tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post9012671797178867448..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The Flesh and Bones of a Resurrected Body: A Serious Teaching Moment or Just Divine Smoke and Mirrors in Luke 24?Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-73494584020536992562010-04-17T12:59:38.850-05:002010-04-17T12:59:38.850-05:00Kimberly, yes, of course there is a recognition th...Kimberly, yes, of course there is a recognition that Christ resurrected with a glorious body and that the physical body in the tomb was gone. There is a recognition that Christ's body could be felt in Luke 24. The issue is how is it that this tangible body apparently no more if Christ is "without body, parts, or passions" as the Westminster Confession specifies? How is it that God is spirit only and immaterial spirit at that? What happened to the physical body that was once in the tomb and obviously alive again in Luke 24? Was it shed? Transformed to spirit only?<br /><br />Does "glorious" mean spirit only?Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-75266407807730841052010-04-12T12:56:44.793-05:002010-04-12T12:56:44.793-05:00For just a little humor...I have a one phrase expl...For just a little humor...I have a one phrase explanation to this post about Christ's body and spirit,<br /><br />"Cocoon, the Movie"Rob Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14002908733806585017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59706738686510199792010-04-01T14:01:57.810-05:002010-04-01T14:01:57.810-05:00From what I have studied about it, Bookslinger pre...From what I have studied about it, Bookslinger pretty much gets it. I do see the trinity, when the aristotleain philosophical terminology used to describe the oneness of the Godhead is interpreted correctly, to seem to be more in line. However, to think that God the Father or Jesus Christ are not corporeal does conflict with LDS doctrine.<br /><br />This is from a research paper I wrote on the subject:<br />"The word ‘substance’ that is found in the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds of Christendom is one that has been the cause of much confusion among Protestants, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers, and Mormons alike. Therefore, it is requisite that one must first understand the Aristotelian philosophical terms that would later be adopted into the creeds concerning the trinity. In his treatise entitled “Substance and the Trinity,” found in the Oxford published written work The Trinity, the non-LDS patristic scholar William P. Alston states: <br /> 'Since Aristotle takes it to be an objective fact that each individual belongs to a unique kind, such as human being, water, horse, or maple tree, which constitutes the essence of those individual substances belonging to it, these kinds can themselves be called ‘substance’ in a secondary sense. A natural kind is, so to say, ‘the substance’ of each individual belonging to it. Being a tree is ‘the substance’ of each individual tree (182).'<br /><br />Elaborating on this, Alston goes on to explain how the Greek term ‘ousia’ (that is translated into ‘substance’ in English) is used in two different ways when describing the oneness of the members of the Godhead. Referring to the confusion caused by Aristotle’s “use of ousia both for the individual bearer…and the essential nature that makes the individual a substance,” he goes on to cite the early Christian theologian Origen, who “says both that ‘The Son is a being (ousia) and subject distinct from the Father’, and that they are of one ousia” (Davis 184). Thus, the first ‘ousia’ refers to Christ’s being an individual entity, while the second ‘ousia’ speaks of what is common among the Father and the Son, namely Godhood. Another term used in place of the second ‘ousia’ is the Greek word ‘hypostasis,’ which would later be translated as ‘persons’ in the Trinitarian creeds, “thus giving rise to the standard Latin formula of three persons in one substance” (Davis 187). Knowing this, it will hopefully be clearer to LDS members and non-members alike that the unity of the Trinity as defined in those creeds does seem to be quite compatible with the idea of three separate Personages that are one in Godly attributes."Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03960519151863517265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-87079029753109853702010-04-01T10:42:11.343-05:002010-04-01T10:42:11.343-05:00@Matthew: There's a phrase used in the LDS Chu...@Matthew: There's a phrase used in the LDS Church: "fullness of the Everlasting Gospel". That's what "all truth" means. It doesn't mean, for example, chemical pathways in human metabolism. I should have been more clear and you caught me on it. We humans sometimes use shorthand when we're rushed. Hey, I had a good laugh about it.<br /><br />@Kimberly: you're probably not familiar with the full canon of LDS scripture, so a little more explanation might be in order. As described in the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price - this is an account that was deleted from Moses' writings and restored through revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith - there is more information about Moses' conversation with God. He was basically shown everything from the creation through the end of this world. He saw "all the children of men which are, and which were created". Other prophets have had the same experience. The principle appears to be that when a person reaches the point of having perfect faith, there is no longer any need for them to live by faith, and so God literally brings them back into his presence and shows them around. They've proved themselves. Another term for this is "calling and election made sure."<br /><br />Matthew (insert smile here) will wonder how it would be possible to see so much in so short a time. But since God doesn't dwell within time, but rather outside of time, I don't see how that would be a problem. This is also consistent with many accounts of "near-death" experiences - the clinical death may have been only a few minutes by our reckoning, but the persons involved experienced a significantly greater number of events than we would expect had their time in the spirit world been consistent with the passage of time for us.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67624456419713952932010-04-01T02:14:21.940-05:002010-04-01T02:14:21.940-05:00Sorry. Internet communication doesn't always p...Sorry. Internet communication doesn't always portray emotion that great. I may have layed it on way too thick as well. <br /><br />Agreed, I think there are a lot of sources for inspiration and if god is influencing things he seems to be doing it from innumberable different avenues.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40867067279915598822010-04-01T00:14:12.777-05:002010-04-01T00:14:12.777-05:00Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you ...Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you meant by this comment though, <br /><br />"@Kimberly - right. Adam had all the truth, Noah had all the truth, Abraham had all the truth, Moses had all the truth. We humans aren't very good at holding onto truth."<br /><br />Were you being sarcastic, or do you feel that at some time these men had all truth? <br /><br />Was I really twisting things to point out some of the many aspects of 'truth' that do not seem to be encompassed by these men? Maybe I went a bit too snarky with it, but you are (unless I'm incorrect and your comment was being sarcastic which could be the case) making a substantial claim.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86762836184872814292010-04-01T00:00:21.450-05:002010-04-01T00:00:21.450-05:00Wow, things just got a bit too heated.
Matthew, I...Wow, things just got a bit too heated.<br /><br />Matthew, I understood "all truth" to mean "all spiritual truth". This <i>does</i> sound good because if you have all spiritual truth, you have authority to teach on all spiritual matters. I think that the Old Testament prophets had such authority without necessarily knowing everything--since their communication with God was so strong, they could ask anything and get a direct answer (even if that direct answer is, "You're not supposed to know at this time.")<br /><br />My problem with the "remnants of truth" idea is that different people ask different questions. Noah, Abraham, and Moses may have all had ready access to Truth, but other people with different backgrounds would likely have different questions, which may be just as relevant--they're just looking at the divine from a different angle. Maybe God has answered these people through divine inspiration, even if they have no source of authority to guide them. They would then have spiritual truth that was not yet found anywhere else.<br /><br />This doesn't contradict the idea of their being remnants of truth, just that I think that there's something more to what people outside of the Christian tradition know. I believe everyone has access to God, especially if they desire it.Kimberlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03786538618329205780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4594401436080752372010-03-31T23:19:13.052-05:002010-03-31T23:19:13.052-05:00pops,
So then they didn't have all truth? Y...pops,<br /> So then they didn't have all truth? You made a bold statement and its kind of a hard one to defend. <br /><br /> I'm not saying Noah was a drunkard. I'm just saying that if he had all God's laws laid out in front of him not drinking (according to mormon theology) is a pretty big one. I think it's hard to say that he had all things laid out before him. <br /><br /> If the prophets do indeed hear the word of god then they only get bits and pieces as far as we can tell from scripture. That being the case, making claims like those made above (that the trinity doctrine is a philosophy of man and not of god because it came from earlier mythologies) becomes more difficult to defend. People begin to start arguing over which things are the revealed truths and which are the ones that just sounded good to somebody. There isn't an objective way to know what's going on and I don't think there is any good evidence to say that any of the prophets had it all figured out let alone had access to 'all truth' (which is an infinite thing.) <br /><br /> As much as people want their religion of choice to just 'make sense' to everyone the honest truth is that it simply does not. Your own beliefs are seen to be just as ridiculous as some of mine may be to your own. As of yet we haven't come across a reliable objective ruler to measure the truth of people's religious philosophies.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-41035159207364946422010-03-31T22:19:28.784-05:002010-03-31T22:19:28.784-05:00A couple of words of advice, Matthew. First, don&#...A couple of words of advice, Matthew. First, don't act like a Pharisee. Second, think outside the box a little.<br /><br />One of the things God does with major prophets is he shows them the big movie. Do they come back knowing everything that can possibly be known? Probably not. Do they have the opportunity to know anything they want to know? Probably not. As Moses was told, "... I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end..." So, yes, you caught me in a word trap. Suffice it to say he knew everything he needed to know, and then some. In the future, I'll try to refrain from commenting when I don't have time to proofread for those who would make a man an offender for a word.<br /><br />It's interesting to read what Hugh Nibley had to say about his near-death experience. (For Matthew's sake, I should probably call it a "temporary death before he was revived, lived a bunch more years, and then died permanently, but not really permanently because his spirit is immortal and he will, after all be resurrected" experience.) I'll paraphrase, if you promise not to get upset because I can't find the exact quote without doing a bunch of research I don't have time for. He said we humans are stupid. Being in the spirit world was like drinking from a firehose in terms of acquiring knowledge. He just had to think of a topic and the floodgates opened. He also said that the angels envy us humans for the two things we can do better than the angels, and that is to repent and to forgive. So, I repent of using the phrase "all knowledge" and hope Matthew will forgive me.<br /><br />This is way too long. The bit about a drunken Noah was really a bit silly, both Pharisaic and small-minded. Does this phrase ring a bell? "In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days..."<br /><br />I doubt that God cares nearly as much about whether alcohol ever passes our lips as he does about our demonstrations of obedience. And if Noah wasn't told to lay off the old stuff, then it wouldn't be an issue, would it? [In other words, stop and think: how would Noah get drunk? Would he be hanging out at the local watering hole knocking back a few shots? Or is it more likely he made a batch that turned out stronger than he expected, or that he was really thirsty and drank more than he normally would have? Seriously. Give the guy a break. He's not a drunken bum. His name in the spirit world is Gabriel - does that ring a bell?]popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40785974072474085612010-03-29T21:33:28.587-05:002010-03-29T21:33:28.587-05:00@pops,
???
Do you really believe that those men ha...@pops,<br />???<br />Do you really believe that those men had 'all truth'? What does that even mean?<br /><br />Did they know how many stars there are in the universe, or whether time travel is possible? Isn't knowledge infinite? How does one arrive at infinity in a finite amount of time? <br /><br />I'd think they would have expounded things a little bit better if they knew all things. Didn't Noah get drunk? Shouldn't the Word of Wisdom have been part of 'All truth' and since we know that when we come across truth we are obligated to follow it wouldn't that mean he was breaking a decree from god by drinking? <br /><br />Sorry, I just really don't understand what people are talking about when they say things like this. Does it actually makes sense to you or does it just sound good.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-7208812309379643652010-03-29T21:04:18.764-05:002010-03-29T21:04:18.764-05:00@Kimberly - right. Adam had all the truth, Noah ha...@Kimberly - right. Adam had all the truth, Noah had all the truth, Abraham had all the truth, Moses had all the truth. We humans aren't very good at holding onto truth.Popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-25570324382063048852010-03-29T19:04:49.716-05:002010-03-29T19:04:49.716-05:00As is usually the case, people will chose evidence...As is usually the case, people will chose evidence that supports what they want to believe and ignore the stuff that is contradictory. <br /><br />This is exactly why it seems so silly to me to make claims that evidence backs up one's spiritual beliefs. People don't make these decisions by analyzing all the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion. In the end people believe what they do because it feels 'right' to them.<br /><br />If a person feels that an all in one trinity is the most logical explanation of god then you really can't argue for or against the idea and come to any objective truth independently verifiable truth.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57765987488482963132010-03-29T16:01:39.479-05:002010-03-29T16:01:39.479-05:00Pops, when you say "remnants of truth", ...Pops, when you say "remnants of truth", are you saying that rather than fragmented inspiration, humans are relying on bits of truth they once had? Just trying to clarify.<br /><br />Bookslinger, I've asked LDS members before why they accepted as cannon a Bible that wasn't finalized until the fourth century, way after the apostasy was supposed to have taken place. Their explanation was that the Holy Spirit could still come to those in an apostate world--especially to guide the compilation of a book that would be accepted as God's Word for millennia. This made sense to me. Anybody can be inspired, regardless of their background or current beliefs. Do you disagree with this?<br /><br />The Greeks had some firmly held beliefs that prevented them from being open to complete Truth, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have moments of inspiration. Anthony pointed out many examples where Mormons would agree. Of course, my husband points out that the 19th century LDS Church didn't have a motive to adopt Greek ideas like the early Catholic Church may have. Adopting now-obscure Greek philosophic concepts would not have won over Protestant America. :)<br /><br />But now I wonder: If spirit preexistence, spirit matter, and being God's offspring are Greek concepts, why would the early Church do away with those? If the early Church was adopting Greek concepts in order to gain acceptance, you'd think it would be easy for them to retain Greek concepts that were already in line with Christian teaching. That they were simply adapting their beliefs to fit in with popular philosophy doesn't sit right with me.Kimberlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03786538618329205780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31193561127581990372010-03-29T11:41:29.129-05:002010-03-29T11:41:29.129-05:00Hi Bookslinger,
Thanks for you response.
You sai...Hi Bookslinger,<br /><br />Thanks for you response.<br /><br />You said, "The problem with the admixture of Greek stuff into Christian theology is that it really was "of men." It was uninspired. And much of it was actually pagan."<br /><br />So what? You have to evaluate individual doctrines on their own merits, regardless of source. In my earlier post, I pointed out that Mormons and pagans share a few beliefs. So from a Mormon point of view, pagans can sometimes be right. <br /><br />"Why aren't the scriptures more clear on the Godhead? They were, as they fell from the pen of the authors. But much has been taken out of the O.T." <br /><br />Could you please provide some examples of what was removed from the OT that clarifies the nature of the Godhead? <br /><br />"You gotta remember that the NT was 'assembled' long after the apostasy."<br /><br />When exactly did the apostacy occur?<br /><br />"On the OT side, by the time Jesus came to earth, the pharisees had rewritten much of the OT, so the nature of the Godhead in that collection of books had also been obscured with changes."<br /><br />That's a mighty bold claim that needs some evidentiary support. As a matter of fact, pharisaical beliefs were closer to Chrisitanity than some other forms of Judaism at the time. If they did rewrite the OT, it's funny that they didn't do a better job of making it support their own particular claims. <br /><br />If you do study how the scriptures change over time, you'll notice that it's more common for scribes to add things than to take them away.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17476870004225466038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-58245222596879581612010-03-28T21:34:56.566-05:002010-03-28T21:34:56.566-05:00@ pops,
:) D'oh! (referring to my unique sp...@ pops,<br /> :) D'oh! (referring to my unique spelling of elusive.) <br /><br /> It is certainly possible that what you propose is true regarding the use of free masonry in LDS doctrine. I think that's a reasonable theory. <br /><br /> My point is merely in answer to Bookslingers point that because one can find man made origins to an idea that the idea cannot be of god. If we hold that the LDS adoption of Free masonry pieces is not in refutation of the ideas having doctrinal veracity then we must also admit that it is possible that the adoption of ancient ideals on the trinity could still have been inspired by God (as Kimberly suggested.)<br /><br />I'm not a person that finds the gospel to be untrue based on any sort of evidence that will be able to prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt. My personal position is merely that I don't find compelling reason to see it as the truth (at least not any more then the evidence I see for any number of beliefs about the universe or the metaphysical ideas about things.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85798671285975940212010-03-28T21:14:50.806-05:002010-03-28T21:14:50.806-05:00@Matthew - "illusive"? I'm chewing o...@Matthew - "illusive"? I'm chewing on that. Perhaps you meant "elusive"...<br /><br />From time to time God has revealed truth to humans, only to have us lose it. It isn't very creative to only think that Joseph Smith was taking and using the ideas of man with regard to the temple ceremony, when equally persuasive is the idea that human history is littered with bits and pieces of truth that have been hacked to death by humans, and that when truth gets restored there will always be bits and pieces and remnants that fit because, well, they <i>are</i> remnants of truth.<br /><br />Of course, when the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, a bunch of questions were answered quite clearly. The word of a 14-year-old boy, however, was disparaged because the people of his time knew that it was the beginning of a huge hoax that apparently hatched full-fledged in the mind of an uneducated 14-year-old farm boy. Or, maybe because it violated the sensibilities of preachers steeped in the tiny remnants of truth floating in a sea of human philosophical musings; and besides that, it would injure their livelihood if God were to reveal himself to man again. We shouldn't wonder that God would choose to reveal himself to the humble and uneducated.popsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-62265194023457401452010-03-28T19:24:44.729-05:002010-03-28T19:24:44.729-05:00Sorry, just one more thing.
How do you know tha...Sorry, just one more thing. <br /><br />How do you know that the doctrine was clear against the idea of them being the same personage and then was muddied up? If God really does speak through his prophets then why not clear it all up by rewriting the parts that are screwed up? I've never understood why this didn't continue to happen as Joseph had started out doing. Did he already fix it? Even with JST the text is still amazingly ambiguous. <br /><br />There will always be apologies for why scripture is so convoluted but it still doesn't make sense to me. If your child needs to be taught a principle wouldn't you try to explain to them in the way that is most clear and concise? This certainly not what we have been presented with from scriptural writings if even the basic nature of what god is and his relationship with Christ and the Holy ghost causes this much confusion controversy and argument.<br /><br />Maybe I'm crazy for making such an assumption or perhaps having a better idea of who god is would somehow destroy our agency. I don't know.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18953337205042024152010-03-28T19:16:52.996-05:002010-03-28T19:16:52.996-05:00@Bookslinger,
When we make claims about what ...@Bookslinger,<br /> <br /> When we make claims about what things came from man and what things came from god there isn't an objective way to determine that. <br /><br /> For example the free masons have many signs and tokens that are now commonly used in the LDS church and which are said to be part of restored doctrine through prophecy. One can point out that Joseph was a free mason and that perhaps this was an idea of man and he was merely incorporating ideas he saw from the free masons into the doctrine of the church. LDS members won't see it that way. The argument though is the same as saying that Catholicism was influenced by previous mythologies and that the trinity doctrine is merely a creation of man. <br /><br />The truth is that to many people there is a sensible reason for believing that the trinity are a the nicean creed concludes. As Kimberly pointed out this doctrine feels right to her and I'm assuming this would mean that she feels a spiritual confirmation of some sort that the doctrine is correct. Telling someone that believes this that their beliefs are merely the machinations of mankind, while your own beliefs (and neither can be seen with an objective metric to be correct or incorrect) are of God, seems a bit ridiculous to me.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-90972239994670211262010-03-28T18:29:00.877-05:002010-03-28T18:29:00.877-05:00Matthew/Anthony:
The problem with the admixture o...Matthew/Anthony:<br /><br />The problem with the admixture of Greek stuff into Christian theology is that it really was "of men." It was uninspired. And much of it was actually pagan.<br /><br />Why aren't the scriptures more clear on the Godhead? They were, as they fell from the pen of the authors. But much has been taken out of the O.T. and many many letters of the apostles never made it into the NT.<br /><br />You gotta remember that the NT was "assembled" long after the apostasy. So that the assemblers used their incorrect understandings to bias their selections of which letters supported their doctrines, and to avoid those that conradicted their Greek-influenced doctrines. <br /><br />Adding to the "pick and choose" nature of the assemblers, you gotta remember that the actual text has been changed. The oldest copies, even the ones in existence at the point of assembling the NT, were at least 3 generations of copying removed from the originals. <br /><br />You can find many LDS doctrines in the writings of the "Early Church fathers" and how those doctrines were eventually declared heretical. <br /><br />On the OT side, by the time Jesus came to earth, the pharisees had rewritten much of the OT, so the nature of the Godhead in that collection of books had also been obscured with changes.<br /><br />I've read legend, but haven't found any supporting evidence, that the Jews also had a major editing of the OT some time before 700 AD, recalling all existing copies, and remove further evidence of a tri-partite Godhead in order to combat Christianity. But I wonder if that was someone's speculation or if he had evidence of that.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19984949566173990732010-03-25T16:13:43.817-05:002010-03-25T16:13:43.817-05:00Kimberly said, "I never understood the hostil...Kimberly said, "I never understood the hostility toward Greek philosophy."<br /><br />Me neither, especially coming from Mormons. Discounting a doctrine as false because it comes from Greek philosophy is an example of the genetic fallacy. Besides, we have a lot in common with Greek philosophy. Socrates taught the preexistence of spirits. Stoics taught that we are the offspring of God. Epicureans taught that spirit matter is more "refined" matter. The pentagram that appears on the Nauvoo temple was once a Pythagorean symbol. <br /><br />My only criticism of the doctrine of the trinity is that it's too small. I think there should be more than just 3 in 1, as John 17 suggests. By the way, the phrase "one in purpose" doesn't occur anywhere in the scriptures. It's an extra scriptural interpretation that, while it may be true, should not be taken as limiting. In Lectures on Faith, God the Father and Jesus Christ were said to have the same mind. The Book of Mormon says repeatedly that God the Father and Jesus Christ are one God. If the Bible had said anything like that, perhaps the Catholics would have had no need to announce a doctrine of the trinity.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17476870004225466038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-7440046046248997172010-03-25T14:32:49.396-05:002010-03-25T14:32:49.396-05:00@ pops,
Yes he certainly is illusive. I'm n...@ pops,<br /> Yes he certainly is illusive. I'm not sure why all the secrecy and ambiguity over the details of his existence but I guess he must have a reason for keeping things vague.<br /><br />@ Bookslinger,<br /> It may very well be that the early early Chrstian church had a handle on how the Godhead 'really' is (separate pesonages) if they did then they were rather horrible at communicating this idea as it isn't clear in the scriptures. My point still is that the answer of them being separate personages is not any more obvious then the viewpoint others take that they are the same if you're going by scriptural references. With either viewpoint you have to ignore or interpret in a particular way a large number of scriptural references.<br /><br />@ Kimberly,<br /> Thanks for your perspective. It's nice to see how people outside of an LDS background view the subject.<br /><br /> As Kimberly states there are plenty of people that see things from a different perspective then the LDS church and their viewpoints (as far as any objective arbitrary ruler can be concerned) seem to be equally plausible with the LDS doctrine. For every LDS member that is feeling the spirit confirm to them that their faith has it 'right' there is a person of another faith that has some different doctrine that also feel 'right' for the exact same reason.<br /><br /> The LDS church claims to not have a monopoly on truth, but many of its doctrines (and to be fair every faith does many of the same things) indicate otherwise. Unless it's somehow possible that both the Catholic church and the LDS church are both equally right in this sense. It seems illogical to me that this would be the case but then again most of what people believe would fall into that category. To some extent all of us take on irrational/illogical beliefs because they make sense in some way to each of us and allow us to have a less ambiguous world view. Something that seems of paramount importance for the human mind.Mateohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021537443072398547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-87506599540713378052010-03-25T12:47:19.207-05:002010-03-25T12:47:19.207-05:00I never understood the hostility toward Greek phil...I never understood the hostility toward Greek philosophy. I don’t think that Christians have a monopoly on Truth, and Greek philosophers and others were honestly seeking it out. I think they were missing some key pieces of information that kept them from reaching the fullness of Truth, but that doesn’t mean it was a total wash. While there were a lot of Greek ideas that were rejected by the early Church, there were also some concepts that illuminated and clarified things early Christians already knew. <br /><br />For example, Christians knew that there was only one God; yet Christ said that <i>He</i> was I AM, while also differentiating between Himself and the Father. With the Greek concepts of substance and accidents, these seemingly contradictory facts fell seamlessly into place. We now have an understanding of the Trinitarian relationship. The Catholic Church is not afraid of expanding its understanding when Truth comes to light.<br /><br />Mormons do the same thing. I’ve heard people claim that LDS theology contains concepts that are distinctly 19th century American. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing—I’ve also heard that this dispensation started in the 19th century for a reason, and that the American environment and American ideas of the time put people in the right mindset for the Truth the LDS Church would bring. Joseph Smith and the Prophets that followed would often gain greater understanding of the Truth through praying about the ideas around them, and discerning whether they held any weight. In just 200 years, the modern LDS Church looks different from the 19th century version, but most would say for the better—understanding has grown.<br /> <br />The key, then, is discerning whether a new concept or idea is of man or of God. If it’s nothing but a man-made philosophy, your understanding of the Truth decreases; but if God had a hand in it, your understanding increases. I personally believe that God has been guiding the Catholic Church for 2000+ years, but of course, many would disagree. :)Kimberlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03786538618329205780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19204178442088469652010-03-25T10:01:17.941-05:002010-03-25T10:01:17.941-05:00Matthew, one of the reasons why LDS are critical (...Matthew, one of the reasons why LDS are critical (aside from the harsh words that JS and BY had for preachers of other religions) is that the concept of God and the "Trinity" as accepted by most of modern christendom contains much influence of Greek philosophy, and is vastly different than 1st through 3rd century concepts of God.<br /><br />It's not the LDS that have changed or come up with anything new; it's mainstream christianity that has changed. The LDS are actually a "throwback" to pre-4th century ideas on the nature of God.<br /><br />And I think that can be historically proven, too. The LDS ideas are not new or newer, _they_ (the mainstream Christians) are.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48153693307223792062010-03-25T06:50:11.398-05:002010-03-25T06:50:11.398-05:00Perhaps it's due to the quantum entanglement o...Perhaps it's due to the quantum entanglement of electrons in the Internet bit bucket?rameumptomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16109035792711248691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-82950361030960604802010-03-24T22:10:38.029-05:002010-03-24T22:10:38.029-05:00[Ooh, I really hate it when my browser flakes out ...[Ooh, I really hate it when my browser flakes out and I can't tell if the original comment took...]Popsnoreply@blogger.com