Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Mormon Trinity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    The concept of God, and how LDS understood God, likely changed.
    So, Smith had a brand new clean slate upon which to "restore" the Gospel, but he missed that opportunity?

    Mormons were essentially Protestant converts. What they knew and understood about God was based from protestant doctrines.
    Smith had a beautiful opportunity to set that straight from the "get go".

    Then revelations in the restoration came forward "line upon line, and precept upon precept" which changed their understanding of who and what God is.

    -7up
    That's a steaming load of horsie poo, Seven, and I have a hard time believing you can say that with a straight face. It's just GOOFY to believe that God called a Prophet to RESTORE the Gospel, and he stumbled right out of the gate. This is one of many reasons I don't believe Smith was a prophet at all, but was making it up as he went along.

    GOD: "OK, Joseph, you're going to RESTORE the Gospel and make things right, but I'm going to let you stumble around preaching and teaching what is already being preached by the Churches you claimed I condemned, then we'll fine tune it as we go along".
    Last edited by Cow Poke; 06-21-2014, 10:17 PM.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
      Mormons were essentially Protestant converts. What they knew and understood about God was based from protestant doctrines.
      It's just ASTOUNDING to me that you're suckered into believing that God called "The Prophet of the Restoration" to set things straight, yet He allowed Smith to teach the SAME allegedly CORRUPT GOSPEL from the Protestant Churches that God SUPPOSEDLY told him not to join because they were... here's the SISSIFIED version currently on your website:

      Source: lds.org

      As a young boy in 1820, Joseph Smith wanted to know which church was true. As he searched the Bible for help, he read that he should ask of God. Acting on this counsel, Joseph went into the woods near his home and prayed. Suddenly, a light shone above him and Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. When Joseph asked which church he should join, the Savior told him to join none of the churches then in existence because they were teaching incorrect doctrines. Through this experience and many others that followed, the Lord chose Joseph to be His prophet and to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church to the earth.

      © Copyright Original Source



      Here's the non-sissified version...
      Source: lds.org

      19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

      © Copyright Original Source



      Seriously, Seven --- you're sounding like Jay Carney trying his best to put lipstick on Obama's policies. (He gave up, by the way)

      So, lemme get this straight.... God supposedly calls Smith to set the record straight (That's what the "Prophet of the Restoration" is supposed to do, yes?) but He allows Smith to use the same "all wrong" "abominable creeds" and "corrupt professions" that the Protestants were teaching?

      That's just downright goofy.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        So, Smith had a brand new clean slate upon which to "restore" the Gospel, but he missed that opportunity?
        He didn't miss the opportunity. God used Joseph to restore the gospel. It worked, despite having to work through imperfect human instruments.

        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Smith had a beautiful opportunity to set that straight from the "get go".
        That isn't how religious movements work. Jesus didn't reveal everything to the apostles/disciples from the "get go" either.

        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        It's just GOOFY to believe that God called a Prophet to RESTORE the Gospel, and he stumbled right out of the gate.
        It is natural to make assumptions. In the Book of Mormon, the Lord showed himself to the Brother of Jared. Since this was before the incarnation, the Spirit of the Lord was a "personage of spirit". The Lord said,

        "Do you see that you are created after my own image? ... all men were created in the beginning after my own image. Behold, this body, which you now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit." (Ether 3)

        So, this was when Jesus Christ had not yet entered mortality. So, when LDS read this, and with Joseph's account of "two personages", the Father and the Son, it was assumed that the Father was a "personage of spirit" much like the Brother of Jared had witnessed. This assumption was revealed to be false, and then it was understood that the Father and Son should each be understood as resurrected beings.

        This corresponds to the Biblical text, for example, in John chapter 5, the Savior says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." Then the Savior begins to describe the future resurrection, "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." However, the verses I want you to really pay attention to are verses 25 and 26, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." (John 5:25-26)

        So, yes. The Father has life in himself in the same sense as the dead who are resurrected will have life. The Father is a resurrected being, and the Son is a resurrected being. That is the truth.


        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        GOD: "OK, Joseph, you're going to RESTORE the Gospel and make things right, but I'm going to let you stumble around preaching and teaching what is already being preached by the Churches you claimed I condemned, then we'll fine tune it as we go along".
        Yes, God does allow men to stumble. That is pretty obvious. The Bible demonstrates this quite well. And it wasn't the same as what was other churches were teaching, as I just demonstrated from the Brother of Jared account. Other churches were not teaching that man was actually made in the image and likeness of God.

        So, your criticism here does not have as much merit as you had hoped. If it took Mormons time to come around to the understand these new revelations ... well, so what?

        -7up

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
          He didn't miss the opportunity.
          Correct -- he just totally made it up.

          God used Joseph to restore the gospel.
          That's beyond goofy.
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
            That isn't how religious movements work. Jesus didn't reveal everything to the apostles/disciples from the "get go" either.
            Show me ONE THING that Jesus taught, that he had to walk back and say, "OK, guys -- sorry* -- I was wrong about that, so let me set it straight".

            Comparing your Prophet of Trickery and Deceit to Jesus is, again, just beyond goofy. And, are you admitting Mormonism is just a "religious movement"?





            *What your Church does is even worse --- there's not a "sorry, we were wrong", there's just historical revisionism and then these coverups like, "well, he didn't get it wrong, it's GOD'S fault for not revealing the truth to Joseph Smith in the first place, and let him go out on a limb with false information".

            Why can't you see that's what you're doing, Seven? Your guy was SUPPOSEDLY a PROPHET who heard DIRECTLY from God -- Heck, he even came up with multiple accounts of his FIRST VISION of God, and met him in the WOODS!

            Either your "prophet" HEARD from God, or he was making it up as he went along.

            Look at all the flim flam you have to spew forth to try to cover for his deception.
            Last edited by Cow Poke; 06-22-2014, 07:51 AM.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
              7up: In a basic LDS gospel principles class, you will often get an analogy similar to this, often in reference to the Holy Spirit:
              "The Sun itself may be very far away, but its light, heat, and influence can be felt by many here on Earth."
              So Bill, if a satellite or radio transmitter can communicate and influence many things from long distances, why do you think that God, as LDS view Him, would be limited in that sense?




              Jesus said he would be "with" the disciples. Is that a "lie" if Jesus is not literally standing besides them. This is a foolish game you are attempting to play Bill.
              From a Trinitarian perspective, He is with us through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is not foolish. It is basic Trinitarian doctrine. Yet ANOTHER thing you can't get through your skull.


              Let's go into some more detail, shall we? The Holy Spirit certainly CAN dwell inside of us. The baptism of Jesus is a perfect example of this.
              According to you though, the Holy Spirit was nowhere else except inside Jesus.

              God the Father is in heaven. (A local place and not omnipresent.)
              He is in heaven, meaning that is the localized manifestation of His glory.

              Jesus Christ is in the water being baptized (A local place and not omnipresent.)
              Which would mean that God no longer had any wisdom in heaven, since Jesus is God's Wisdom.

              The Holy Spirit descends in bodily form like a dove (A local place and not omnipresent.)
              Which means that it is no anywhere else in heaven or earth.

              The Holy Spirit dwelled within Christ at that time. Indeed, if the resurrected Christ (even with a physical body) can move outside space and time as we understand it, then we should not conclude that the Holy Spirit is restricted as well. Also, when the “calling and election is made sure” for a disciple, there can be an indwelling.
              A localized presence can not dwell in more than one place. So, something can not dwell in more than one "house" at a time.

              Nevertheless, let's start simple, and we will see that your attempt at using these scriptures is inconsistent.
              This should be a hoot!

              Let's start with this one:

              Romans 8:9-11
              But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, …


              For starters, when Paul says that they are no longer in the flesh, does that mean that they literally do not have a physical body?
              Of course not. It means that the flesh is not the one ruling them. It is the spirit that lives within them that leads them. But indeed, the Spirit of God lives within them.

              Are you calling Paul a liar? (Again, I am just using the same tactic you attempted to use in your opening statement above. Don't you see how silly it is?)
              No. I am allowing the context of the verse to give it meaning.

              Is it the Holy Spirit? Or the “Spirit of Christ”?
              There is no difference between the two. The "Spirit of Christ" is the Holy Spirit.

              Are you a modalist Bill?
              Are you a Strangite?

              Those scriptures you cited are scriptures that modalists use to attempt support their position.
              So what? They, just like you, ignore other scriptures that refute their abuse of one verse.

              Fortunately, for LDS, this is a topic which is enlightened by LDS scriptures and teachings.
              Trying desperately not to snicker too loudly...

              Our scriptures explain as follows, the Light of Christ, “proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.” (see D&C 88)

              Elder Joseph Fielding Smith explained that, “the Holy Ghost should not be confused with the Spirit [sometimes called the Light of Christ] which fills the immensity of space and which is everywhere present... it proceeds forth from the presence of the Father and the Son and is in all things. We should speak of the Holy Ghost as a personage as 'he' and this other Spirit as 'it', ...” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:49-50)
              More made up crap from J.F. Smith to try to cover up yet another giant hole in Mormon polytheism.


              Bruce R McConkie also explained, “There is a spirit – the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Christ, the light of truth, the light of Christ …. It is in us and in all things; it is around us and around all things; … It is everywhere, in all immensity, without exception; it is an indwelling, immanent, ever-present, never-absent spirit. It has neither shape nor form nor personality. It is not an entity nor a person nor a personage. It has no agency, does not act independently ...” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith p257 - emphasis mine)
              So, a "spirit" can NOW be not an entity or person. Make up your mind, 7...

              The Holy Spirit makes use of the Light of Christ to perform his work. McConkie went on to explain, “The Spirit of Christ, (or Light of Christ) is the agency through which the Holy Ghost operates,”
              Yet more made up crap to cover gaping holes in Mormon polytheism.

              So, does the Holy Spirit literally have to be everywhere in order to be “in” us?
              Yes.

              Consider the language that Jesus uses in references to being “in” the disciples in John chapter 17:

              “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them (to the disciples); that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one”
              Correct. Through the presence of the Holy Spirit, Jesus is said to be "in us", since both are the One God. But, His omnipresence does not mean that God is our master. The Holy Spirit is said to indwell us when we make Him the master of our inner selves.

              Now, is the person of Jesus Christ literally living within each disciple?
              He does not say that He is "living in them". He is "in them" meaning He was their head, their Rabbi, and that His name was upon them and that they were His disciples. It was a Hebrew idiom. This is not the same thing as being "indwelled" by Him.

              Not only is it clear that this should not be taken in the way that you think should be inferred with the personage of the Holy Spirit, but it is also clear the “oneness” of the members of Deity should not be taken literally either.
              What is clear from this verse is that strict monotheism from a "modalistic oneness" perspective is false. It does not in any way dismiss the fact that there is only one God.

              Access to truth, and this Light is available to any person at any time. It is an indwelling because it literally is omnipresent, and the Holy Spirit accesses this indwelling in order to minister and personalize it for the individual, and it is in that sense that the Spirit of God can dwell within us.
              Please cite ANYWHERE where the Holy Spirit is said to be "indwelled" Himself.

              It is the same way that Jesus can be “with us” and “in us” even though he is a spirit which is embodied in a tabernacle of flesh and bone. We can have companionship with Christ even though He is not literally with us, or not literally in us. (This is why Christ is not a "liar" when he said those things.)
              He is in us because He and the Holy Spirit are One God.

              There are many places in the scriptures where the term “Holy Spirit” does not refer to the personage, but instead the gifts of the Holy Spirit, his power, influence, or ministry. These include verses like John 20:22
              22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

              This literally refers to the giving of the Holy Spirit, which was not given as an "indwelling" before the Resurrection.

              ; Acts 7:55-56
              Acts 7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;

              This refers literally to the Holy Spirit indwelling Stephen to the fullest. And remember what "indwelling" means.

              Acts 8:14-19
              Acts 8
              14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
              15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
              16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
              17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
              18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money,
              19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

              Again, this literally refers to the Holy Spirit indwelling the Samarians.

              ; Acts 10:44-48


              Acts 10
              44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
              45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

              Again, this literally refers to the Holy Spirit indwelling the Gentiles.

              ; Acts 19: 1-6

              Acts 19:1-6
              1 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.
              2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
              3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
              4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
              5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
              6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.


              Again, this literally refers to the Holy Spirit indwelling the Ephesians.

              (See McConkie Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 2:78)
              ALL of these verses are literally talking about the physical presence of the Holy Spirit himself, and the full indwelling of Him in believers through their submission to Him.


              7UP: Brigham Young gave a more extensive answer:

              "The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; ... God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).
              BY was a loonie tune who claimed that the "great architect" was Adam, and that Adam was the only god in whom we have to deal.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                7UP: Allow me to open this post with an excerpt from one of the more well known Christian creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

                "God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible,..."



                You have yet to cite evidence that mainstream Christianity views or defines these terms in the same way that Cherbonnier does.
                All I need to show is that he defined them AS USED BY MYSTICS to mean something different from what we believe. This in turn shows that you Mormons are misusing his arguments for your own benefit.

                In fact, LDS are frequently criticized for believing, for example, that we can "see God". Anti-Mormons argue to me that God is literally "invisible".
                Do you ever ask them to explain what they mean by that? Or do you just assume that they mean He is incapable of making Himself seen?

                7UP: (Cherbonnier) He specifically describes LDS ideas, and quotes LDS leaders. He does so in an entirely positive light, and explains why many of the LDS viewpoints are valid according to the scriptural text. That is obvious to anybody who simply reads the entire article.



                He calls the LDS doctrines Biblical. You are correct that he does not come out and say that the Bible is true. However, he says, on multiple occasions, that the LDS view is what is described in the Bible.
                Yet, he obviously is not fleshing out the LDS view beyond the bare surface of his need in refuting the mystics. And therefore, he is not calling the entire LDS doctrine "biblical", just the part he is using to bolster his refutation of rogue "scholars" and mystics. And the few areas where he says that the LDS belief is biblical, traditional Christians agree. It is when those areas are expanded we will not see Cherbonnier wading into them. So, for instance, when Cherbonnier mentions God is anthropomorphic, and that Mormons agree, we look at what he means by that and we traditional Christians agree as well. But when we go beyond the definition Cherbonnier assigned to the word into the Father being an exalted human, Cherbonnier is completely silent. When Cherbonnier mentions the Mormon belief of God having a body, he states this is a consistent doctrine ONLY on the ground that mystics wrongly believe that matter is evil. He never agrees that the Father actually has an exalted human body.

                7up wrote: He never criticized (the LDS view), he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible.


                The portion he is using IS consistent with the Bible. I don't think any of us would disagree with Cherbonnier that matter is not inherently evil.

                You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone).
                And that matter is not evil in and of itself. To which Cherbonnier is arguing for.

                That is an essential premise of Christianity. The only difference is that LDS apply that concept to God the Father as well as to God the Son, because Jesus Christ is the "express image of the Father's person" (Heb 1).
                And that does not mean a physical copy.

                You are correct that Cherbonnier does not come out and agree with LDS on this specific point, but he certainly defends the theological framework which would allow for that possibility....
                - -- - - - -- - -
                "Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not." - Cherbonnier
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
                Correct. It defends a framework where matter is not evil. It does not attempt to delve any deeper than that. Honestly, there isn't a lot of indication that Cherbonnier even understood much of Mormon doctrine to begin with, as he was mainly interested in the philosophy of religion and not with the indepth theology of specific religions.


                Again, he defends that the concept is, “as it is in the Bible.” The only thing that he doesn't come out and say is whether or not he actually agrees with the Bible. This is a scholarly work, so that would be inappropriate.
                The concept that he claims is in the Bible is that matter is not evil. That's all. He is not defending that the Father has a body, only that the Bible is clear that matter is not evil, and that disembodied spirits are not better off.

                I only point it out so that we can both be very clear, and as you say “Christians agree”, that the LDS concept of God the Father having a body cannot be rejected based on this premise.
                No one here is dismissing the LDS concept by claiming matter is evil. So, there is no reason to point out something that isn't even a consideration.


                That alone is reason enough to quote Cherbonnier's arguments from an LDS perspective, .... but there is more.
                It's a strawman argument and an improper appeal to authority. Just as I have been saying all along, it's a misuse of Cherbonnier's argument as a refutation of the claim that God does not have an exalted human body. Cherbonnier is not interested in anything other than a consistent connection between matter not being evil and Mormon claims of God having a body. Congratulations. You've defended an unchallenged point.

                I make no assumption. We can look at it as a broad and general concept. I certainly mean it in the broad and general sense. It is true if it refers to a pre-incarnate spirit. It is true if it refers to a post-incarnate spirit (like, for example, the spirit of Jesus before his resurrection on the third day). It is true for any personage of spirit period.
                It is an assumption that it can be applied in a broader context that Cherbonnier never intended. Would it be applicable to a pre-incarnate spirit if Cherbonnier did not believe in the existence of pre-incarnate spirits? That question changes the entire answer to "Why are they to be pitied"? If they are to be pitied from your view, it is because they lost something that they obtained of value and went backwards in their progression, or they never got it in the first place. If they are to be pitied from mine, it is because they lost part of what they were created to be. There would be no pre-incarnate spirits to pity for the reason they hadn't yet received their bodies. So, pity would only be for spirits in that they no longer had their bodies, and had to await resurrection to be whole again. Applying it past the context of Cherbonnier's argument and making it into a universal claim potentially changes the "why?".


                It props up the philosophical case against the mystic view of a disembodied God.
                No it doesn't. The Mystics do not believe in a "disembodied" God. They believe in a diffused god that is spread out in small diluted pieces throughout the universe. Cherbonnier never refutes the Christian idea of God as an omnipresent spirit with a localized presence able to manifest in space and time to interact with it.

                He doesn't have to.
                Of course he doesn't. Because he is not arguing for or against those more intricate parts of the doctrines.

                As long as the philosophical framework is both consistent with the Bible, and consistent with itself, the points made by Cherbonnier are valid.
                But expanding those points beyond their worth is improper, and that's exactly what you Mormons are doing.

                Therefore, Cherbonnier's arguments have not been misused by Latter-Day Saints when we point out that non-LDS have also made the realization that the framework for this philosophical viewpoint is right there in the Bible, and it is philosophically consistent.
                Sorry, but that is not how LDS use Cherbonnier's work. Bickmore uses Cherbonnier's "anthropomorphic" statement to mean that God has "a body in human form" (contrary to how Cherbonnier defined the word). His work has been bandied about dozens of forums in defense of God having a human body. I'd love to see you cite someone who mentions him solely for the purpose of defending against an argument that matter is evil.



                On 2, you added the term “human” in there, when Cherbonnier made no such qualification.
                When he is only talking about humans and God, it is completely consistent with his argument. Do you see any indication that he claims animals or plants have spirits?

                In fact, just above you yourself admitted that this was a general statement.
                "the Biblical view that disembodied human spirits are incomplete" is what he was talking about.

                Nice try, but I would have thought that you knew me well enough to realize that you cannot get those slick moves past me.
                It wasn't an attempt to get anything past you. Methinks thou dost protest too much.


                LDS do not quote Cherbonnier by saying that he agreed that God is an exalted man.
                Bickmore does.


                LDS do not quote Cherbonnier by saying that he agreed that spirits pre-existed creation.
                You tried to extend his claim beyond his focus.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • 7up: In a basic LDS gospel principles class, you will often get an analogy similar to this, often in reference to the Holy Spirit:
                  "The Sun itself may be very far away, but its light, heat, and influence can be felt by many here on Earth."
                  So Bill, if a satellite or radio transmitter can communicate and influence many things from long distances, why do you think that God, as LDS view Him, would be limited in that sense? Jesus said he would be "with" the disciples. Is that a "lie" if Jesus is not literally standing besides them. This is a foolish game you are attempting to play Bill.


                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  From a Trinitarian perspective, He is with us through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is not foolish. It is basic Trinitarian doctrine. Yet ANOTHER thing you can't get through your skull.
                  Is it proper "basic Trinitarian doctrine" to say that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are the same person? Or are you just playing a modalist from time to time?

                  7up: Let's go into some more detail, shall we? The Holy Spirit certainly CAN dwell inside of us. The baptism of Jesus is a perfect example of this.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  According to you though, the Holy Spirit was nowhere else except inside Jesus.
                  A person within the Godhead (whether it be the Father, Son OR Holy Spirit) has an actual local presence and personal being. However, each one of these Divine Persons has power and influence over the immensity of space. For example, that is why Jesus, in that sense, can be "with" the disciples while still remaining at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.

                  7up: God the Father is in heaven. (A local place and not omnipresent.)

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  He is in heaven, meaning that is the localized manifestation of His glory.
                  Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (John 20:17)

                  So, from your point of view, Jesus is really saying, "Do not hold on to me, because even though God is literally everywhere, I have not ascended to the localized manifestation of His glory."

                  That makes no sense, and you know it.

                  7up: Jesus Christ is in the water being baptized (A local place and not omnipresent.)

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Which would mean that God no longer had any wisdom in heaven, since Jesus is God's Wisdom.
                  7up: The Holy Spirit descends in bodily form like a dove (A local place and not omnipresent.)

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Which means that it is no anywhere else in heaven or earth.
                  7up: The Holy Spirit dwelled within Christ at that time. Indeed, if the resurrected Christ (even with a physical body) can move outside space and time as we understand it, then we should not conclude that the Holy Spirit is restricted as well. Also, when the “calling and election is made sure” for a disciple, there can be an indwelling.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  A localized presence can not dwell in more than one place. So, something can not dwell in more than one "house" at a time.
                  Unless the laws of time and space as we understand them do not apply, you are correct.

                  Romans 8:9-11
                  But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, …


                  7up; For starters, when Paul says that they are no longer in the flesh, does that mean that they literally do not have a physical body?

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Of course not. It means that the flesh is not the one ruling them. It is the spirit that lives within them that leads them.
                  Good. For starters, we need to be clear that saying a person is "in the Spirit" should not be understood as lacking a physical body.

                  7up: Are you calling Paul a liar? (Again, I am just using the same tactic you attempted to use in your opening statement above. Don't you see how silly it is?)

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  No. I am allowing the context of the verse to give it meaning.
                  Good. If only Evangelicals would apply that kind of standard (paying attention to context) to John 4:24.

                  7up: Is it the Holy Spirit? Or the “Spirit of Christ”?

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  There is no difference between the two. The "Spirit of Christ" is the Holy Spirit.
                  7up: Are you a modalist Bill?

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Are you a Strangite?
                  Nope. You dodged the point. Proper Trinitarian doctrine maintains a subject / object distinction between the members of the Godhead. You are not being consistent.

                  7up; Those scriptures you cited are scriptures that modalists use to attempt support their position.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  So what? They, just like you, ignore other scriptures that refute their abuse of one verse.
                  You are abusing the scriptures when you attempt to say that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are the same thing.

                  7up: Our scriptures explain as follows, the Light of Christ, “proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.” (see D&C 88)

                  7up: Elder Joseph Fielding Smith explained that, “the Holy Ghost should not be confused with the Spirit [sometimes called the Light of Christ] which fills the immensity of space and which is everywhere present... it proceeds forth from the presence of the Father and the Son and is in all things. We should speak of the Holy Ghost as a personage as 'he' and this other Spirit as 'it', ...” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:49-50)

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  More made up crap from J.F. Smith to try to cover up yet another giant hole in Mormon polytheism.
                  J.F. Smith was describing Doctrine and Covenants 88:11-13 was provided in 1832 through the original Joseph Smith. So, you cannot claim that J F Smith "made it up".

                  7up; Bruce R McConkie also explained, “There is a spirit – the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Christ, the light of truth, the light of Christ …. It is in us and in all things; it is around us and around all things; … It is everywhere, in all immensity, without exception; it is an indwelling, immanent, ever-present, never-absent spirit. It has neither shape nor form nor personality. It is not an entity nor a person nor a personage. It has no agency, does not act independently ...” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith p257)

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  So, a "spirit" can NOW be not an entity or person. Make up your mind, 7...
                  That is why it is described properly, or at least symbolically as "light" rather than spirit. However, the reason why it can be referred to spirit is because it is the light and power through which the Spirit of God operates, thus making it an extension of the spirit of an individual person. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit work this same way. (It is possible that our spirit works the same way, when we pray, for example.) Therefore, each member of the Godhead has a true personal presence, yet each also has power and influence over the immensity of space. This is far more consistent than the view that you have attempted to put forward.

                  7up: McConkie went on to explain, “The Spirit of Christ, (or Light of Christ) is the agency through which the Holy Ghost operates,”

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Yet more made up crap to cover gaping holes in Mormon polytheism.
                  7up: So, does the Holy Spirit literally have to be everywhere in order to be “in” us?

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Yes.
                  You are being inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine and/or other scriptures which do not apply these terms the same way you are. Another example would be: "do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you" (2 Corinthians 13:5). That text is not saying that Jesus Christ is literally and personally inside that individual.


                  7up: Consider the language that Jesus uses in references to being “in” the disciples in John chapter 17:


                  “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them (to the disciples); that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one”

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Correct. Through the presence of the Holy Spirit, Jesus is said to be "in us", since both are the One God.
                  Again you are attempting to play a Modalist, but only when you think you can weasel in some kind of argument. But it is inconsistent. Saying that scriptures would refer to the Holy Spirit when it actually means Jesus is a heretical position to take for a Trinitarian.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  The Holy Spirit is said to indwell us when we make Him the master of our inner selves.
                  It is said to "indwell" us, but you are taking a leap to a conclusion and an interpretation of scripture that is absolutely illogical. An omnipresent substance would "dwell" EVERYWHERE! And your doctrine is demonstrated to be nonsense by noting that contradiction alone.

                  7up: Now, is the person of Jesus Christ literally living within each disciple?

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  He does not say that He is "living in them". He is "in them" meaning He was their head, their Rabbi, and that His name was upon them and that they were His disciples. It was a Hebrew idiom. This is not the same thing as being "indwelled" by Him.
                  It certainly is not the same as you would like to imply by the concept of "dwell". By YOUR interpretation, our spirits would have to be literally omnipresent as well:

                  "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, ..." (1 John 4:13)

                  Furthermore, if the FULNESS of Deity dwells within Jesus Christ, a resurrected being, then the "fulness of Deity" cannot be considered literally omnipresent.

                  "For it pleased the Father that in him (Christ) should all fulness dwell" (Col 1:19)

                  "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, (Col 2:9)


                  7up; Not only is it clear that this should not be taken in the way that you think should be inferred with the personage of the Holy Spirit, but it is also clear the “oneness” of the members of Deity should not be taken literally either.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  What is clear from this verse is that strict monotheism from a "modalistic oneness" perspective is false. It does not in any way dismiss the fact that there is only one God.
                  The question becomes, IN WHAT SENSE is God "one".

                  Jesus Christ explains in John chapter 17.

                  7up: Access to truth, and this Light is available to any person at any time. It is an indwelling because it literally is omnipresent, and the Holy Spirit accesses this indwelling in order to minister and personalize it for the individual, and it is in that sense that the Spirit of God can dwell within us.

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Please cite ANYWHERE where the Holy Spirit is said to be "indwelled" Himself.
                  In order for that to make any sense, I would have to hold to the false definitions that you are describing. I reject your false interpretation entirely.

                  7up; It is the same way that Jesus can be “with us” and “in us” even though he is a spirit which is embodied in a tabernacle of flesh and bone. We can have companionship with Christ even though He is not literally with us, or not literally in us. (This is why Christ is not a "liar" when he said those things.)

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  He is in us because He and the Holy Spirit are One God.
                  Says Bill as he swings back into Modalism.

                  7up; There are many places in the scriptures where the term “Holy Spirit” does not refer to the personage, but instead the gifts of the Holy Spirit, his power, influence, or ministry. These include verses like John 20:22

                  "And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22)

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  This literally refers to the giving of the Holy Spirit, which was not given as an "indwelling" before the Resurrection.
                  So, for starters, we can say that gifts of the Holy Spirit were available to many people at the same time, even when there was not an "indwelling". Right?

                  Acts 7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;

                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  This refers literally to the Holy Spirit indwelling Stephen to the fullest. And remember what "indwelling" means.
                  Sorry Bill, your definition of an omnipresent being (literally everywhere), who also literally dwells inside of just certain people is a contradictory concept. It is either literally omnipresent or it is not.

                  Acts 8:14-19
                  14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
                  15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
                  16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
                  17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
                  18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money,
                  19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”


                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Again, this literally refers to the Holy Spirit indwelling the Samarians.
                  Not only does this passage demonstrate priesthood authority by the laying on of hands in order to perform the ordinance for the gift of the Holy Spirit, but it again demonstrates that the Holy Spirit himself should not be considered literally omnipresent.

                  7UP: Brigham Young gave a more extensive answer:

                  "The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; ... God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).

                  -7up

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    7up: In a basic LDS gospel principles class, you will often get an analogy similar to this, often in reference to the Holy Spirit:
                    "The Sun itself may be very far away, but its light, heat, and influence can be felt by many here on Earth."
                    So Bill, if a satellite or radio transmitter can communicate and influence many things from long distances, why do you think that God, as LDS view Him, would be limited in that sense? Jesus said he would be "with" the disciples. Is that a "lie" if Jesus is not literally standing besides them. This is a foolish game you are attempting to play Bill.




                    Is it proper "basic Trinitarian doctrine" to say that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are the same person?
                    No. And I dare you to show where I claimed any such thing. Or is flinging more crap against the wall to see what sticks your new tactic?

                    Or are you just playing a modalist from time to time?
                    Not even close.

                    7up: Let's go into some more detail, shall we? The Holy Spirit certainly CAN dwell inside of us. The baptism of Jesus is a perfect example of this.



                    A person within the Godhead (whether it be the Father, Son OR Holy Spirit) has an actual local presence and personal being. However, each one of these Divine Persons has power and influence over the immensity of space. For example, that is why Jesus, in that sense, can be "with" the disciples while still remaining at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.
                    Jesus never told them that He would only be with them as an influence. He made it perfectly clear HOW He would be there with them - The Comforter would indwell them.

                    7up: God the Father is in heaven. (A local place and not omnipresent.)



                    Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (John 20:17)

                    So, from your point of view, Jesus is really saying, "Do not hold on to me, because even though God is literally everywhere, I have not ascended to the localized manifestation of His glory."
                    Yes. Since that was the final messianic mission - to be presented the the Ancient of Days (The Father) at the throne of God which was in heaven.

                    That makes no sense, and you know it.
                    It makes perfect sense, and you can't stand it. You are so stuck in making your gods in your own image, just like Joseph Smith was, that you can't even consider that God's essential nature is not one of us.

                    7up: Jesus Christ is in the water being baptized (A local place and not omnipresent.)



                    7up: The Holy Spirit descends in bodily form like a dove (A local place and not omnipresent.)



                    7up: The Holy Spirit dwelled within Christ at that time. Indeed, if the resurrected Christ (even with a physical body) can move outside space and time as we understand it, then we should not conclude that the Holy Spirit is restricted as well. Also, when the “calling and election is made sure” for a disciple, there can be an indwelling.



                    Unless the laws of time and space as we understand them do not apply, you are correct.
                    Ah, so your Jesus is a mutant teleporter now, huh?

                    Romans 8:9-11
                    But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, …


                    7up; For starters, when Paul says that they are no longer in the flesh, does that mean that they literally do not have a physical body?



                    Good. For starters, we need to be clear that saying a person is "in the Spirit" should not be understood as lacking a physical body.
                    Never insinuated otherwise.

                    7up: Are you calling Paul a liar? (Again, I am just using the same tactic you attempted to use in your opening statement above. Don't you see how silly it is?)



                    Good. If only Evangelicals would apply that kind of standard (paying attention to context) to John 4:24.
                    I see no problem with the standard Christian response to this verse, which predates Evangelicalism by many centuries.

                    7up: Is it the Holy Spirit? Or the “Spirit of Christ”?



                    7up: Are you a modalist Bill?



                    Nope.
                    Good. Then stop asking stupid questions that you already know the answer to. You aren't Karnak, so stop trying to be a mind reader.

                    You dodged the point.
                    No I didn't. I asked an equally absurd question.

                    Proper Trinitarian doctrine maintains a subject / object distinction between the members of the Godhead. You are not being consistent.
                    Yes I am. The Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit. It's a possessive, not a descriptuive. Similar to the "Bride of Christ" not being Christ Himself. And it is the Spirit of Christ because it is functionally subordinate to both Father and Son.

                    7up; Those scriptures you cited are scriptures that modalists use to attempt support their position.



                    You are abusing the scriptures when you attempt to say that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are the same thing.
                    No I am not. The Holy Spirit is called different names, just like the Son is. He is called Comforter, Counselor, Advocate, the Seal of God, Guide, Intercessor, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of Christ, Holy Spirit, Spirit of Promise, and Witness.

                    7up: Our scriptures explain as follows, the Light of Christ, “proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.” (see D&C 88)

                    7up: Elder Joseph Fielding Smith explained that, “the Holy Ghost should not be confused with the Spirit [sometimes called the Light of Christ] which fills the immensity of space and which is everywhere present... it proceeds forth from the presence of the Father and the Son and is in all things. We should speak of the Holy Ghost as a personage as 'he' and this other Spirit as 'it', ...” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:49-50)



                    J.F. Smith was describing Doctrine and Covenants 88:11-13 was provided in 1832 through the original Joseph Smith. So, you cannot claim that J F Smith "made it up".
                    Ok. Joseph Smith made it up and his great nephew followed in his error. Happy?

                    That is why it is described properly, or at least symbolically as "light" rather than spirit. However, the reason why it can be referred to spirit is because it is the light and power through which the Spirit of God operates, thus making it an extension of the spirit of an individual person. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit work this same way. (It is possible that our spirit works the same way, when we pray, for example.) Therefore, each member of the Godhead has a true personal presence, yet each also has power and influence over the immensity of space. This is far more consistent than the view that you have attempted to put forward.
                    It's a kabuki dance that would make Izumo no Okuni proud. The Holy Spirit can be in more than one place PHYSICALLY at the same time.

                    Acts 2:3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.
                    Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.



                    7up: McConkie went on to explain, “The Spirit of Christ, (or Light of Christ) is the agency through which the Holy Ghost operates,”



                    7up: So, does the Holy Spirit literally have to be everywhere in order to be “in” us?



                    You are being inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine and/or other scriptures which do not apply these terms the same way you are.


                    Another example would be: "do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you" (2 Corinthians 13:5). That text is not saying that Jesus Christ is literally and personally inside that individual.
                    Rubbish. Thomas Aquinas explained it just as I have:

                    525. - Then when he says, Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? he shows what they can find through such an examination. First, what they might find in themselves; secondly, what they might find in the Apostle (v. 6).
                    526. – In themselves they will be able to discover two things by this examination, because they will either know that they are keeping the faith, and thus they will be able to find and know that Christ is in them; and this is what he says: Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? i.e., if you were to examine yourselves, would you know that you have the faith and recognize that Christ is in you? As if to say: Yes, because where faith in Christ is, there Christ is: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” (Eph. 3:17); “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” (1 Cor. 6:19).

                    ~ http://dhspriory.org/thomas/SS2Cor.htm#132

                    Thomas equates "Christ in us" with our being the "temple of the Holy Spirit" where God's presence dwells and physically manifested.


                    7up: Consider the language that Jesus uses in references to being “in” the disciples in John chapter 17:


                    “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them (to the disciples); that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one”



                    Again you are attempting to play a Modalist, but only when you think you can weasel in some kind of argument.
                    Sorry, but that poo isn't sticking any more here than above.

                    But it is inconsistent. Saying that scriptures would refer to the Holy Spirit when it actually means Jesus is a heretical position to take for a Trinitarian.
                    No it is not. Let me ask you this... when God told Ezekiel "I will put my spirit within you", which spirit was He referring to?


                    It is said to "indwell" us, but you are taking a leap to a conclusion and an interpretation of scripture that is absolutely illogical. An omnipresent substance would "dwell" EVERYWHERE! And your doctrine is demonstrated to be nonsense by noting that contradiction alone.
                    "indwelling" means far more than just a physical presence. It also implies being welcome by the one indwelled so as to be made master of the house. Presence is a natural phenomenon while indwelling is a supernatural one. I've already explained that a few posts ago, but as India noted, you do not appear to be even trying to understand what anyone else is saying.

                    7up: Now, is the person of Jesus Christ literally living within each disciple?



                    It certainly is not the same as you would like to imply by the concept of "dwell". By YOUR interpretation, our spirits would have to be literally omnipresent as well:

                    "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, ..." (1 John 4:13)
                    More stupidity on your part. It means we reside in Him and His Lordship while He resides within us by the Holy Spirit (which is the rather inconvenient part of that verse that you left out.)

                    Furthermore, if the FULNESS of Deity dwells within Jesus Christ, a resurrected being, then the "fulness of Deity" cannot be considered literally omnipresent.


                    "For it pleased the Father that in him (Christ) should all fulness dwell" (Col 1:19)

                    "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, (Col 2:9)
                    If deity is omnipresent, then absolutely it can fully dwell within Christ and still be elsewhere.

                    1 Kings 8:27 "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!

                    Psa 139:7 Where can I go from Your Spirit?
                    Or where can I flee from Your presence?
                    Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, You are there;
                    If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.

                    Jeremiah 23:23-24 "Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off? "Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD. "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD.


                    7up; Not only is it clear that this should not be taken in the way that you think should be inferred with the personage of the Holy Spirit, but it is also clear the “oneness” of the members of Deity should not be taken literally either.



                    The question becomes, IN WHAT SENSE is God "one".
                    In that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6). There was no higher god (Hebrews 6:13) who made God into God, nor did God make another into God (Isaiah 43:10).

                    Jesus Christ explains in John chapter 17.
                    And it does not support monism or polytheism. It supports trinitarianism.

                    7up: Access to truth, and this Light is available to any person at any time. It is an indwelling because it literally is omnipresent, and the Holy Spirit accesses this indwelling in order to minister and personalize it for the individual, and it is in that sense that the Spirit of God can dwell within us.



                    In order for that to make any sense, I would have to hold to the false definitions that you are describing. I reject your false interpretation entirely.
                    Your attempt at dodgeball failed. Perhaps a few more lessons would help before you try that tactic again...

                    hank-azaria-dodgeball-utr.jpg

                    You claimed "the Holy Spirit accesses this "indwelling". I'm asking you to prove from scripture where the Holy Spirit is "indwelled".


                    7up; It is the same way that Jesus can be “with us” and “in us” even though he is a spirit which is embodied in a tabernacle of flesh and bone. We can have companionship with Christ even though He is not literally with us, or not literally in us. (This is why Christ is not a "liar" when he said those things.)



                    Says Bill as he swings back into Modalism.
                    poo.jpg

                    7up; There are many places in the scriptures where the term “Holy Spirit” does not refer to the personage, but instead the gifts of the Holy Spirit, his power, influence, or ministry. These include verses like John 20:22

                    "And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22)



                    So, for starters, we can say that gifts of the Holy Spirit were available to many people at the same time, even when there was not an "indwelling". Right?
                    No. God's power could be used by those God chose as He saw fit.

                    Acts 7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;



                    Sorry Bill, your definition of an omnipresent being (literally everywhere), who also literally dwells inside of just certain people is a contradictory concept. It is either literally omnipresent or it is not.
                    Presence is a natural phenomenon and indwelling is a supernatural one. God can be somewhere without supernaturally affecting it.

                    Acts 8:14-19
                    14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
                    15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
                    16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
                    17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
                    18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money,
                    19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”




                    Not only does this passage demonstrate priesthood authority by the laying on of hands in order to perform the ordinance for the gift of the Holy Spirit,
                    I never said otherwise. But your "priesthood" is illegitimate.

                    but it again demonstrates that the Holy Spirit himself should not be considered literally omnipresent.
                    Last edited by Bill the Cat; 07-02-2014, 10:01 AM.
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • 7up: You have yet to cite evidence that mainstream Christianity views or defines these terms in the same way that Cherbonnier does.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      All I need to show is that he defined them AS USED BY MYSTICS....
                      In his article, "In Defense of Anthropomorphism", Cherbonnier does not mention "mystics" once. He does, however, mention Catholics and Protestants. Then later in the article says, "In short, theology as traditionally practiced is a prescription for schizophrenia." Clearly, he is criticizing "traditional theology". He then explains how too often, that which is said about God, like existing in time and space, is interpreted to being "symbolic" instead of literally.


                      7up: In fact, LDS are frequently criticized for believing, for example, that we can "see God". Anti-Mormons argue to me that God is literally "invisible".

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      Do you ever ask them to explain what they mean by that? Or do you just assume that they mean He is incapable of making Himself seen?
                      Similar to what you describe, they say that when God makes himself "seen" and it is called "God" in the text, it isn't really God at all, but just some kind of temporary puppet manifestation which isn't really God at all, and it just "evaporates" back into nothing. And when God is described in the form of a man in the Bible, it really isn't God at all and it cannot be taken literally, because in your view (or the typical Protestant/Catholic view) God has no true image or likeness to be seen at all.

                      In other words, the LDS view is that God has a form, but God does not usually allow it to be seen. The Protestant and Catholic view is that God has no form at all, and is therefore "invisible" unless it makes some thing appear out of nothing as a representation of God rather than God himself. Cherbonnier:

                      "Such a God is invisible in principle ... The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself... Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him.... In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."

                      So Bill, IF God is literally everywhere, then how could anybody "stare at Him"?


                      7UP: (Cherbonnier) He specifically describes LDS ideas, and quotes LDS leaders. He does so in an entirely positive light, and explains why many of the LDS viewpoints are valid according to the scriptural text. That is obvious to anybody who simply reads the entire article. He calls the LDS doctrines Biblical. You are correct that he does not come out and say that the Bible is true. However, he says, on multiple occasions, that the LDS view is what is described in the Bible.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      Yet, he obviously is not fleshing out the LDS view beyond the bare surface of his need in refuting the mystics. And therefore, he is not calling the entire LDS doctrine "biblical", just the part he is using to bolster his refutation of rogue "scholars" and mystics.
                      Read that second article again, the article where he specifically addresses Mormon beliefs. The word "mystic" isn't used in that article at all. Not even once. Instead he brings Catholics and Protestants into the picture. Then he essentially argues that "traditional theologians" unjustly criticize LDS.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      And the few areas where he says that the LDS belief is biblical, traditional Christians agree.
                      Except for those things on which you have admitted to disagreeing with on this forum and in this thread. Along with LDS, Cherbonnier argues for a God who lives in space and time, while you argue for a God outside space and time. (While LDS may admit that God can exist outside space and time as we know it, you place God outside space and time altogether.) Cherbonnier discusses how existing outside space and time altogether, or in a "timeless eternity" is not the Biblical God.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      It is when those areas are expanded we will not see Cherbonnier wading into them. So, for instance, when Cherbonnier mentions God is anthropomorphic, and that Mormons agree, we look at what he means by that and we traditional Christians agree as well.
                      Do you? So far, it appears that LDS agree with EVERYTHING that Cherbonnier had to say. Yet traditional Christians, like yourself, do have some disagreements.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      But when we go beyond the definition Cherbonnier assigned to the word into the Father being an exalted human, Cherbonnier is completely silent.
                      LDS never said that Cherbonnier believes that God the Father is an exalted human. He doesn't address that concept and it does not come into the discussion specifically. He only makes vague implications of a bodily form, like the idea that God does not want people to "stare at Him".

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      When Cherbonnier mentions the Mormon belief of God having a body, he states this is a consistent doctrine ONLY on the ground that mystics wrongly believe that matter is evil.
                      Not only that, but on the Biblical grounds that anything without a physical body "is to be pitied".

                      7up: You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone).

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      And that matter is not evil in and of itself. To which Cherbonnier is arguing for.
                      He went beyond that. See above. Furthermore, in the first article Cherbonnier says that , "To insist that He (God) is omnipresent would be to imprison Him."

                      7up: (The idea that God can exist as a human being) is an essential premise of Christianity. The only difference is that LDS apply that concept to God the Father as well as to God the Son, because Jesus Christ is the "express image of the Father's person" (Heb 1).

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      And that does not mean a physical copy.
                      You don't have any Biblical grounds to make that assertion. The actual word implies a physical copy. Indeed, Jesus is an exact representation of God the Father in every sense.

                      7up: You are correct that Cherbonnier does not come out and agree with LDS on this specific point, but he certainly defends the theological framework which would allow for that possibility....
                      - -- - - - -- - -
                      "Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not." - Cherbonnier
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
                      7up: Correct. It defends a framework where matter is not evil. It does not attempt to delve any deeper than that. Honestly, there isn't a lot of indication that Cherbonnier even understood much of Mormon doctrine to begin with, as he was mainly interested in the philosophy of religion and not with the indepth theology of specific religions.

                      You are making assumptions about what Cherbonnier did or did not know. We are discussing what he said and the implications of what he said. Here is the definition of "disembodied" - "lacking a body or freed from the body; incorporeal ; lacking substance or solidity"

                      7up: I only point it out so that we can both be very clear, and as you say “Christians agree”, that the LDS concept of God the Father having a body cannot be rejected based on this premise.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      No one here is dismissing the LDS concept by claiming matter is evil. So, there is no reason to point out something that isn't even a consideration.
                      Again, you are arguing against a point that I am not making. Cherbonnier went beyond the concept of whether or not matter is evil. He says that to insist that God is omnipresent would be to "imprison Him". He argues, essentially, that the preferred existence is a bodily and corporeal existence within space and time.

                      7up: That alone is reason enough to quote Cherbonnier's arguments from an LDS perspective, .... but there is more.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      It's a strawman argument and an improper appeal to authority. Just as I have been saying all along, it's a misuse of Cherbonnier's argument as a refutation of the claim that God does not have an exalted human body. Cherbonnier is not interested in anything other than a consistent connection between matter not being evil and Mormon claims of God having a body. Congratulations. You've defended an unchallenged point.
                      I agree that the "matter as evil" is an unchallenged point. I don't know why you brought it up, as if it was part of the discussion. You simply attempted to misdirect, by arguing a point that I wasn't making in the first place.

                      7up: I make no assumption. We can look at it as a broad and general concept. I certainly mean it in the broad and general sense. It is true if it refers to a pre-incarnate spirit. It is true if it refers to a post-incarnate spirit (like, for example, the spirit of Jesus before his resurrection on the third day). It is true for any personage of spirit period.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      It is an assumption that it can be applied in a broader context that Cherbonnier never intended. Would it be applicable to a pre-incarnate spirit if Cherbonnier did not believe in the existence of pre-incarnate spirits? That question changes the entire answer to "Why are they to be pitied"? If they are to be pitied from your view, it is because they lost something that they obtained of value and went backwards in their progression, or they never got it in the first place. If they are to be pitied from mine, it is because they lost part of what they were created to be. There would be no pre-incarnate spirits to pity for the reason they hadn't yet received their bodies. So, pity would only be for spirits in that they no longer had their bodies, and had to await resurrection to be whole again. Applying it past the context of Cherbonnier's argument and making it into a universal claim potentially changes the "why?".
                      Wrong. The "spirits" being referred to, in YOUR theology, weren't created to have bodies in the first place, and thus were not created to have a resurrection. It is YOUR theology that is inconsistent, because being "spirit only" is what they were created to be, and thus should not be pitied if they don't have a body.

                      In LDS theology, they are to be pitied, because it is is BETTER to be both "spirit AND body", rather than "only spirit". Furthermore, to think otherwise and think that Deity is better off without a body, would be to say that God condemned Jesus to have to exist in a body as if it would put limits on the Son of God. And "traditional Christian" critics of the LDS faith, speak of "God in a body" as if it would make the Person of God "finite".

                      7up:It props up the philosophical case against the mystic view of a disembodied God.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      No it doesn't. The Mystics do not believe in a "disembodied" God. They believe in a diffused god that is spread out in small diluted pieces throughout the universe. Cherbonnier never refutes the Christian idea of God as an omnipresent spirit with a localized presence able to manifest in space and time to interact with it.
                      Cherbonnier already went well beyond that. He argues that our existence is similar to the existence of God and not "entirely other" as Christians often claim. "Traditional theologians" often speak of God as a being completely different in kind from us, not only in space and time, but also in a "metaphysical sense", and Cherbonnier argues against that.

                      7up: As long as the philosophical framework is both consistent with the Bible, and consistent with itself, the points made by Cherbonnier are valid.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      But expanding those points beyond their worth is improper, and that's exactly what you Mormons are doing.
                      It is proper. If God is "spacio-temporal" and people can "stare at Him" and Cherbonnier criticizes "scholars and theologians" for taking appearances of God too figuratively and symbolically. Those are ideas that LDS have been arguing all along, with the point that we are beings made in the "image and likeness" of God. We argue that having a spirit, without a body, is to be pitied, which Cherbonnier cites as a Biblical concept.

                      The specific idea that God is an exalted human being is not brought into it when discussing Cherbonnier, so you cannot make that criticism, or say that LDS misuse him.

                      In fact, the other Christians who I have discussed this with eventually just write off Cherbonnier as being wrong, or call him a "Liberal New Testament Scholar". It was a little refreshing and entertaining to watch you attempt and try to twist Cherbonnier your way.

                      -7up
                      Last edited by seven7up; 07-03-2014, 12:01 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Show me ONE THING that Jesus taught, that he had to walk back and say, "OK, guys -- sorry* -- I was wrong about that, so let me set it straight".
                        No. He simply did not tell them everything all at once. The text is very clear that they remained to have many misconceptions.

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Comparing your Prophet of Trickery and Deceit to Jesus is, again, just beyond goofy.
                        On the contrary, I am NOT comparing Joseph Smith to Jesus. I am comparing Joseph Smith to prophets and apostles, who were flawed, sinful and even sometimes very confused and uninformed.

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Why can't you see that's what you're doing, Seven? Your guy was SUPPOSEDLY a PROPHET who heard DIRECTLY from God.
                        And what did Joseph hear directly from God?

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Either your "prophet" HEARD from God, or he was making it up as he went along.
                        Remember when Jesus told people, including the apostles, that the Temple would be torn down, and then built up in 3 days?

                        What did they THINK Jesus meant? Were they correct? ...

                        Or did they have to see something and have it explained to them in more detail before they understood it?

                        -7up

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                          Remember when Jesus told people, including the apostles, that the Temple would be torn down, and then built up in 3 days?

                          What did they THINK Jesus meant? Were they correct? ...

                          Or did they have to see something and have it explained to them in more detail before they understood it?

                          -7up
                          Jesus NEVER told them something that He subsequently had to say, "well, no, it's NOT that, it's THIS instead....".
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                            And what did Joseph hear directly from God?
                            Nada.
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              7up: You have yet to cite evidence that mainstream Christianity views or defines these terms in the same way that Cherbonnier does.



                              In his article, "In Defense of Anthropomorphism", Cherbonnier does not mention "mystics" once. He does, however, mention Catholics and Protestants.
                              And he differentiates between the "thinkers", or "elite" as he calls them later, and the laymen. In fact, you've misconstrued his entire article. The very FIRST line from him, after Madsen's hilarious "commentary" says:

                              Source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/index.htm


                              When Christian thinkers have tried to judge themselves and their religion by the rules of rational argument, they have generally found the God of popular piety to be a source of embarrassment.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              So, you see that the entire article's premise is set up here. That there is a difference between the god of the "Christian thinkers", and then there is the God of "popular piety". Cherbonnier then goes on to explain what each of these "gods" are. In doing so, he explains:

                              Source: above


                              A God who can communicate with mankind, and play a part in human events, is no doubt adapted to the mental level of children and of the uneducated, but is hardly taken seriously by the sophisticated

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              He explains that the God of "popular piety" is one that communicates with mankind and plays a part in human events, which I wholeheartedly agree. He then goes on to trash the novel ideas of Catholic and Protestant "thinkers" who deny those facts.

                              Then later in the article says, "In short, theology as traditionally practiced is a prescription for schizophrenia."
                              He is referring to the particular theology of the "thinkers", not the theology of "popular piety". As I already cited from this article, the ones he associates with these "thinkers" show who he is arguing against - liberal thinkers who are not part of the orthodox theology of "popular piety".

                              Clearly, he is criticizing "traditional theology".
                              No he isn't. One only needs to look at who he is criticizing to see that your opinion here is false.

                              He then explains how too often, that which is said about God, like existing in time and space, is interpreted to being "symbolic" instead of literally.
                              He also explains what he is arguing against - an impersonal thing. He is not claiming the Mormon belief that God has an exalted body is true. He is saying that Mormons have held that God is personal, and that until the "scholarship" of the past 200 years, so did everyone else.


                              7up: In fact, LDS are frequently criticized for believing, for example, that we can "see God". Anti-Mormons argue to me that God is literally "invisible".



                              Similar to what you describe, they say that when God makes himself "seen" and it is called "God" in the text, it isn't really God at all, but just some kind of temporary puppet manifestation which isn't really God at all, and it just "evaporates" back into nothing.
                              Sorry, but that's not what I said at all. The temporary theophanies ARE God, not puppets.

                              And when God is described in the form of a man in the Bible, it really isn't God at all and it cannot be taken literally, because in your view (or the typical Protestant/Catholic view) God has no true image or likeness to be seen at all.
                              That's just plain stupid. If God had no form to be seen, then His words to Moses would make no sense. As I said, God is invisible to us because He wills it so. He is visible to the angels and to those in heaven, therefore saying "God has no true image or likeness to be seen at all" is a straw man of what Catholics and Protestants believe. I cite Irenaeus for proof:

                              Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103419.htm


                              But to allege that those things which are super-celestial and spiritual, and, as far as we are concerned, invisible and ineffable, are in their turn the types of celestial things and of another Pleroma, and [to say] that God is the image of another Father, is to play the part both of wanderers from the truth, and of absolutely foolish and stupid persons..

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              It is the orthodox belief that God is invisible to us because He wills it so. It is NOT orthodox to believe that He is invisible forever to everyone.

                              In other words, the LDS view is that God has a form, but God does not usually allow it to be seen.
                              And the orthodox Christian view is that God has a unique omnipresent form that He does not ever allow us to see on earth. And Jesus said the same thing. NO MAN has seen God.


                              The Protestant and Catholic view is that God has no form at all, and is therefore "invisible" unless it makes some thing appear out of nothing as a representation of God rather than God himself.
                              False. When something manifests as a theophany of God, it is said to be God, not a "representation".

                              Cherbonnier:

                              "Such a God is invisible in principle ... The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself... Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him.... In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."

                              So Bill, IF God is literally everywhere, then how could anybody "stare at Him"?
                              The same way Moses could stare at the burning bush while God was still omnipresent. The same way the Holy Spirit could manifest as flames over everyone in the Upper Room while still being omnipresent. You aren't even TRYING to get it, are you?


                              7UP: (Cherbonnier) He specifically describes LDS ideas, and quotes LDS leaders. He does so in an entirely positive light, and explains why many of the LDS viewpoints are valid according to the scriptural text. That is obvious to anybody who simply reads the entire article. He calls the LDS doctrines Biblical. You are correct that he does not come out and say that the Bible is true. However, he says, on multiple occasions, that the LDS view is what is described in the Bible.



                              Read that second article again, the article where he specifically addresses Mormon beliefs.
                              I have read it numerous times. And every time I read it, I come to the same conclusion - that you Mormons are misusing what he is saying.

                              The word "mystic" isn't used in that article at all. Not even once.
                              In that article, no. That one is about false ideas of philosophers who try to "de-personalize' God.

                              Instead he brings Catholics and Protestants into the picture. Then he essentially argues that "traditional theologians" unjustly criticize LDS.
                              On specific grounds that are not biblically based. He is not refuting orthodox belief and theology. He is refuting unorthodox philosophy that had creeped into the religious academic instuitutions and the theological discussions of philosophers and scholars.


                              Except for those things on which you have admitted to disagreeing with on this forum and in this thread. Along with LDS, Cherbonnier argues for a God who lives in space and time, while you argue for a God outside space and time. (While LDS may admit that God can exist outside space and time as we know it, you place God outside space and time altogether.)
                              No I don't. The mere fact that He interacts with us refutes your strawman claim. Cherbonnier claims that God is independent from the created world, just like we both do.

                              Cherbonnier discusses how existing outside space and time altogether, or in a "timeless eternity" is not the Biblical God.
                              Which means to Cherbonnier that God interacts with creation, which an impersonal "timeless" force does not.



                              Do you? So far, it appears that LDS agree with EVERYTHING that Cherbonnier had to say. Yet traditional Christians, like yourself, do have some disagreements.
                              Again, when we look at what Cherbonnier is actually saying, and not what you wish he was saying, then yes, we do agree.


                              LDS never said that Cherbonnier believes that God the Father is an exalted human. He doesn't address that concept and it does not come into the discussion specifically. He only makes vague implications of a bodily form, like the idea that God does not want people to "stare at Him".
                              That didn't stop Bickmore or Jeff Lindsay from using Cherbonnier in the middle of a claim about the Father being an exalted human.


                              Not only that, but on the Biblical grounds that anything without a physical body "is to be pitied".
                              Which you take way too far too. Is the Holy Spirit, who is a God even in your own religion, without a physical body and to be pitied in the manner that Cherbonnier is discussing? Or perhaps Cherbonnier actually is referring to spirits of those who have died and are awaiting their resurrection...

                              7up: You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone).



                              He went beyond that. See above. Furthermore, in the first article Cherbonnier says that , "To insist that He (God) is omnipresent would be to imprison Him."
                              In this context:

                              Source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/index.htm


                              Neither is the biblical God immanent, in the sense that He is diffused throughout the universe. To insist that He is omnipresent would be to imprison Him. The biblical God can be wherever He wants to be.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              We've already discussed what Cherbonnier meant by "omnipresent" in this context. And like the other subjects, you are taking it well beyond what he means.


                              7up: (The idea that God can exist as a human being) is an essential premise of Christianity. The only difference is that LDS apply that concept to God the Father as well as to God the Son, because Jesus Christ is the "express image of the Father's person" (Heb 1).



                              You don't have any Biblical grounds to make that assertion.
                              Yes I do. An imprint was not a replica of the thing it was imprinting. The main example was the signet ring. The impression made on the wax was not in the shape of a ring, it was a physical impression of the face of the ring. Jesus is the physical impression of the Father's personal attributes, not His physical form. That's the point of that verse.

                              The actual word implies a physical copy.
                              No it doesn't.

                              Indeed, Jesus is an exact representation of God the Father in every sense.
                              That's not what the verse says.

                              7up: You are correct that Cherbonnier does not come out and agree with LDS on this specific point, but he certainly defends the theological framework which would allow for that possibility....
                              - -- - - - -- - -
                              "Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not." - Cherbonnier
                              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
                              7up: Correct. It defends a framework where matter is not evil. It does not attempt to delve any deeper than that. Honestly, there isn't a lot of indication that Cherbonnier even understood much of Mormon doctrine to begin with, as he was mainly interested in the philosophy of religion and not with the indepth theology of specific religions.

                              You are making assumptions about what Cherbonnier did or did not know. We are discussing what he said and the implications of what he said. Here is the definition of "disembodied" - "lacking a body or freed from the body; incorporeal ; lacking substance or solidity"

                              7up: I only point it out so that we can both be very clear, and as you say “Christians agree”, that the LDS concept of God the Father having a body cannot be rejected based on this premise.



                              Again, you are arguing against a point that I am not making.
                              That's the point that Cherbonnier was making. It's you who is trying to leverage that argument beyond its intent.

                              Cherbonnier went beyond the concept of whether or not matter is evil. He says that to insist that God is omnipresent would be to "imprison Him". He argues, essentially, that the preferred existence is a bodily and corporeal existence within space and time.
                              But not a human body. Nor does Cherbonnier state what SORT of body and existence God has, other than to say it was personal, which was my initial objection to your using his article to begin with.

                              7up: That alone is reason enough to quote Cherbonnier's arguments from an LDS perspective, .... but there is more.



                              I agree that the "matter as evil" is an unchallenged point. I don't know why you brought it up, as if it was part of the discussion. You simply attempted to misdirect, by arguing a point that I wasn't making in the first place.
                              Because it shows the context of Cherbonnier's argument, and shows how you are making a fallacious equivocation between what he is saying and what you want him to say.

                              7up: I make no assumption. We can look at it as a broad and general concept. I certainly mean it in the broad and general sense. It is true if it refers to a pre-incarnate spirit. It is true if it refers to a post-incarnate spirit (like, for example, the spirit of Jesus before his resurrection on the third day). It is true for any personage of spirit period.



                              Wrong. The "spirits" being referred to, in YOUR theology, weren't created to have bodies in the first place, and thus were not created to have a resurrection.
                              You are wrong. Nowhere does Cherbonnier claim that our spirits pre-exist our conception. He claims that a spirit without a body is to be pitied (as is Christian theology, since a disembodied human spirit is awaiting resurrection). The context of the biblical claim does not support a claim of pre-existent spirits, angelic spirits, or demonic spirits being the subject of his argument.

                              It is YOUR theology that is inconsistent, because being "spirit only" is what they were created to be, and thus should not be pitied if they don't have a body.
                              But, again, this assumes that Cherbonnier is talking about non-post-mortem human or other spirits, which he isn't. For to take that to the logical conclusion, the Holy Spirit is to be pitied too. I seriously doubt that Cherbonnier would go that far...

                              In LDS theology, they are to be pitied, because it is is BETTER to be both "spirit AND body", rather than "only spirit".
                              And in Christian theology, they are to be pitied because they are no longer whole, as God created them originally.

                              Furthermore, to think otherwise and think that Deity is better off without a body, would be to say that God condemned Jesus to have to exist in a body as if it would put limits on the Son of God.
                              Not even close. Assuming a human body neither made Jesus more or less God. It was not a condemnation or a limit for the Son to assume human flesh as an additional nature.

                              And "traditional Christian" critics of the LDS faith, speak of "God in a body" as if it would make the Person of God "finite".
                              Only if you ignore the context of the accusation.

                              7up:It props up the philosophical case against the mystic view of a disembodied God.



                              Cherbonnier already went well beyond that.
                              No he didn't. His entire argument was against a disembodied non-personal thing.

                              He argues that our existence is similar to the existence of God and not "entirely other" as Christians often claim.
                              Only in the manner of a personal existence. I seriously doubt Cherbonnier would support a God who was reliant on another god above him to cause him to exist. To Cherbonnier, God is the pinacle of personal existence, and our existence is similar t oHis in that we are personal beings, capable of emotion and response.

                              "Traditional theologians" often speak of God as a being completely different in kind from us, not only in space and time, but also in a "metaphysical sense", and Cherbonnier argues against that.
                              No he didn't. He argued against an impersonal force that was diffused throughout the universe with no ability to interact with it.

                              7up: As long as the philosophical framework is both consistent with the Bible, and consistent with itself, the points made by Cherbonnier are valid.



                              It is proper. If God is "spacio-temporal" and people can "stare at Him" and Cherbonnier criticizes "scholars and theologians" for taking appearances of God too figuratively and symbolically. Those are ideas that LDS have been arguing all along, with the point that we are beings made in the "image and likeness" of God. We argue that having a spirit, without a body, is to be pitied, which Cherbonnier cites as a Biblical concept.
                              And you take those well past this into the Father being reliant on a higher god for his exaltation, him obtaining his godhood through celestial progression, and him possessing an old human man's body with gray hair to boot. God is spatio-temporal in that He interacts with reality. God has shown Himself through theophanies, then through the Son, and finally we will behold Him in heaven in the New Creation.

                              The specific idea that God is an exalted human being is not brought into it when discussing Cherbonnier, so you cannot make that criticism, or say that LDS misuse him.
                              Cherbonnier's anthropomorphism is used as a segue to the exalted human doctrine, and it is a direct result of ignoring Cherbonnier's definition of the term in favor of the Mormon one. He is misused.

                              In fact, the other Christians who I have discussed this with eventually just write off Cherbonnier as being wrong, or call him a "Liberal New Testament Scholar". It was a little refreshing and entertaining to watch you attempt and try to twist Cherbonnier your way.
                              I let him, his other articles, and their contexts speak for themselves. You took what he said, ignored both definitions and context, and ran with the fallacy. I've been thoroughly entertained at watching you make repeated false claims about what Christians believe and what Cherbonnier was saying. Not that I'm surprised though...
                              Last edited by Bill the Cat; 07-09-2014, 01:22 PM.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • Response part 1

                                I have to respond in two parts, because I got the error message: "The text that you have entered is too long (27636 characters). Please shorten it to 24000 characters long."

                                7up: In his article, "In Defense of Anthropomorphism", Cherbonnier does not mention "mystics" once. He does, however, mention Catholics and Protestants.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                And he differentiates between the "thinkers", or "elite" as he calls them later, and the laymen. ...
                                Source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/index.htm


                                When Christian thinkers have tried to judge themselves and their religion by the rules of rational argument, they have generally found the God of popular piety to be a source of embarrassment.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                And I suppose that you are going to argue that these "Christian thinkers" have no effect on Christian theology? Of course they do. Evidence of this is everywhere in Christianity.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                So, you see that the entire article's premise is set up here. That there is a difference between the god of the "Christian thinkers", and then there is the God of "popular piety". Cherbonnier then goes on to explain what each of these "gods" are. In doing so, he explains:

                                Source: above


                                A God who can communicate with mankind, and play a part in human events, is no doubt adapted to the mental level of children and of the uneducated, but is hardly taken seriously by the sophisticated

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                Why would I take issue with the God of "laymen" or "popular piety"? If I ask a layperson what "Ex Nihilo" is or how they understand God's omnipresence, they likely wouldn't have a clear answer. There is no disagreement with those who don't have an opinion in the first place. Here is what Cherbonnier said right after that:

                                "Hence the tendency, in both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, to distinguish between those beliefs which are suitable for mass consumption and those which are intelligible only to an elite. And hence also the tendency to look with condescension upon those branches of Christianity, often referred to as fringe groups, which refuse to make such a distinction and which make no apology for conceiving God as personal; that is, as a being who can make known his purposes for the world and carry them out in human history. No denomination holds more staunchly to this conception of God as Person than do the Mormons. "

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                He explains that the God of "popular piety" is one that communicates with mankind and plays a part in human events, which I wholeheartedly agree. He then goes on to trash the novel ideas of Catholic and Protestant "thinkers" who deny those facts.
                                The article goes well beyond the idea of a personal God who is involved in history. He goes on to trash YOUR view that God exists outside space and time and he uses LDS scripture as an example of how the Mormon view of God living within time and space is the only concept that makes sense IF God does indeed act in history as a personal Being:

                                "Nearly any passage chosen at random from the Book of Mormon illustrates the point; for example, Mormon 8:22: “For the eternal purposes of the Lord shall roll on, until all his promises shall be fulfilled.” Quite consistently with this view, Mormons also conceive God as temporal, not eternal in the sense of timeless. The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, “The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being.”

                                The portion in bold above is Cherbonnier's argument, in which he cites agreement with Mormons and opposes your view.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                He is referring to the particular theology of the "thinkers", not the theology of "popular piety". As I already cited from this article, the ones he associates with these "thinkers" show who he is arguing against - liberal thinkers who are not part of the orthodox theology of "popular piety".
                                He is talking about aspects of YOUR theology as well, which has been influenced by those Christian thinkers. Your theology is also influenced by other philosophies which are not compatible with scripture. For example those on this thread are repulsed by the idea of God having a physical body. Do you know where that repulsion comes from? It comes from Gnosticism:

                                “To worship ... embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence.” GNOSIS.ORG

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                No he isn't. One only needs to look at who he is criticizing to see that your opinion here is false.
                                For starters, he is criticizing anyone who believes in God existing in a "timeless eternity". That would be you.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                He also explains what he is arguing against - an impersonal thing.
                                You, I, Mormons, and Christians AND Cherbonnier all agree that God is personal. Why do you keep bringing up a non-issue?

                                However, He disagrees with YOU when you claim that God is some kind of timeless and literally omnipresent essence.

                                7up: In fact, LDS are frequently criticized for believing, for example, that we can "see God". Anti-Mormons argue to me that God is literally "invisible". Similar to what you describe, they say that when God makes himself "seen" and it is called "God" in the text, it isn't really God at all, but just some kind of temporary puppet manifestation which isn't really God at all, and it just "evaporates" back into nothing.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                Sorry, but that's not what I said at all. The temporary theophanies ARE God, not puppets.
                                So, you believe that God can "disappear from existence"? Here is an earlier statement from you, which again shows how Cherbonnier's theology agrees with that of Mormons, but differs from yours:

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                Cherbonnier differs from my view in that he claims the theophanies of the OT were God actually showing Himself, and my belief, like Augustine's were that they were temporary "created instruments of God’s presence" that ceased to exist after their disappearance. For instance, the pillar of fire, Solomon's Shekinah glory, the burning bush, Ezekiel's wheels, Daniel's finger, all were temporary creations by God in order for His presence to be visibly manifested. Once He was done with them, they disappeared from existence.
                                Of course, you were attempting to pull a fast one here, because none of the examples you gave above were actual theophanies where it was claimed that God was actually seen. When the Lord spoke to Moses through the burning bush, for example, that was not a true theophany, because Deity did not actually appear to Moses. However, when Moses "spoke to the Lord face to face as a man speaks unto his friend", then THAT is a true theophany. When the Elders of Israel "saw the God of Israel", then THAT was a true theophany. The pillar of fire and the cloud were OBSCURING the view of the Lord so that all of Israel would not be looking directly upon God. That privilege was reserved for only a few.

                                7up: (Bill asserts that) when God is described in the form of a man in the Bible, it really isn't God at all and it cannot be taken literally, because in your view (or the typical Protestant/Catholic view) God has no true image or likeness to be seen at all.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                That's just plain stupid. If God had no form to be seen, then His words to Moses would make no sense. As I said, God is invisible to us because He wills it so. He is visible to the angels and to those in heaven, therefore saying "God has no true image or likeness to be seen at all" is a straw man of what Catholics and Protestants believe.
                                You called these manifestations "temporary creations". See above.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                It is the orthodox belief that God is invisible to us because He wills it so. It is NOT orthodox to believe that He is invisible forever to everyone.
                                What is the form of God then Bill? What does He look like?

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                And the orthodox Christian view is that God has a unique omnipresent form that He does not ever allow us to see on earth. And Jesus said the same thing. NO MAN has seen God.
                                "Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there..." (Exodus 24:10)

                                Plus, your quote from Jesus is ignoring the whole of scripture and what it has to say about men seeing God. As I have demonstrated many, many times, God can speak face to face with men, but not while in all His glory; otherwise, sinful man would die in his presence. (see also 1 Corinthians 1:29).

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                False. When something manifests as a theophany of God, it is said to be God, not a "representation".
                                Even here you have to say that "it is said to be God". So, is it just "said to be God", or is it really God? Is it just a "manifestation that disappears from existence" like you claimed earlier?

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                The same way Moses could stare at the burning bush while God was still omnipresent. The same way the Holy Spirit could manifest as flames over everyone in the Upper Room while still being omnipresent. You aren't even TRYING to get it, are you?
                                Again, the burning bush was not a true theophany. When Jesus was baptized, there was a voice from Heaven (a single location) who was the Father speaking. The Father was not seen. The Son was in the water with John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit descended from Heaven. None of them were a "unique omnipresent form" as you claim. When speaking of the Person of God, there is always a location, "in Heaven". He is not literally omnipresent.

                                Again, if God the Father is literally everywhere, it makes no sense for Jesus to say, "Hold me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father." Jesus had to go to a place in order to be with the Father. Your theology is not Biblical, it is not consistent, and it is not logical.

                                7up: The word "mystic" isn't used in that article at all. Not even once.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                In that article, no. That one is about false ideas of philosophers who try to "de-personalize' God.
                                That article goes well beyond that and you know it. After Cherbonnier disagrees with your "timeless eternity" God, he take the logic of a God who lives within time and space and explains as follows:

                                Carrying this logic one step further, Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, “All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not.”

                                What are the reasons why this conception of God has not been taken seriously by intellectuals, Christian or otherwise? Their reasons for opposing it are understandable and even admirable. They want to preserve the integrity of human reason against the credulity and superstition which often accompany religion. They want to show the thinking man that Christianity does not insult his intelligence. To that end, many theologians are unhappy with what they often refer to as “crude anthropomorphism,” and some even go out of their way to repudiate it altogether. They perceive it as a relic of a primitive mentality, wishful thinking, childish fantasy, or the projection of the father image upon the heavens.


                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                On specific grounds that are not biblically based. He is not refuting orthodox belief and theology. He is refuting unorthodox philosophy that had creeped into the religious academic instuitutions and the theological discussions of philosophers and scholars.
                                He is DEFENDING the LDS view of scripture and the LITERAL meaning of the original text. When the Elders of Israel saw God, they actually saw God and described what they saw under God's feet. (Yes, God has feet.) When Moses spoke to God face to face "as a man speaks unto his friend", it means what it says. When you speak to your friend face to face, that was the kind of experience that Moses had with God, speaking to another Person face to face.

                                "When the Bible says that the walls of Jericho fell, it means it. Whether in fact they did fall is a separate issue. But it does not help matters to search the text for some other, hidden meaning. ... What then do the biblical authors mean when they speak of God? Are they speaking literally or not? Thanks to two centuries of scholarship, this is no longer a matter of guesswork, nor is it a question which anyone is free to answer as he pleases—anyone, that is, who respects the results of critical investigation. For biblical scholarship is unanimous in confirming what the Mormons have always held: that the God of the Bible is a personal Agent with a proper name. This conception might or might not be valid; that is a separate issue. But from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible conceives of God in the same terms that are peculiar to human beings, such as speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action."

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                No I don't. The mere fact that He interacts with us refutes your strawman claim. Cherbonnier claims that God is independent from the created world, just like we both do.
                                I never asserted that you believe in a God who does not interact with us. So quit bringing it up as if I did.

                                Just because God is independent from the created world, does not mean that his state prior to the creation of this Universe was a state outside of time and space entirely. Cherbonnier also argues that our existence is similar to the existence of God and not "entirely other" as Christians often claim. "Traditional theologians" often speak of God as a being completely different in kind from us, not only in space and time, but also in a "metaphysical sense", and Cherbonnier argues against that.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                Which means to Cherbonnier that God interacts with creation, which an impersonal "timeless" force does not.
                                The typical "Christian" view is that God is personal, but exists "outside of time." Cherbonnier explained why he disagrees with this as a contradiction of terms. (See above.) In fact, it would be impossible for the Father and Son to have a relationship with one another in an existence without time. Before the creation of the Universe as we know it, there still had to be time and space in order for the Father and Son to relate to each other.

                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                Again, when we look at what Cherbonnier is actually saying, and not what you wish he was saying, then yes, we do agree.
                                Do you?

                                -7up
                                Last edited by seven7up; 08-10-2014, 05:11 AM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X