nauvoo-era theology is "simpler" only if you are smoking a controlled substance. I think it's the other way around -- the Book of Mormon-derived Kirtland-era theology is a lot easier to comprehend.

I don't know. Seems like it's a lot easier to comprehend a grand council of gods creating the universe, and having seperate individuals coming down to earth to work out our salvation, than it does to have a mysterious "God the Father" who is incomprehendible. Interestingly enough, several Church Fathers have said that a God who is comprehensible, is no God worth worshipping (latria). Contrast that statement with Joseph Smith who said that the first principle of the Gospel was to understand God, and you'll see what I meant previously.

I don't read the Mosiah scripture as saying the Son became the Son at the moment He became incarnate. I read the Mosiah passage as an attempt to describe why the divine person who St. John describes as the "Word" is referred to as the Son. This reading is consistent with the other Mormon scriptures which indicate that the Son is God -- unchanging and uncreated, God from everlasting to everlasting, the Alpha and Omega, and all that. 

You could be right, but looking only at the Mosiah 15 passage, I didnt' gather that. Again, to get a clearer (as mud?) understanding of Mormon theology, you really have to compare with all the "Standard works" to really get it.

Seems to me that this difference merely means that Mormons have to jump through a couple more philosophic-linguistic hoops to reconcile the peculiar contradictions of their Trinitarian doctrine than do creedal Christians.

I have no doubt that Mormonism was originally a Trinitarian-type Church. But I believe that the Nauvoo era left that bit of philosophy well behind. (Though I find in very fascinating that some Mormons seem to be retracing their steps back to that very early LDS period of Theology.)

As much as Creeds are despised by Mormons, it seems that a good Creed would do your church some good in ascertaining a proper "interpretation" of Mormon holy writ. Not sure if that could happen in a General Conference, or if you'd have to call a solemn assembly in the SLC Temple for it.

  The Book of Abraham merely made explicit what the New Testament implied -- that there are multiple persons, apparently separate, who are called gods, who must be stuck together in some mystical way to consider them one monotheistic God.

Im not sure you can say that the NT implies separate "gods". While Christ does repeat the Psalm "ye are gods," the Orthodox Church has interpreted this as the state of Theosis, where one becomes united to the uncreated being. Theosis really is quite different from the Divinization of Mormonism. Then again, since that doctrine hasn't been fully developed (and as you said, recently pushed into the realm of speculation by Pres. Hinckley) who's to say for sure.

  Since it took the early Christians three centuries and a lot of lopped-off heads to get themselves straightened out on this point (and still haven't gotten entirely on one page, as your reference to the persistence of modalism points out), it hardly seems to me that creedal Christians have any cause to pull a Star-Bellied Sneech act on people who understand the mechanics of the Trinity differently while still recognizing that there is one God, and that Christ is divine.

LOL. Nice analogy. I would argue that the main reason it took so long to develop the first creed of Nicea was the fact that Christianity until Saint Constantine was outlawed in the Roman Empire. As an underground movement, it would have been difficult to gather a large number of Bishops to discuss and debate Dogma.

As for the all on one page statement, I'd say that for nearly a thousand years, Christianity was on "one page". Aside from the early heresies (gnostics, montanists, marcionites, Nestorians, etc.) there was only one group who rejected one of the Councils in the Churches first millenium. The Coptics today, who rejected the Fourth Oecumenical Council, are still debating about the nature of Christ, whether he has one nature (both human and divine) or two seperate natures (fully human and fully divine).

Of course, since the Temple ceremony changes every decade or so, it may not be the best source for basic Mormon doctrine. 

(Glad you said it and not me!)

As between the Book of Mormon theology and the theological innovations of the Nauvoo period, I see the Church over the last decade or so as moving towards the latter and away from the former, with "I don't know that we teach that" and so forth. (Although I have noted a little backpaddling in the last few General Conferences, with President Hinckley going out of his way to call attention to the differences between Mormon and creedal theology, especially the concept of the Father and the Son as two separate "personages." I wonder if that's in part a reaction to his having earlier attempted to reach out to creedal Christians and having been snubbed for his trouble.)

Good question.

There's certainly more than a little question as to that point for this particular Mormon. 

I stand corrected, sir.

I actually don't really know what constitutes official Mormon doctrine, other than the canonized scriptures and possibly certain official signed pronouncements of the First Presidency. It does seem sometimes that the Church has a much fuzzier approach to establishing an authoritative doctrinal corpus than, say, the Catholics; this may either be by design or by accident. 

Reminds me of a story I heard once. There was a Mormon and a Christian talking, and the Christian asks: "So what do Mormons believe?". After a few moments of careful consideration, the Mormon replies: "The last thing they were told."

[Jason]

Snow,

You say that those who think that believers in Saints may be polytheistic are clearly poor scholars. That's defining good scholarship in terms of whether you approve of the conclusion - something that is not scholarly. In fact the person I heard that last made the point was Robert Oden, Carleton College, Ph.D., Harvard University (Dr. Oden, who holds both a doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations and a master's degree in Theology (two of the latter, in fact), has taught at Harvard University and Dartmouth College over a long and exceptionally distinguished career as both teacher and college president. He was the recipient of the very first Dartmouth College Distinguished Teaching Award, determined by vote of the senior class from among the entire faculty. Far from being a poor scholar, he is a distinguished and accomplished scholar with opinions worth hearing. He has undoubtedly down more homework than either of us.

I have no doubt that some Roman Catholics, contrary to Dogma, worship and or pray to the Saints. If Oden researched these people's behaviors, then he would have been right. However, such a concept is contrary to RC canon, and foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy generally speaking.

You consider yourself monotheistic because you venerate the Saints and worship God but Mormons worship God, in the name of Christ or as represented by Christ. Ever hear of a Mormon who prayed to anyone but God? No, Yet believers in Saints pray to someone other than God all the time. You say venerate and I say that when you ascribe the powers and actions that are ascribed to Saints, it makes some sense to talk in terms of polytheism. I don't call you polytheistic however because it is wrong to talk about your religion in terms that defy your own self-understanding.

I think I can clear up this concept for you. Orthodox don't pray to Saints. We ask Saints to pray for us. In all reality, this is no different than if you're kid is sick, and you ask grandma to say a prayer for her. Did you pray to your grandma? No, you asked her to add her prayers to yours.

Since we view the Saints as having lived exemplary lives, we believe that their prayers are more effecacious than just the average joe's. Therefore, we ask their intercession on our behalf.

Here's an example: "Pray unto God for me, O holy Saint (name), well-pleasing to God..."

Technically, Mormons are't totally opposed to the idea that those on the "other side" are working for our behalf. I recall a Mormon hymn speaking about Joseph Smith that says: "Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren; Death cannot conquer the hero again. Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr; Honored and blest be his ever great name! Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins, Plead unto heaven while the earth lauds his fame.

If he can plan for his brethren, then he's doing something for Mankind that they cannot do on their own. If his blood shall plead unto heaven, you have an example of the doctrine behind relic worship. (Another story there I suppose.)

I appreciate your answering the question on who makes the rules but since I don't recognize the legitimacy of the the Orthodox Church (as a duly ordained institution to speak for God, I am not much inclined to agree. 

I understand.