I'm still waiting for the story. Nice intro, but with no details. Sorry,
but this occupied a couple minutes I'll never get back.
RE:oldcougarThat's a strange comment, since you took more time
to comment than read this story, apparently. At the end is a link to the
professors' dissertation which will give you the complete analysis.
RE: "Joseph uses the same biblical vocabulary as his peers do, Wilson said.
"But his definitions were quite unique, especially in pneumatological
matters.” True, Holy Spirit of promise denoting the Holy
Ghost's sanction of every ordinance performed in righteousness. The
influence or spirit that emanates from Jesus Christ, which is also called the
Light of Christ, is holy, but is neither the Holy Spirit nor a personage. Mormon
EncyclopediaLDS–Holy Ghost is a person–Holy Spirit is a
influence from the Father. Bible same Greek word(pneuma) used for
Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit. “ Know ye not that ye are the temple of God,
and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” 1 Cor 3:16. What?
know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you,
which ye have of God, and ye are not your own. (1 Cor 6:19). I.e.(Virgin Birth) The Holy Ghost(Spirit) shall come upon thee, and the power of
the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be
born of thee shall be called the Son of God.(Luke 1:35) .
I guess I'll have to read the dissertation. I'll wait until I'm
in the pool, though, so as to not get dehydrated.....
Donn,Just checked John 14 in the NIV (the translation lots of
non-LDS refer to). Christ refers to the Holy Ghost as a person.
Lynne, I just read the condensed version of your dissertation and liked it very
much.For years, since reading Joseph's comment to Pres. Van Buren, I
have been assembling scriptural references and commentary on the Holy Ghost.
Your tables were very helpful, but the definitions of the two levels of sealing
by the Holy Spirit of Promise ("temporary" vs "permanent") will
facilitate a lot of classroom discussion on this subject.Thanks for
sharing.PS: I have found a very elucidating expansion on this subject by
following a study of the Holy Spirit sometimes called the Spirit of the Lord,
the Spirit of Christ, the light of truth, or the light of Christ.
wait a minute... FAIR has an annual conference?! That's a kin to the
Bigfoot guys from Animal Planet getting together once a year to talk about their
His definitions are beyond "unique"; they are totally different/another
gospel.Ditto: His Jesus, Father, Holy Spirit, priesthood, salvation,
exaltation, etc.I did enjoy reading Lynne's well-written
article. But remove the lipstick and it's still a 19th-century remake.
Mormon belief was improvised by Joseph Smith as he went along. It bore the mark
of his readings, interactions, prayer, and mullings, all of which might come
together in a timely revelation. BTW, Quakers also believed in continuing
revelation. His break with Christian orthodoxy on the trinity also had precedent
with Quakers and the Unitarians as well. So just how original was Joseph
Smith?I would certainly call him original as a stylist. But in
substance, he coopted ideas that were familiar to him and his contemporaries.
Nothing wrong with that, BTW. We all might do well to let ourselves learn from
Dog Chow, I will read the dissertation when I get time. My comment referred to
an article which, in the space it occupied, could have provided a newspaper
reader with a factual synopsis/executive summary of the dissertation. I
didn't. My comments were not critical of the professor at all...just weak
Craig Clark, it could have been the way you said, or it could have been the way
Joseph Smith said: the Restoration occurred "line upon line". Your
theory is not new, it's been around at least as long as Fawn Brodie's
time. The jury is still out on her work--acclaimed by some, considered nebulous
history by others.
Let's synthesize Joseph's ultimate condensed version of the salvation
he promoted and refrain from majoring in the minors. I will respect LDS
scholars honesty in that analysis. That he was an astute, self-taught, highly
motivated (young) leader is not in dispute. What is at issue is:*Were his prophecies quantifiable and accurate;*Was his reformed
Christianity akin to Biblical theology, (NOT other denominational
abberations);*What was his ultimate product.As a former
dedicated follower/adherent/believer in Joseph Smith, I worshipped every word he
wrote, believed in him beyond question, and never analyzed him in any context.
Nothing any detractors could sling would sway me. I simply believed that he was
God's emissary, period.Then one day I decided to prove his
brilliance and purity to naysayers, so I gathered all his works and set out to
compare his teachings to Jesus'. I soon realized that if I were honest,
his trajectory did not lead me to the foot of the Cross. It wove me through a
maze of new theology, a pantheon of Gods, and pure polygamy.Do your
own analysis. Choose your prophets. But be honest with the sum total.
From the article: "She found that words regarding the Spirit are
mentioned 217 more times in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants than
in the Bible."Not hard to state Jesus Christ, Spirit, Holy
Ghost, Lord, Savior, Christ, Jesus, etc more times in your own work AFTER seeing
the Bible. Remember too that the Bible mentions 3 degrees of Glory.
Joseph "reveals" that there are 3 degrees alone in the Celestial
Kingdom. He also writes in the Book of Mormon that there were 3 days of
darkness during the alleged time of the death of Jesus Christ. The Bible only
mentions 3 hours of darkness. It seems in these 2 examples that Joseph had to
"one-up" the Bible in his 2 books. (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and
Covenants)Remember too that in the Book of Abraham, it wasn't
God who created the earth, it was Gods who created it. Again, another
"one-up."Joseph also has far more "And it came to
pass" references in the Book of Mormon than the Bible does. Does that then
make the Book of Mormon more "biblical" than even the Bible?
OnlytheCross,I have done that analysis. Traditional Christianity
only led me away from Christ. It taught a Christ I could not follow, a God I
could not worship, and a plan of salvation that seemed weak and full of
holes.I do not worship Joseph. I believe he would find such a
notion repugnant. But it is only in the teachings he promulgated that I have
found the Savior and salvation.
Twin Lights, I know many loving Mormons with whom I would love to spend
Eternity, my own family first and foremost.But the charity and goodness of
any group has nothing to do with the Biblical gospel. It is "Who do You say
that I AM?", (Peter)...We can find benevolent work from Islamic,
Hindi, Judaic groups to every known governmental agency.Just as you
were, all "born-again" believers are also turned off by traditional
Christian denominations and only find the new creation/spiritual birth in a
relationship with Jesus. As is often said, Christianity is not a religion per
se; it is a relationship. There are many wonderful organizations and churches.
Christ did not ask Peter how much charity/tithing/ordinances he did.My question is, how did Joseph tell the world was the way to Christ? That is
what all discussion on his contributions should anchor on. And accurately,
full-disclosure, and non-redacted.
OnlytheCross,I am not sure why you mention the charity and good
works of the LDS. Though these are fine points I did not address them.Your biblical reference is interesting. But it is John 6:68 that binds me to
the church. In other Christian denominations I have not found the words of
eternal life.Please understand, I mean no disrespect. I have
wonderful friends in other denominations (catholic as well as new school and old
line protestant types). Many of these folks are the salt of the earth. I
respect them and their beliefs. But I cannot follow them. If find their
doctrine shallow.I cannot believe in a God who condemns those who do
not know through no fault of their own. Who creates us for the purpose of
worshiping Him. Who gives us families we will not retain. Who (according to
the Calvinists) controls my destiny and therefore (to its logical extent) not
only whether I am saved but whether I sin.For an outline of Christ,
see the book Jesus the Christ by Talmage.BTW, Christ did not have to
ask Peter those questions. See Matthew 19:27-30. They had left all.
Good points, Twin L. But they have nothing to do with the Gospel According to
JS.The difference between the Biblical Gospel and Joseph's is
exactly what he said, wrote and delivered via LDS scriptures. You must belong
to his church, his baptism, his priesthood, his temple ceremonies, his
revelations, his new scriptural edits of the Bible and new-found Nephite
history, in order to fully receive all that God has.That is not the
Gospel of the Jesus of history or the Bible. It doesn't matter if
it's Mohammed or Mahonri M. It is another gospel than the one Paul/Saul
RE: Twin Lights, “Jesus the Christ by Talmage”. He
agrees that Jesus was referring to divinely appointed judges when he wrote,
"Divinely Appointed Judges Called 'gods.' In Psalm 82:6, judges
invested by divine appointment are called 'gods.' To this the Savior
referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon's Porch. Judges so authorized
officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title
'gods'" (p. 465).I.e. Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 which
reads, "I have said, Ye are gods." Jesus does not say, "Ye can
become Gods." The text reads, "Ye are Gods." Not even Mormons
believe that they are Gods right now.that Child to be born of Mary
was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of *natural law .
James Talmage. Christians believe the Virgin Birth was a unique miracle C.S. Lewis. “Our Father which art in Heaven with, The supreme
being transcends space and time. The first goes to pieces if you begin to apply
the*literal meaning to it. How can a sexual animal really be our father? How can
it be in the sky? The second falls into no such traps
Semper Fi,"....That is not the Gospel of the Jesus of history or
the Bible. It doesn't matter if it's Mohammed or Mahonri M. It is
another gospel than the one Paul/Saul delivered."______________________________Joseph Smith refused to bow to Saul
or to anyone as a greater authority than he on heavenly matters. So in fact did
Saul of Tarsus who took broad liberties to interpret Jesus in his own way. No
one tried harder to teach another gospel than did Saul who then proceeds to
forbid anyone else from teaching any gospel other than his. Sounds like Saul and
Joseph Smith were two of kind, doesn't it?
Semper Fi,They have everything to do with it. These were the
doctrines I could not resolve myself to that are adhered to by many Christian
sects.I do not belong to Joseph’s baptism any more than I
belong to Peter’s or Paul’s.I feel kinship to the Christ
of the New Testament in the revelations of Joseph. It not another gospel than
Paul’s. It is another than Martin Luther’s. The reason for
Luther's rejection of authority is obvious, hence Sola Fide.Donn,You are correct. Mormons do not believe we are gods. As to
those of other worlds, perhaps.A miracle is still via physical laws.
Just those we do not fully understand.As to a divine yet sexual
being, I find no conflict. Either marriage is pure and sanctifying or it is
not. Abraham, Moses, Peter, etc. were all married.To Both,I have read the NT looking for the Triune God. I do not find him. Christ
speaks of nothing like this. Having struggled with the Athanasian Creed, only
Christ could have adequately explained such a doctrine. He did not. His
teachings are far simpler.
Twin Lights,"....I feel kinship to the Christ of the New
Testament in the revelations of Joseph. It not another gospel than Paul’s.
It is another than Martin Luther’s...."______________________________The ‘other gospel’
excerpt from Paul is cited to indict Mormon belief as a gospel other than the
correct one. Read in the entire context of Galatians 1, it becomes clear that
Paul is continuing his war with Jewish followers of Jesus who refuted
Paul’s ideas. Paul accuses them of perverting the gospel of Christ among
the Galatians. What we’re reading about here is evidence of the widening
rift between Judean followers of Jesus and the rising Gentile Church.Paul elaborates by saying “the gospel which was preached by me is not
according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it,
but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.”That
unequivocally serves notice on the Jerusalem church that Paul felt no need to
defer to those who knew Jesus when he was alive. Early Christianity was
obviously not one great big happy family.
@Twin Lights, The Trinity in the O.T. ,Let us make man in ‘Our
Image’ image and likeness …”(Gen 1:26)“So God created
man in His “OWN(spiritual) Image” male and female…(Gen 1:27)
If there were more than one God it would read in “their image.”Mt 28:19 NIV, “Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations
baptizing them in the NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”.
3 persons, but one name, one God.Baptism signifies an eternal
consecration of the person to the service and honor of that Being in whose Name
it is administered; but this consecration can never be made to a creature;
therefore the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are not creatures.
i.e..,God said unto Moses,” I am HE *WHO IS=“(the
BEING): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, HE *WHO IS
hath sent me unto you. (LXX Ex 3:14).*WHO IS=( The one Being)occurs
in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5. 1of2
Donn,The king James Bible says God created man in his own image. I
see no (spiritual) in that passage.The old testament also teaches
God has body parts; back parts and feet and describes seventy witnesses seeing
The God of Israel and mentioning a golden pavement under those feet. That is a
far cry from an incorporeal God allegedly described in the New Testament (Ex
24:9-11) (Ex 33:21-23)If God came down and became flesh then who
is this Father that Christ is praying to? (John 17:3-5)The
resurrected Christ told his disciples that he was not a spirit he possessed
flesh and bones. (Luke 24:39)Christ declared he was equal to God and
was in the form of God (Philip 2:6) So if Christ has a body of flesh and bones
and is in the form of God one must conclude that God also has a tangible
body. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. (John 1:18)That seems to contradict the Exodus accounts.
RE: zoar63,Lectures on Faith, Q. What is the Father? A. He is a personage of
glory and of power. (5:2.). What is the son? First, he is a personage of
tabernacle.I.e. it is I myself: handle me, and see; for “a
spirit” hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have (Luke 24:39). God[the
father] is “a spirit”…(John 4:24)No one has ever
seen God. ‘The only one(monogenes Greek,3439), himself God’, who is
in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God [known].(John 1:18 NET)Context,. (Phil 2:6-7 NIV ) “Who being in very nature God, did
not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant being
made in human likeness. (Ex 33:21-23) “you cannot see my face,
for no one may see me and live.”(Exodus 33:20 NIV)Moses was
with our ancestors, the assembly of God's people in the wilderness, when
the angel spoke to him at Mount Sinai.(Acts 7:38 NLT)