Faith Vs. Works Vs. Faith & Works

[Ray]

Please note that I edited my last post to include an edited attachment. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Or in other words, if you are suggesting that LDS are the only people among those who study the scriptures who believe that God has a physical body, by suggesting that nobody but LDS has had this belief in over 3400 years of scripture study, I am now standing as a personal witness to testify that what you are suggesting is wrong.

Ray, first, let me say, I have yet to give a full reading to the attachment you recommended to me. However, the very beginning of it addresses this issue.

One thing that sets Latter-day Saints apart from nearly all the rest of Christinaity is the doctrine that god the Father possess a body in human form.

So, while I do not deny that there might be an occasional Christian or Jew, throughout history who posited the notion of Father God being coporeal, even LDS apologist, Barry Bickmore, seems to recognize that this is a Mormon distinctive.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 14 2005, 03:32 PM

Ray says:  And even though you said you read my attachment, concerning "eternal marriage", you seem to have somehow missed the part where I explained that He did not say that.

Actually, as of this post, I have not read your attachment yet. Nor did I say I had. I will though, and will offer any added comments I have, afterwards.

←

In post 15 of this thread you said that you had read my attachment, so I will now apologize for believing you had.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 14 2005, 03:38 PM

Or in other words, if you are suggesting that LDS are the only people among those who study the scriptures who believe that God has a physical body, by suggesting that nobody but LDS has had this belief in over 3400 years of scripture study, I am now standing as a personal witness to testify that what you are suggesting is wrong.

Ray, first, let me say, I have yet to give a full reading to the attachment you recommended to me. However, the very beginning of it addresses this issue.

One thing that sets Latter-day Saints apart from nearly all the rest of Christinaity is the doctrine that god the Father possess a body in human form.

So, while I do not deny that there might be an occasional Christian or Jew, throughout history who posited the notion of Father God being coporeal, even LDS apologist, Barry Bickmore, seems to recognize that this is a Mormon distinctive.

←

Please note that I added two (2) different attachments in this thread, which I will attach again in this post.

And btw, if I had written the article entitled "Does God have a body", I would not have written it like Barry. Or in other words, while he does bring up some good points, I would have rephrased some of his ideas and possibly added some more.

[prisonchaplain]

Rays says: In post 15 of this thread you said that you had read my attachment, so I will now apologize for believing you had.

Okay, now I get it. I read the attachment on eternal marriage, but I have not read the attachment on God the Father having a physical body. I thought you were expecting that I had read information from the second attachment (post 24), though I had not.

[Snow]

BOLD=prisonchaplain,Dec 13 2005, 01:34 PM

Two thoughts on this. First, since Genesis is originally part of the Torah, and since you've chosen to write the title of G-d with Judaic sensitivities, I would be curious to know if any Jewish scholars have considered the possibility that the Almighty has a physical body?

Two thoughts:

1. He or they might not have been scholars but the author(s) of Exodus and Genesis certainly thought so. (Exo. 33, Gen 32)... and yes I am familiar with the argument that the author(s) were using a figure of speech. Read the verses they don’t make sense as figures of speach.

2. Why is it important to know what Jewish Scholars think? Are Christians to interpret scripture in accord with Judaic sensibilities?

Second, John seems pretty specific in stating that G-d is spirit:

John 4:24 (King James Version): 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

We agree. Nothing precludes him from having a body also. Besides, the verse clearly states that we worship him in spirit and yet we have bodies.

If G-d has a body, and He is our Father, then I would reach the opposite conclusion. By seeing the "image of God" as relating to our character, personality, and spirits, it seems much easier for us to be inclusive. Indeed, we do believe that Eve also was made in the image of God.

If you start with the notion that God inspired the Bible to be written then why would he have choosen the word “image” if what He meant was something other than image?

[prisonchaplain]

Okay, I've read Ray's attachment on whether or not God has a body. Some thoughts:

1. As a rule of thumb, it would be wise for anyone wishing to "go deeper" in a conversation about LDS distinctives (eternal marriage, salvation, nature of God, etc.) to go to the FAIR website. It's where Ray has gotten his two attachments. I am impressed with the tone and content of both the Eternal Marriage and God has a body articles.

2. The key two arguments from the article on the God the Father being corporeal were:

A. The term "image of God" seems to most obviously represent a total package--body, soul and spirit. The article cited Seth as having been made in the "image and likeness" of Adam, using the same terminology. So, why the different reading? A partial Christian response would be that the totality of Scripture leads us to believe that God is Spirit only, so interpeting the "image of God" phrase this way contradicts the totality of biblical Scriptures. Of course, that answer only works if the other arguments for God's non-corporeal nature are convincing. So, I say "partial answer" because, my sense is the "image of God" part of the discussion can go either way.

B. The article suggests that in fact many prophets and people of God have seen God, and none have died. There is a rather lengthy article I found that does not seem to specifically target LDS teaching, but rather simply argues against the notion that God has been seen in a corporeal sense:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/452

My conclusion as of today: Like many "secondary" doctrinal distinctives, the issues of Eternal Marriage and whether or not God has a corporeal nature rises or falls on the validity of Joseph Smith's revelations. If he was a true prophet of God, then much of Christian church theological development can be ignored, and these doctrines become possible (well...necessary if JS is a prophet) interpretations. If he was a false prophet, or deluded, or mistaken, then no other Christian denomination is teaching these interpretations, and the distinctives will likely dissipate.

[prisonchaplain]

Snow's Two thoughts:

1. He or they might not have been scholars but the author(s) of Exodus and Genesis certainly thought so. (Exo. 33, Gen 32)... and yes I am familiar with the argument that the author(s) were using a figure of speech. Read the verses they don’t make sense as figures of speach.

2. Why is it important to know what Jewish Scholars think? Are Christians to interpret scripture in accord with Judaic sensibilities?

See the following for a lengthy discussion on prophets seeing God:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/452

It's important to know what Jewish and Christian scholars of the Hebrew language think, because we see ourselves as continuing and expanding what God was doing through the Hebrews in the Old Testament. That is why we speak of a "Judeo-Christian tradition." Furthermore, if there are areas of Old Testament studies at which Christian and Jewish scholars converge and agree, there develops an even greater certainty about the truths.

The FAIR article on God's corporeal nature mentioned a couple of scholars that could see God having a corporeal nature, and suggesting that it was an earlier understanding of the Jewish people. However, just as Mormons would trust FAIR before they would trust, say Ed Dekker, so I would trust Jewish scholarship about Jewish beliefs before I would trust non-Jewish scholarship--particular if the so-called scholars were of secular or liberal theological pressuppositions.

And the Orthodox scholarship I have seen suggests that belief that God has a body would be anathema for them--absolute idolatry. So, Smith's revelation that God has a body will have to fit in the same camp as some of his other distinctives--a revolutionary concept that, if true, represents a "lost" teaching that has been restored.

Second, John seems pretty specific in stating that G-d is spirit:

John 4:24 (King James Version): 24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

We agree. Nothing precludes him from having a body also. Besides, the verse clearly states that we worship him in spirit and yet we have bodies.

Except that Jesus also says that spirits do not have flesh and bone. When he appears to the disciples after the resurrection, he says that they should see that he's really there, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones.

If you start with the notion that God inspired the Bible to be written then why would he have choosen the word “image” if what He meant was something other than image?

The "image of God" discussion may supplement an argument for the corporeal nature of God, if it can first be proven. However, both corporealists and noncorporealists end up interpreting those Scriptures in light of how the read the totality of Scripture on this issue.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 15 2005, 12:16 AM

As a rule of thumb, it would be wise for anyone wishing to "go deeper" in a conversation about LDS distinctives (eternal marriage, salvation, nature of God, etc.) to go to the FAIR website.  It's where Ray has gotten his two attachments.  I am impressed with the tone and content of both the Eternal Marriage and God has a body articles.

I wrote the message on Eternal Marriage myself, so thank you for the compliment.

And I agree that FAIR is a good source of information for anyone who wants to "go deeper" in their understanding of LDS doctrine. Perhaps I should only write for them.

The term "image of God" seems to most obviously represent a total package--body, soul and spirit.  The article cited Seth as having been made in the "image and likeness" of Adam, using the same terminology.  So, why the different reading?  A partial Christian response would be that the totality of Scripture leads us to believe that God is Spirit only, so interpeting the "image of God" phrase this way contradicts the totality of biblical Scriptures.  Of course, that answer only works if the other arguments for God's non-corporeal nature are convincing.  So, I say "partial answer" because, my sense is the "image of God" part of the discussion can go either way.

As Barry Bickmore in his article on the nature of God suggested, the "totality of biblical scriptures" leads to the idea that God DOES have a body, and is not ONLY Spirit, with some scriptures that could lead to ideas either way. Perhaps it would help you to read his article again.

B.  The article suggests that in fact many prophets and people of God have seen God, and none have died.  There is a rather lengthy article I found that does not seem to specifically target LDS teaching, but rather simply argues against the notion that God has been seen in a corporeal sense:

When people disagree with an idea, they usually believe something else, so the fact that there are arguments to support all kinds of beliefs should not be a new idea to anybody.

My conclusion as of today:  Like many "secondary" doctrinal distinctives, the issues of Eternal Marriage and whether or not God has a corporeal nature rises or falls on the validity of Joseph Smith's revelations.

I agree, as long as you understand that the validity of Joseph Smith's revelations is not contingent upon whether or not anyone else believes Joseph Smith.

Or in other words, while Joseph Smith was the first prophet in this day and age to declare those truths to the world, there have been and continue to be many other prophets who testify that those things are true through the power of the Holy Ghost, and it is ONLY through the power of the Holy Ghost that we can know the truth of those things.

And btw, NOBODY is dependent upon believing Joseph Smith to know whether or not the things he said are true, because ANYONE can know the truth of ALL things through the power of the Holy Ghost.

If he [Joseph Smith] was a true prophet of God, then much of Christian church theological development can be ignored, and these doctrines become possible (well...necessary if JS is a prophet) interpretations.

I agree, and I testify that he was.

If he [Joseph Smith] was a false prophet, or deluded, or mistaken, then no other Christian denomination is teaching these interpretations, and the distinctives will likely dissipate.

How do the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have anything to do with what other Christian denominations are teaching?

[Ray]

prisonchaplain:  ...John seems pretty specific in stating that G-d is spirit:

John 4:24 (King James Version):  24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Snow: We agree. Nothing precludes him from having a body also. Besides, the verse clearly states that we worship him in spirit and yet we have bodies.

prisonchaplain: Except that Jesus also says that spirits do not have flesh and bone.  When he appears to the disciples after the resurrection, he says that they should see that he's really there, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones.

Heh, have you ever noticed how some people can say something without seeming to realize the significance of what they have just said?

I believe Jesus meant that people who appear ONLY in spirit form do not have flesh and bone, because when people appear with their spirit AND their body, they do have flesh and bone, just as Jesus did.

Or in other words, when we die, our spirit will separate from our body, and our spirit will not have flesh and bone, but when our spirit reunites with our body in the resurrection, we will again have flesh and bone, just as Jesus did.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 15 2005, 10:57 AM

How do the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have anything to do with what other Christian denominations are teaching?

←

Because, even though you the Church of LDS teaches that it is the restoration of the true church and true gospel, yet there is a sense in which you say, "We are Christians too. We are born again too. We are saved too." While you believe you have more knowledge, you also see yourselves somehow attached to the larger Christian world. And, if I have read the spirit of this site correctly, you do believe that we non-LDS are saved, and will receive a measure of reward.

Additionally, just as Christians are not Jewish, and yet rely on the Old Testament, and seek a certain level of understanding about 'God's people,' because we continue what God was doing through them, so I would guess, many Mormon thinkers do see the COJCLDS as building on the perceived limited knowledge of the rest of Christendom, rather than simply starting a new religion.

[Ray]

I pretty much agree with everything you just said, but you missed the point of my question, perhaps because I didn't make myself very clear. I shall try again.

The question I asked was in response to your statement, which I will quote again here:

If he [Joseph Smith] was a false prophet, or deluded, or mistaken, then no other Christian denomination is teaching these interpretations, and the distinctives will likely dissipate.

Or in other words, you seemed to be suggesting that the teachings of other Christian denominations might somehow be connected to the idea that Joseph Smith was a false prophet of God, so I am asking how you think the teachings of other Christian denominations are in anyway connected to either the teachings of Joseph Smith, or the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

And btw, the fact that the "COJCOLDS" and other Christian denominations both believe and teach that the Bible is the word of God does not mean that the teachings of these different "denominations" are somehow connected to each other.

Or in other words, the way I see it, the teachings taught by the "Assemblies of God" are in no way connected to the teachings of the "COJCOLDS", because neither one of these "organizations" is dependent upon the other for what they choose to teach.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 15 2005, 01:45 PM

Or in other words, the way I see it, the teachings taught by the "Assemblies of God" are in no way connected to the teachings of the "COJCOLDS", because neither one of these "organizations" is dependent upon the other for what they choose to teach.

But Ray, if the Assemblies of God and the COJCOLDS are both Christian organizations, don’t you think that they should both have some similar teachings that would unite each other?

M.

[Ray]

“Should have”? Yes. But the only way two separate organizations can unite is by accepting each other by becoming united (or “one”) with each other, otherwise they will remain separate organizations which can be distinguished by what they do not have in common, or by what they both do not accept.

Or in other words, the “COJCOLDS” and other Christian “denominations” both have teachings and beliefs which are truly in conflict with each other, and the only way they (or we) can “unite” is by accepting the same doctrine, in each and every particular.

And although I know our Lord sincerely desires that we all will become “one” together, I would never accept doctrine in conflict with what our Lord has told me to be good and true, and I don’t suspect that any other "Christian" would ever do that either.

But I am willing to become “one” with people who accept what God knows to be good, so as soon as everyone accepts what God knows to be good we can all be “one” together. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 15 2005, 01:45 PM

Or in other words, you seemed to be suggesting that the teachings of other Christian denominations might somehow be connected to the idea that Joseph Smith was a false prophet of God, so I am asking how you think the teachings of other Christian denominations are in anyway connected to either the teachings of Joseph Smith, or the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

←

It will probably be easier for me to explain what I was getting at, with bullets:

1. The doctrines of Eternal Marriage and that Father God has a body are pretty much the exclusive teachings of the LDS Church.

2. Occasionally a scholar may make observations supportative of such teachings, but no other Christian denomination is teaching these two doctrines.

3. Therefore, regardless of the how persuasive FAIR's theological defenses of these two teachings may or may not be, in the end they would seem to rise or fall on the validy to Joseph Smith's revelations.

4. One might even argue that the theological defenses surrounding Eternal Marriage and the Corporeal Existence of the Father were created in response to Joseph Smith's revelations.

5. If #4 is true, then the two doctrines were not the result of an independent, Holy Ghost directed study of God's word, but of a desire to theologically support the revelations of Joseph Smith.

So, bottom-line: Eternal Marriage and Father God having a body are teachings that rise or fall on the validity Joseph Smith's prophetic status and the veracity of his revelations.

[Ray]

prisonchaplain: So, bottom-line: Eternal Marriage and Father God having a body are teachings that rise or fall on the validity Joseph Smith's prophetic status and the veracity of his revelations.

As I said in post 34, I agree, as long as you understand that the validity (or veracity) of Joseph Smith's revelations is not contingent upon whether or not anyone else believes Joseph Smith. And btw, I am saying anyone “else” because Joseph Smith believed what he taught, as evidenced by his testimony and his willingness to die for his beliefs.

Or in other words, while Joseph Smith was the first prophet in this day and age to declare those truths to the world, there have been and continue to be many other prophets who testify that those things are true through the power of the Holy Ghost, and it is ONLY through the power of the Holy Ghost that we can know the truth of those things.

And btw, NOBODY is dependent upon believing Joseph Smith to know whether or not the things he said are true, because ANYONE can know the truth of ALL things through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Or in other words, "You" can know that “I” gave you the truth concerning ‘Eternal Marriage’ and ‘Father God having a body’ by receiving a personal witness of those truths from God through the power of the Holy Ghost, without You having to think anything at all about Joseph Smith, although I believe it is only fair and proper to give Joseph Smith the credit for first introducing those ideas to me… ideas which I later knew to be true through the power of the Holy Ghost.

And btw, if you live by the words of God ONLY in the Bible, then you will not be living by [WHAT I KNOW TO BE] the words of God that were revealed to Joseph Smith and many other prophets that have come after him, nor will you be living by ANY personal revelation from God to "You".

[prisonchaplain]

Ray says: As I said in post 34, I agree, as long as you understand that the validity (or veracity) of Joseph Smith's revelations is not contingent upon whether or not anyone else believes Joseph Smith. And btw, I am saying anyone “else” because Joseph Smith believed what he taught, as evidenced by his testimony and his willingness to die for his beliefs.

I believe what you're getting at here is something you and I actually agree about. There is an absolute truth, that is true simply because it is. For example, the existence of God is not dependent upon our belief in him. Likewise, Jesus said that he was the Truth--nobody gets to the Father but through him. That the religious authorities of his day did not accept him does not change who he is or what he offers. So, yes, I understand that when we speak of ultimate spiritual truths, they are either true or false. Period.

And btw, if you live by the words of God ONLY in the Bible, then you will not be living by [WHAT I KNOW TO BE] the words of God that were revealed to Joseph Smith and many other prophets that have come after him, nor will you be living by ANY personal revelation from God to "You".

Two issues here. 1. You're right that neither I, nor any other non-LDS Christian will be living by Joseph Smith's words unless we embrace them as true. 2. As for modern day revelation, Pentecostals do teach that God speaks direct words to individuals or churches. However, such "revelations" are always submitted to the authority of Scripture. Additionally, as the Apostle Paul directed, we do "test the spirits." My understanding from some other strings here is that when a Mormon prophet speaks, his words have the power to inform our understanding of Scripture, rather than vice versa.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain

My understanding from some other strings here is that when a Mormon prophet speaks, his words have the power to inform our understanding of Scripture, rather than vice versa.

Yes, that is true, although I believe it can sometimes be "vice versa".

And now to say the same thing while substituting the word “Mormon” for “latter-day”:

When a latter-day prophet speaks, his words have the power to inform our understanding of Scripture, rather than vice versa.

And now to say the same thing with the understanding that latter-day prophets are prophets of God.

When a latter-day prophet of God speaks, his words have the power to inform our understanding of Scripture, rather than vice versa.

And now to say the same thing with the understanding that Scriptures are [usually] considered to be the words written by former-day prophets of God:

When a latter-day prophet of God speaks, his words have the power to inform our understanding of words written by former-day prophets of God, rather than vice versa.

For instance, when the apostle Paul spoke as a latter-day prophet in his day, his words had the power to inform [their] understanding of words written by [their] former-day prophets of God, rather than vice versa.

Or in other words, a prophet of God is someone who receives inspiration from God through the power of the Holy Ghost which gives him the power or ability to understand the ideas inspired by God not only to him, but also the ideas inspired by other prophets of God, as God enlightens his understanding.

Or in other words, prophets of God are simply people who have received a personal “testimony” of Jesus Christ from God, rather than people who simply believe what other people tell them. – see Revelation 19:10 and other scriptures which highlight the key word ”testimony”.