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
    You made the accusation. Now back it up. (It should be easy, all you have to do is take the quotes as they appear on the FAIR websites, and see how it corresponds to the quotes that I provided on this forum. If they are a perfect match ... then , well , you got me.)
    Well, the initial post you made mentioning Cherbonnier was here:

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post54389

    The entirety of the list from Thales to Plotinus you stole was verbatim from here:

    http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/whothe.htm

    So, unless you are Kerry Shirts, you stole from him.

    Then you add a brief piece of commentary reminiscent of J.Reuben Clark's speech in One Hundred Sixteenth Semi-annual Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Conference Report, October 1945]

    Next, you list Tertullian and Origen directly from Bickmore's "Doctrinal Trends in Early Christianity and the Strength of the Mormon Position” on Pg 2 on the middle of the first paragraph

    http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content...ristianity.pdf

    You then make a simple reference to Cherbonnier's article. This piece is cited by both of them in other works, a host of other articles on FAIR, Jeff Lindsey, Kerry Shirts, and dozens of other sites. So I was wrong on that part for claiming that you stole "the Cherbonnier quotes" from somewhere else, since you did not actually quote him in your original post. But you did steal almost the entirety of the rest of your post without citing where you got them from, and that is against the rules.
    Last edited by Bill the Cat; 06-12-2014, 10:42 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


    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      On this, Cherbonnier and I disagree. For being somewhere, "wherever He wants to be" implies that He is not anywhere else at that time. This would mean that the person of God the Spirit could only indwell one person at a time, and thus have to leave everyone else. However, I've not come across where Cherbonnier ever explained what he meant by "wherever He wants to be" if God wanted to be in 2 places at the same time.

      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?

      Even in mortality, Jesus Christ had power over the stormy seas without literally having to touch it all with his physical hands.



      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


      • 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,..." (emphasis added)

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        In the article on anthropomorphism, Cherbonnier uses specific terms and specific definitions, which I have cited several times now. You and other LDS are using the same terms with different definitions, yet claiming they mean the same thing. What he means is not what you mean.
        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.

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

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        No, he never defended it. He merely called it consistent. He never once said, yes God is an exalted human being, and that His "person" is one of flesh and bone.
        You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone). 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). 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, as I discuss below.

        Now back to the article. In the quote above, Cherbonnier defended two specific aspects of the LDS viewpoint, by saying that these two concepts are "Biblical". 1) Matter is good - thus the LDS viewpoint cannot be attacked from that position. 2) A disembodied being (a spirit only) would be better off if it had a body. Not only are these two LDS perspectives consistent with its own theology, but Cherbonnier clearly says they are consistent with the Bible. Please admit that Cherbonnier is calling the LDS views on these two things as being Biblical, for the sake of your dwindling credibility.

        7UP: So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Omnipresence makes no sense if God is not existing within space right now.
        But in a recent post to me, you denied the "mystic" view that God is diffused throughout all of space and time. So, do you claim that God exists in space in time, but God is not omnipresent in space and time?

        Furthermore, when it comes to theophanies, you claimed that God must be creating some kind of localized puppet manifestations, supposed apparitions of God's presence (while God is at the same time literally omnipresent). Then this temporary things just disappear from time and space when the event is over. So that doesn't really count as God actually existing in time and space either. You see, you are forced to take these "schizophrenic" and contradictory viewpoints, just as Cherbonnier described it. You said:

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat
        ...my belief, like Augustine's were that they were temporary "created instruments of God’s presence" that ceased to exist after their disappearance.
        And your Biblical support of this concept is found where? And how can God have a local "presence", if God is literally "omnipresent"?

        7up wrote: Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat
        On this matter, yes. And he is absolutely wrong in this matter. I do not expect to agree 100% with everyone, nor do I expect anyone to be 100% correct,...
        And you scoffed when I said, "I never said that Cherbonnier agrees with every aspect of Mormon theology...." So, you demonstrate your hypocrisy.

        Nevertheless, it is obvious that Cherbonnier is describing the superior existence of spirit combined with physicality as the "Biblical" point of view, a concept which is closer to the LDS perspective compared to your contradictory viewpoint. A disembodied spirit is to be pitied.

        As this conversation develops, you will see that Cherbonnier and the mainstream Christian view, including yours, do not agree in many places. Look at all the twisting you will have to do to the Westminster Confession of Faith , or twisting Cherbonnier, in order to try and pretend that they are meaning the same things.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Did I say he said it? Did I cite him anywhere saying it?
        Right, so just admit that Cherbonnier is taking a position closer to the LDS position than yours when it comes to that topic.

        7up wrote: Demonstrate where mainstream Christianity denies that God... is "invisible" as part of his nature.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        I've already cited Augustine's response to that, and I believe it suffices.
        You HAD to quote Augustine. You certainly couldn't quote Cherbonnier, because you must admit that there are different perspectives between them. Concerning God being "invisible", Cherbonnier argues that God should not be understood as "invisible" as a matter of principle. He quotes Rudolf Bultmann who said,

        "God is not invisible to the senses as a matter of principle. Indeed, Hebrew has no word for ‘invisible.’ God is invisible because he wills to be so."

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        It is Augustine's belief, as Cherbonnier notes as well, that God is invisible as a matter of principle,...
        Cherbonnier notes it, and disagrees with it. So, on this concept, as well as others, you are agreeing with Augustine, while Cherbonnier is agreeing with the LDS. Cherbonnier expands on the concept:

        "For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world ... 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."
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        7up wrote: Do you agree with this explanation concerning God being "invisible"?

        For the latter (the biblical God), Augustine describes similarly as Cherbonnier in refuting the Homoians. At the beginning of De Trinitate, Augustine explains Mt. 5:8:

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        For the most part. For the former (the mystic god), Cherbonnier refers to their god who is wholly incapable of manifestation, vision, or experience, ever. He simply is wholly unable to be seen by anything as a matter of his existence.
        That is NOT what Cherbonnier said. Read his argument again. It is right there. Cherbonnier disagrees that God is invisible as a matter of principle (or as a part of God's nature.)

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Augustine’s judgment is that all three Persons of the Trinity will be seen only at the completion of history.
        And what? Only to disappear again and return to God's original "invisible" state?

        7up wrote: the true God can exist outside time and space as we know and understand it.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        That is William Lane Craig's understanding as well. I hold to the belief of classical theologians who declare the eternal "Now" that God exists in. But, I do realize this causes some other issues that I don't feel able to respond to from a philosophic standpoint.
        So, when it comes to this, yet another specific topic related to the articles, you and other "classical theologians" are at odds with myself, with Cherbonnier, and with William Lane Craig. Again Cherbonnier explains this as follows:
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
        "Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense...., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation...."

        Then from the second article, Cherbonnier disagrees with your God existing in the "eternal now":

        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."
        - - - - - - - - - -

        7up wrote : (Cherbonnier) praised the consistency of LDS beliefs, AND criticized the inconsistency of believing in an anthropomorphic God who is also, and in contradiction, supposedly outside time and space, supposedly literally omnipresent, etc.


        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        AS DEFINED BY THE MYSTICS AND PANTHEISTS
        As we can see again, on yet another topic, your view and the mystical view are difficult to distinguish from one another.

        7up wrote: He barely stopped short of it, but existing in time and space implies having a corporeal existence.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        No it doesn't. Spirits are non-corporeal, yet they exist in time and space.
        Again, I would not claim to know that spirits exist in time and space in the same way that we do, or in time and space as we understand it.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Even Talmage agreed that the spirit-man was not corporeal:
        Source: Section 88 The Olive Leaf, Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002), retrieved from lds.org


        It is quite the rule to regard the soul as that incorporeal part of men, that immortal part which existed before the body was framed and which shall continue to exist after that body has gone to decay; nevertheless, that is not the soul; that is only a part of the soul; that is the spirit-man, the form in which every individual of us, and every individual human being, existed before called to take tabernacle in the flesh.

        © Copyright Original Source



        You are misunderstanding Talmage here, who used the term "incorporeal" to refer to how other religions think of the soul, and how they use the term to refer the non-physical aspect of our being. In an unrelated topic to what Talmage was addressing specifically here, is that it is very clear that LDS teaches about a "spirit body" (like seen by the Brother of Jared in the Book of Mormon) and a "physical body", which are both ultimately corporeal, because in LDS theology "all spirit is matter, only more refined or pure". That is why Talmage says that the spirit body is the "form" we existed in before being born n the flesh.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        And laypersons too agree that spirits are not corporeal:
        Source: http://mormonfaq.com/faqs-part-2/why-do-mormons-baptize-for-the-dead


        However, spirits cannot perform ordinances that can only be performed by corporeal beings

        © Copyright Original Source



        These "lay persons" were not being clear about the idea of spirit being a different kind of matter, in LDS theology, but still is matter nontheless. So, technically, by definition, if it is a form of it can be called "corporeal." That is why when the Holy Spirit was seen descending upon the Savior at his baptism, it was seen to have descended "like a dove", in bodily form.

        This Greek term for 'bodily form' is somatikos, meaning: corporeal, bodily, having a bodily form or nature, pertaining to the body

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Matt also says
        Source: http://carm.org/how-does-christianity-define-god-essence


        He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are.

        © Copyright Original Source



        We are not ONLY physical. We are spirit AND matter. Like Jesus.

        Source: http://carm.org/how-does-christianity-define-god-essence


        He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are. He is not limited to space and time as we are. He's different--not the same as us.

        © Copyright Original Source



        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Notice, Matt does not say that He is not personal, like Cherbonnier is using the term "wholly other" to describe mystic views.
        Where does Cherbonnier claim that Deity exists outside space or time? Furthermore, the resurrected Jesus demonstrated amazing abilities, which appear to be outside space and time as we know it, but the Lord still had a physical/corporeal body, and ascends and descends and has true physical and locational presence.

        And, where does Cherbonnier claim that God is a different kind of being from what we are?

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        I already quoted Cherbonnier's definition of what he meant by "wholly other". You, again, are using his words to mean something he is not saying.
        Source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/pdfs/elc-charts_logic-Bib-Anthr.pdf



        "God can not be known: He or it is "wholly other" and beyond words. When man becomes one with God, even this is unknowable, because there is nothing and no one to be known

        © Copyright Original Source



        Cherbonnier is saying that God is the same kind of being that we are. Certainly he isn't arguing for the "incomprehisible" God of the creeds. This statement by Cherbonnier is quite opposed to the kind of "ontological divide" that you espouse Bill.

        - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

        Emphasis mine

        Do you get that Bill? He is saying there is not a metaphysical difference between God and man. And you say?

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Now, if you honestly can sit there with a straight face and say that traditional Christians believe God is "nothing and no one", then there is no further hope for this conversation.
        I am not saying that is the traditional Christian viewpoint. You are quoting a completely different article which addresses full fledged mysticism. In these two articles that we are discussing, Cherbonnier opposes some of the merged manifestations of mysticism within Christianity, where mystic perspectives were attempted to be injected into the interpretation of Biblical texts, but are at their core contradictory.

        -7up

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Well, the initial post you made mentioning Cherbonnier was here:
          http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post54389

          I did not quote from Cherbonnier on that post at all. And when I did quote from Cherbonnier, it was starting in post #146 and I clearly did my own quoting from the original article, and nothing from any LDS websites was comparable to the sections I quoted, as you just certainly realized while performing your thorough investigation.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          The entirety of the list from Thales to Plotinus you stole was verbatim from here:
          http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/whothe.htm

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          So, unless you are Kerry Shirts, you stole from him.
          Actually, my list is not the same. I just checked it against Shirts' list. Mine has fewer philosophers listed and mine contains more brief quotes. That list was actually on my hard drive. Furthermore, even that list on the site you gave does not belong to Kerry Shirts. There is an old list compiled and passed on from unknown students, I believe from a philosophy class at BYU from years and years ago. Also note that I did not refer to anything close to Kerry Shirts' commentary on that page.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Then you add a brief piece of commentary reminiscent of J.Reuben Clark's speech in One Hundred Sixteenth Semi-annual Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Conference Report, October 1945]
          Really? My commentary was "reminiscent" of it? Good grief Bill.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Next, you list Tertullian and Origen directly from Bickmore's "Doctrinal Trends in Early Christianity and the Strength of the Mormon Position” on Pg 2 on the middle of the first paragraph
          http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content...ristianity.pdf

          "The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions."

          The original quote, which is often cited by many LDS authors, like John A. Tvedtnes in Is God Only a Spirit, is from Ronald E. Heine, Origin Homilies on Genesis (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1982), 89.

          No intention to be sloppy, but I am involved with 12 different discussions with several different people per thread, on this forum alone. The reality of how I got to that particular quote is that I remembered what Origen said, or at least a part of it, and it supports the point that I was making at that moment, then I put what I remember in the search engine because I did not want to misquote it. I have no problem citing sources, and if you like I can provide every single one, especially if it means that you will perhaps concentrate more on the points being made, rather than attempting to distract from the discussion and the arguments being made.

          Another common quote on this topic from Origen is from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.i.html, which indicates that Origen, among other early Christians, did not have any knowledge about the nature of God as being corporeal or not:

          "We shall inquire, however, whether the thing which Greek philosophers call ἀσώματον, or “incorporeal,” is found in holy Scripture under another name. For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood,—whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies,—a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching."

          This absence of a stance on the corporeality of God among these Christians allowed for the "mystic" or the Greek Philosophical Monotheism concept of God taking over as the popular viewpoint, and thus Christianity eventually embraced this idea of God being outside time and space altogether, and not of any corporeal nature or shape.

          Uh oh, this paragraph just above might be "reminiscent" of an LDS article concerning the apostasy. I'm sure you can find a paragraph similar to it. Perhaps not the same words or phrases, but a similar theme.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          You then make a simple reference to Cherbonnier's article. This piece is cited by both of them in other works, a host of other articles on FAIR, Jeff Lindsey, Kerry Shirts, and dozens of other sites. So I was wrong on that part for claiming that you stole "the Cherbonnier quotes" from somewhere else, since you did not actually quote him in your original post.
          You are wrong about a lot of things Bill. Look at the quotes from Cherbonnier starting in post 146. I did not take the Cherbonnier quotes from anywhere but the original article.

          -7up

          Comment


          • I will be gone for the next 4 days. Will get back to it once I return.
            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
              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?
              Then the whole "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit is false. If He does not, in fact, dwell inside us, and only "influences us", then the scriptures lie.

              John 14:16-17
              And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

              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, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

              1 Corinthians 3:16-17
              Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

              1 Corinthians 6:19
              Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?


              Even in mortality, Jesus Christ had power over the stormy seas without literally having to touch it all with his physical hands.
              Did Jesus say He dwelled in the stormy seas? Or that He had authority over them?


              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's quote does not address the separate god called "the Holy Ghost", so it is a red herring.
              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


              • Just a quick aside...

                In another thread discussing "Mother God", I found an article which suggests that THAT concept (Mother God) is in tension with another Mormon concept -- The Trinity!

                (bolding mine)
                Source: BYU Studies - BYU Studies 50, no. 1 (2011) “A Mother There” - A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven (page 79)


                The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother appears to be in tension with Mormonism’s trinitarian heritage.

                Overemphasizing the Trinity, or the Godhead, while underemphasizing a Heavenly Mother raises questions concerning the equality of deified males and females and the nature and importance of marriage. On the other hand, overemphasizing Heavenly Mother breaks with traditional Christian, and even Mormon, understandings of the Trinity, but highlights the Church’s own proclamation that the most important social unit in eternity is the family. It is no simple feat to understand how these two social relationships—the Trinity and the eternal family—can best be understood together. For one, given traditional Mormon premises, a Heavenly Mother interacts with the Trinity in a certain and irresolvable sense. As there can be no spirit children without her, presumably there would be no Son without her and perhaps no Holy Ghost —no Heavenly Mother, perhaps no Trinity. It should be no surprise, then, that most Mormon leaders could not understand how Father or Mother could be divine alone. For either to be fully God, each must have a partner with whom to share the power of endless lives.

                © Copyright Original Source



                I have to wonder if this is one of the reasons the Mormon "Trinity" was devolved or changed from the original Trinitarian teachings of Mormonism.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Just a quick aside...

                  In another thread discussing "Mother God", I found an article which suggests that THAT concept (Mother God) is in tension with another Mormon concept -- The Trinity!

                  (bolding mine)
                  Source: BYU Studies - BYU Studies 50, no. 1 (2011) “A Mother There” - A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven (page 79)


                  The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother appears to be in tension with Mormonism’s trinitarian heritage.

                  Overemphasizing the Trinity, or the Godhead, while underemphasizing a Heavenly Mother raises questions concerning the equality of deified males and females and the nature and importance of marriage. On the other hand, overemphasizing Heavenly Mother breaks with traditional Christian, and even Mormon, understandings of the Trinity, but highlights the Church’s own proclamation that the most important social unit in eternity is the family. It is no simple feat to understand how these two social relationships—the Trinity and the eternal family—can best be understood together. For one, given traditional Mormon premises, a Heavenly Mother interacts with the Trinity in a certain and irresolvable sense. As there can be no spirit children without her, presumably there would be no Son without her and perhaps no Holy Ghost —no Heavenly Mother, perhaps no Trinity. It should be no surprise, then, that most Mormon leaders could not understand how Father or Mother could be divine alone. For either to be fully God, each must have a partner with whom to share the power of endless lives.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  I have to wonder if this is one of the reasons the Mormon "Trinity" was devolved or changed from the original Trinitarian teachings of Mormonism.
                  They keep talking about THE heavenly mother, when according to the LDS church, God has many wives. So it should be heavenly mothers. And since there are more of them than their are of the Father, maybe they need to form a union or something to get some praying rights.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    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,..." (emphasis added)
                    So, you respond to my post accusing you of using different meaning for theological words by citing just the words again??


                    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 never once elucidated a Mormon belief and then claimed it was valid. He gave brief quotes and lauded their consistency from a philosophic standpoint in his opinion. I challenge you to cite one instance where he spells out a Mormon doctrine and declares the doctrine as true. And I don't mean just using a similar word, like "anthropomorphism", which I have clearly shown means something different to Mormons and him.

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



                    You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone). 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). 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, as I discuss below.
                    He defends the premise that it is consistent with the attribution of human responses to God, but he does not defend any such premise that it is actually true.

                    Now back to the article. In the quote above, Cherbonnier defended two specific aspects of the LDS viewpoint, by saying that these two concepts are "Biblical". 1) Matter is good - thus the LDS viewpoint cannot be attacked from that position.
                    To which Christians agree. Only mystics and gnostics believe matter is evil - thus his critique is against mystics and gnostics.

                    2) A disembodied being (a spirit only) would be better off if it had a body.
                    This makes an assumption that Cherbonnier means a pre-incarnate spirit. You are again taking something he broadly states from the Bible and shoehorning it to agree with Mormon doctrines of pre-existence. He is noting that your doctrine is not anti-biblical in that aspect alone. He makes no positive statement of pre-existence or of exaltation. He is philosophically refuting the idea that man shedding his flesh is better than having it, which, to me, is contrary to the Resurrection. Again, he is simply using a very few Mormon beliefs that are consistent with biblical principles to prop up his philosophical case against the mystics.

                    Not only are these two LDS perspectives consistent with its own theology, but Cherbonnier clearly says they are consistent with the Bible.
                    And I've said as much. But he does not go beyond that consistency to validate the majority parts of either doctrine.

                    Please admit that Cherbonnier is calling the LDS views on these two things as being Biblical, for the sake of your dwindling credibility.
                    Oh please. It's you who has zero credibility. You've plagiarized for years, apparently according to your own admission, and have acted like all of these quotes are original to you. Here is all that Cherbonnier is saying:

                    1) The LDS say that God has a body. This is consistent with the Biblical view of God being a personal God, and not just a passive force distributed throughout the universe, or one completely detached from it and unable to interact with it at all.

                    2) The LDS view says that matter is not evil. This is consistent with the Biblical view that disembodied human spirits are incomplete.

                    What Cherbonnier is NOT saying:

                    1) The LDS say that the Father has an exalted human body. This is a true doctrine as stated in the Bible.

                    2) The LDS view says that human spirits pre-existed creation. This is a true doctrine as stated in the Bible.

                    So, unless you have direct proof that Cherbonnier is claiming that the Father is an exalted human being from another mortality, or that human beings pre-existed as spirits before creation, then you are misusing what he is saying yet again.

                    7UP: So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space.



                    But in a recent post to me, you denied the "mystic" view that God is diffused throughout all of space and time.
                    Do you know what "diffused" means?

                    dif·fuse
                    verb
                    past tense: diffused; past participle: diffused
                    /diˈfyo͞oz/

                    1) spread or cause to spread over a wide area or among a large number of people
                    2) become or cause (a fluid, gas, individual atom, etc.) to become intermingled with a substance by movement

                    It means the mystics think that God's whole existence, or "body" for lack of a better term, is spread out over and actually IS the universe, and that any individual thing is simply a small, "diffused" part of God.

                    So, do you claim that God exists in space in time, but God is not omnipresent in space and time?
                    No.

                    Furthermore, when it comes to theophanies, you claimed that God must be creating some kind of localized puppet manifestations, supposed apparitions of God's presence (while God is at the same time literally omnipresent). Then this temporary things just disappear from time and space when the event is over. So that doesn't really count as God actually existing in time and space either. You see, you are forced to take these "schizophrenic" and contradictory viewpoints, just as Cherbonnier described it.
                    No. That is just your stupidity and inability to seriously consider what I am saying. God DOES exist in space and time through His interactions with it. What Cherbonnier was saying is that theophanies disprove a mystic god who does not interact with time and space.

                    You said:



                    And your Biblical support of this concept is found where?
                    Where did the pilar of fire go? Where did the finger of God go?

                    And how can God have a local "presence", if God is literally "omnipresent"?
                    Stupidity like this is why you are not getting it. BECAUSE He is omnipresent, He can locally manifest, even in more than one place if He so chooses. Do you really think He left heaven abandoned while He was with the High Priest in the tabernacle? Or even when he supposedly came to see Joseph Smith? Was heaven unguarded?


                    7up wrote: Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier.



                    And you scoffed when I said, "I never said that Cherbonnier agrees with every aspect of Mormon theology...." So, you demonstrate your hypocrisy.
                    No, moron. I took issue with your abuse of Cherbonnier in general, not a single specific aspect of it.


                    Nevertheless, it is obvious that Cherbonnier is describing the superior existence of spirit combined with physicality as the "Biblical" point of view, a concept which is closer to the LDS perspective compared to your contradictory viewpoint. A disembodied spirit is to be pitied.
                    A spirit had to have a body FIRST in order to become "disembodied". When it is away from the body, it is incomplete, meaning when the body dies. That is what Cherbonnier was saying. He was not arguing for the pre-existence of the spirit.


                    As this conversation develops, you will see that Cherbonnier and the mainstream Christian view, including yours, do not agree in many places.
                    Whatever you say. What I am seeing is what I said at the outset - that you do not understand what he was arguing against, and therefore you are shoehorning his arguments to fit your preconceived agenda. And it's pathetic.

                    Look at all the twisting you will have to do to the Westminster Confession of Faith , or twisting Cherbonnier, in order to try and pretend that they are meaning the same things.
                    No I never did that. I am saying that what Cherbonnier means is NOT what you are trying to make him mean.


                    Right, so just admit that Cherbonnier is taking a position closer to the LDS position than yours when it comes to that topic.
                    No he isn't. He is taking a position closer to the LDS than the MYSTICS. Mine was never in Cherbonnier's mind when he was arguing against them. Yet, you refuse to even admit that he was arguing against the mystics, so your feeble attempts can be summarily dismissed. You are completely incompetent, as everyone is seeing it.
                    7up wrote: Demonstrate where mainstream Christianity denies that God... is "invisible" as part of his nature.



                    You HAD to quote Augustine. You certainly couldn't quote Cherbonnier, because you must admit that there are different perspectives between them. Concerning God being "invisible", Cherbonnier argues that God should not be understood as "invisible" as a matter of principle.
                    When someone does something as "a matter of principle", it is a choice, not an act out of obeissance to nature.

                    "The corporation that owns this store uses child labor. I am not buying things from here as a matter of principle."

                    He quotes Rudolf Bultmann who said,

                    "God is not invisible to the senses as a matter of principle. Indeed, Hebrew has no word for ‘invisible.’ God is invisible because he wills to be so."
                    Bultmann is using the phrase differently from how I am. God is not love as a matter of principle. He is love by nature. He is not holy as a matter of principle. He is holy by nature. He IS invisible as a matter of principle, not by nature.


                    Cherbonnier notes it, and disagrees with it.
                    Not how I used the term.

                    Source: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/as+a+matter+of+principle


                    on principle also as a matter of principle
                    according to a moral rule or personal belief

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    It's a choice for God to remain unseen. If He is completely invisible by nature, then the threat that no man may see Him and live is empty. It is basic Christian theology that God can mask His glory and appear in various forms, as He did in the OT.

                    So, on this concept, as well as others, you are agreeing with Augustine, while Cherbonnier is agreeing with the LDS. Cherbonnier expands on the concept:

                    "For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world ... 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."
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    7up wrote: Do you agree with this explanation concerning God being "invisible"?

                    For the latter (the biblical God), Augustine describes similarly as Cherbonnier in refuting the Homoians. At the beginning of De Trinitate, Augustine explains Mt. 5:8:



                    That is NOT what Cherbonnier said. Read his argument again. It is right there. Cherbonnier disagrees that God is invisible as a matter of principle (or as a part of God's nature.)
                    He is using the phrase to mean as a matter of the basic principles that define a thing. I am not.


                    And what? Only to disappear again and return to God's original "invisible" state?
                    No. There will no longer be a need for God to remain invisible by choice (Is that better?). We will be able to behold Him in all of His spiritual glory.

                    7up wrote: the true God can exist outside time and space as we know and understand it.



                    So, when it comes to this, yet another specific topic related to the articles, you and other "classical theologians" are at odds with myself, with Cherbonnier, and with William Lane Craig.
                    Craig postulates some sort of "divine time flow" which completely differs from ours.

                    Again Cherbonnier explains this as follows:
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
                    "Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense...., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation...."

                    Then from the second article, Cherbonnier disagrees with your God existing in the "eternal now":

                    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."
                    - - - - - - - - - -

                    7up wrote : (Cherbonnier) praised the consistency of LDS beliefs, AND criticized the inconsistency of believing in an anthropomorphic God who is also, and in contradiction, supposedly outside time and space, supposedly literally omnipresent, etc.




                    As we can see again, on yet another topic, your view and the mystical view are difficult to distinguish from one another.
                    Only if you completely ignore what the words mean in each system.

                    7up wrote: He barely stopped short of it, but existing in time and space implies having a corporeal existence.



                    Again, I would not claim to know that spirits exist in time and space in the same way that we do, or in time and space as we understand it.
                    Are demons spirits? Do they exist on earth? Can they interact with our time and space?



                    Source: Section 88 The Olive Leaf, Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002), retrieved from lds.org


                    It is quite the rule to regard the soul as that incorporeal part of men, that immortal part which existed before the body was framed and which shall continue to exist after that body has gone to decay; nevertheless, that is not the soul; that is only a part of the soul; that is the spirit-man, the form in which every individual of us, and every individual human being, existed before called to take tabernacle in the flesh.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    You are misunderstanding Talmage here, who used the term "incorporeal" to refer to how other religions think of the soul, and how they use the term to refer the non-physical aspect of our being.
                    No I am not. "Other religions" do not posit an "...immortal part which existed before the body was framed". That's you guys.

                    In an unrelated topic to what Talmage was addressing specifically here, is that it is very clear that LDS teaches about a "spirit body" (like seen by the Brother of Jared in the Book of Mormon) and a "physical body", which are both ultimately corporeal, because in LDS theology "all spirit is matter, only more refined or pure". That is why Talmage says that the spirit body is the "form" we existed in before being born n the flesh.



                    Source: http://mormonfaq.com/faqs-part-2/why-do-mormons-baptize-for-the-dead


                    However, spirits cannot perform ordinances that can only be performed by corporeal beings

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    These "lay persons" were not being clear about the idea of spirit being a different kind of matter, in LDS theology, but still is matter nontheless. So, technically, by definition, if it is a form of it can be called "corporeal." That is why when the Holy Spirit was seen descending upon the Savior at his baptism, it was seen to have descended "like a dove", in bodily form.

                    This Greek term for 'bodily form' is somatikos, meaning: corporeal, bodily, having a bodily form or nature, pertaining to the body
                    Meaning a physical composition. And since the Greeks saw things like the wind as incorporeal, despite moving and even affecting corporeal things:

                    Whereas modern readers often take "incorporeal" to be equivalent to "nonmaterial," this is not Aristotle's view. Having outlined [in De Anima] various philosophical accounts of the soul, all of which identify it with some kind of stuff, Aristotle concludes: "But all, or almost all, distinguish the soul by three of its attributes, movement, perception, and incorporeality" (I. 2. 405b). In other words, the soul could be incorporeal and still be composed of "stuff". One could believe that the soul should not be called "body" but still understand it as occupying space, as having a "place" (I. 3. 406a).

                    http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporeal#ixzz34p0KNlVU


                    Source: http://carm.org/how-does-christianity-define-god-essence


                    He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    We are not ONLY physical. We are spirit AND matter. Like Jesus.
                    You cited Matt Slick's use of "wholly other", and I showed you how he was using it differently from how Cherbonnier was arguing against a different usage than what Matt was employing. Now, you simply run ot the non sequitir

                    Source: http://carm.org/how-does-christianity-define-god-essence


                    He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are. He is not limited to space and time as we are. He's different--not the same as us.

                    © Copyright Original Source





                    Where does Cherbonnier claim that Deity exists outside space or time? Furthermore, the resurrected Jesus demonstrated amazing abilities, which appear to be outside space and time as we know it, but the Lord still had a physical/corporeal body, and ascends and descends and has true physical and locational presence.
                    But that doesn't at all mean that the Son is not anywhere else.

                    And, where does Cherbonnier claim that God is a different kind of being from what we are?
                    Well, considering all he was talking about was the claim by mystics that God was not a "personal being", why would he need to even mention that?


                    Source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/pdfs/elc-charts_logic-Bib-Anthr.pdf



                    "God can not be known: He or it is "wholly other" and beyond words. When man becomes one with God, even this is unknowable, because there is nothing and no one to be known

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Cherbonnier is saying that God is the same kind of being that we are. Certainly he isn't arguing for the "incomprehisible" God of the creeds. This statement by Cherbonnier is quite opposed to the kind of "ontological divide" that you espouse Bill.
                    Again, you handwave what is blatantly obvious for your bastardization of his arguments.

                    - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                    Emphasis mine

                    Do you get that Bill? He is saying there is not a metaphysical difference between God and man.
                    No. He is saying that the OPPOSITION between man and God is not metaphysical, but volitional - meaning the CONFLICT between God, who is Holy, and man, who is sinful is not one that results out of dissimilar existences, but is one of conscious choice. This fits into Cherbonnier's whole argument against the mystic, who declares that man is opposed to God because of their very nature and the nature of God, and that the conflict between man and God is one of choice, which both parties possess.


                    And you say?



                    I am not saying that is the traditional Christian viewpoint. You are quoting a completely different article which addresses full fledged mysticism. In these two articles that we are discussing, Cherbonnier opposes some of the merged manifestations of mysticism within Christianity, where mystic perspectives were attempted to be injected into the interpretation of Biblical texts, but are at their core contradictory.
                    But NOT Mainstream Christian beliefs, only mysticism masquerading under redefined Christian terminology... sort of like Mormonism tries to do.
                    Last edited by Bill the Cat; 06-16-2014, 12:13 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


                    • 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?


                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      Then the whole "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit is false. If He does not, in fact, dwell inside us, and only "influences us", then the scriptures lie.
                      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.

                      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.

                      God the Father is in heaven. (A local place and not omnipresent.)
                      Jesus Christ is in the water being baptized (A local place and not omnipresent.)
                      The Holy Spirit descends in bodily form like a dove (A local place and not omnipresent.)

                      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. Nevertheless, let's start simple, and we will see that your attempt at using these scriptures is inconsistent. 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? 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?)

                      Is it the Holy Spirit? Or the “Spirit of Christ”? Are you a modalist Bill? Those scriptures you cited are scriptures that modalists use to attempt support their position. Fortunately, for LDS, this is a topic which is enlightened by LDS scriptures and teachings.

                      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)

                      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)

                      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,”

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


                      Now, is the person of Jesus Christ literally living within each disciple? 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.

                      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. 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.)

                      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; Acts 7:55-56; Acts 8:14-19 ; Acts 10:44-48 ; Acts 19: 1-6 (See McConkie Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 2:78)

                      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).

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      BY's quote does not address the separate god called "the Holy Ghost", so it is a red herring.
                      It is not a red herring, because it is the same concept. In the scriptures, a personage who has a true local presence, like Jesus (and for the LDS, God the Father and the Holy Spirit), can still be considered to be able to dwell “with” you and “in” you.

                      -7up

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                        In the scriptures, a personage who has a true local presence...
                        I'm sorry, but Mickiel ruined this for me, always complaining about insults to his "personage".

                        As you were!
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • 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,..."

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          So, you respond to my post accusing you of using different meaning for theological words by citing just the words again??
                          You have yet to cite evidence that mainstream Christianity views or defines these terms in the same way that Cherbonnier does. 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".

                          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.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Bill: He never once elucidated a Mormon belief and then claimed it was valid. He gave brief quotes and lauded their consistency from a philosophic standpoint in his opinion. I challenge you to cite one instance where he spells out a Mormon doctrine and declares the doctrine as true.
                          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.

                          7up wrote: He never criticized (the LDS view), he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible. You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone). 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). 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
                          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Bill: He defends the premise that it is consistent with the attribution of human responses to God, but he does not defend any such premise that it is actually true.
                          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.

                          7UP: In the quote above, Cherbonnier defended two specific aspects of the LDS viewpoint, by saying that these two concepts are "Biblical". 1) Matter is good - thus the LDS viewpoint cannot be attacked from that position.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          To which Christians agree. Only mystics and gnostics believe matter is evil - thus his critique is against mystics and gnostics.
                          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. That alone is reason enough to quote Cherbonnier's arguments from an LDS perspective, .... but there is more.

                          7up: 2) A disembodied being (a spirit only) would be better off if it had a body.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          This makes an assumption that Cherbonnier means a pre-incarnate spirit. You are again taking something he broadly states from the Bible and shoehorning it to agree with Mormon doctrines of pre-existence.
                          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
                          He is noting that your doctrine is not anti-biblical in that aspect alone. He makes no positive statement of pre-existence or of exaltation. He is philosophically refuting the idea that man shedding his flesh is better than having it, which, to me, is contrary to the Resurrection. Again, he is simply using a very few Mormon beliefs that are consistent with biblical principles to prop up his philosophical case against the mystics.
                          It props up the philosophical case against the mystic view of a disembodied God.

                          7up: Not only are these two LDS perspectives consistent with its own theology, but Cherbonnier clearly says they are consistent with the Bible.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          And I've said as much. But he does not go beyond that consistency to validate the majority parts of either doctrine.
                          He doesn't have to. As long as the philosophical framework is both consistent with the Bible, and consistent with itself, the points made by Cherbonnier are valid. 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.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Here is all that Cherbonnier is saying:

                          1) The LDS say that God has a body. This is consistent with the Biblical view of God being a personal God, and not just a passive force distributed throughout the universe, ...

                          2) The LDS view says that matter is not evil. This is consistent with the Biblical view that disembodied human spirits are incomplete.
                          On 2, you added the term “human” in there, when Cherbonnier made no such qualification. In fact, just above you yourself admitted that this was a general statement. Nice try, but I would have thought that you knew me well enough to realize that you cannot get those slick moves past me.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          What Cherbonnier is NOT saying:

                          1) The LDS say that the Father has an exalted human body. This is a true doctrine as stated in the Bible.
                          LDS do not quote Cherbonnier by saying that he agreed that God is an exalted man.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          2) The LDS view says that human spirits pre-existed creation. This is a true doctrine as stated in the Bible.
                          LDS do not quote Cherbonnier by saying that he agreed that spirits pre-existed creation.

                          -7up

                          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,..."
                            This is what Mormons used to believe.

                            Source: The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine

                            The doctrines of God and man revealed in these sources were not greatly different from those of some of the religious denominations of the time. Marvin Hill has argued that the Mormon doctrine of man in New York contained elements of both Calvinism and Arminianism, though tending toward the latter. The following evidence shows that it was much closer to the moderate Arminian position, particularly in rejecting the Calvinist emphasis on absolute and unconditional predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, and absolute perseverance of the elect. It will further demonstrate that the doctrine of God preached and believed before 1835 was essentially trinitarian, with God the Father seen as an absolute personage of Spirit, Jesus Christ as a personage of tabernacle, and the Holy Ghost as an impersonal spiritual member of the Godhead.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Your error, Seven, is that you bought into this "line upon line" concept with regards to Mormon theology. What you CAN'T accept is that your religion started off Trinitarian, then changed throughout the Nauvoo experience.

                            Did GOD change from a Spirit to a "man" with flesh and bone? Or did Mormon Doctrine change?
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • God in Time and Space

                              God in Time and Space

                              7UP: So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space. … in a recent post to me, you denied the "mystic" view that God is diffused throughout all of space and time.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Do you know what "diffused" means?
                              Yes. Yes I do.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              dif·fuse
                              verb
                              past tense: diffused; past participle: diffused
                              /diˈfyo͞oz/

                              1) spread or cause to spread over a wide area or among a large number of people
                              2) become or cause (a fluid, gas, individual atom, etc.) to become intermingled with a substance by movement

                              It means the mystics think that God's whole existence, or "body" for lack of a better term, is spread out over and actually IS the universe, and that any individual thing is simply a small, "diffused" part of God.
                              You are using the definition incorrectly. The definition calls for something to be “intermingled” with the substance, but not being the same as the substance of the Universe itself. This is why when they say “diffused” it is not the same as saying that God IS the universe; it is not a statement of pantheism.

                              7UP: So, do you claim that God exists in space in time, but God is not omnipresent in space and time?

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              No.
                              Alrighty then.

                              7UP: Furthermore, when it comes to theophanies, you claimed that God must be creating some kind of localized puppet manifestations, supposed apparitions of God's presence (while God is at the same time literally omnipresent). Then this temporary things just disappear from time and space when the event is over. So that doesn't really count as God actually existing in time and space either. You see, you are forced to take these "schizophrenic" and contradictory viewpoints, just as Cherbonnier described it.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              No. That is just your stupidity and inability to seriously consider what I am saying.
                              Um, you hadn't given your position yet. I cannot consider something that you have not described; And I certainly cannot consider seriously something that you have not explained consistently.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              God DOES exist in space and time through His interactions with it.
                              So, God is NOT literally omnipresent? Are you taking more of a LDS position now, that God can interact and influence everything without literally being everywhere?

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              What Cherbonnier was saying is that theophanies disprove a mystic god who does not interact with time and space.
                              Not only that, but He explains that Catholics and Protestants tend to "condescend" the LDS viewpoint when their perspective on God becomes too much like a "person":
                              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                              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. 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. 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. - Cherbonnier (emphasis added)
                              - - - - - - - - - -
                              It is pretty clear that Cherbonnier is opening up his paper, by explaining that Protestants and Catholics are falling into error when they attempt to criticize the Mormon point of view of God living within time and space. Cherbonnier comes right out and agrees with the LDS view that God is temporal, by saying, 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.

                              Do you agree with Cherbonnier on this? Do you think that "mainstream Christianity" would describe God in the same way that Cherbonnier does here? Please show evidence that "mainstream Christians" do NOT view God as dwelling in a "timeless eternity".

                              7up: And your Biblical support of this concept (that theophanies were nothing more than temporary creations) is found where?

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Where did the pilar of fire go? Where did the finger of God go?
                              That is what I am asking you (although the pillar of fire was not a theophany). For example, when God walked in the Garden of Eden, where in the Bible does it say that this was just a temporary manifestation of God that came from or returned to Nihilo?

                              7up: And how can God have a local "presence", if God is literally "omnipresent"?

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Stupidity like this is why you are not getting it. BECAUSE He is omnipresent, He can locally manifest,...
                              But not literally omnipresent, right? Instead He is only omnipresent by means of interactions and influence. That is what it appears you were saying above. Correct me if I am wrong about what you were saying.

                              Furthermore, those local manifestations were not God himself, but instead, according to you, just an "interaction" from God. But, the text does not say that "a temporary apparition, which is not actually God, was walking in the Garden of Eden". It doesn't say that God created something to appear in the Garden and then just evaporated afterwards. It seems more like an appearance, much like the resurrected Christ to the Apostles.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Do you really think He left heaven abandoned while He was with the High Priest in the tabernacle? Or even when he supposedly came to see Joseph Smith? Was heaven unguarded?
                              There are plenty of beings (people, angels, etc) to occupy heaven, even if God the Father decides to walk in the Garden of Eden for a few days. Furthermore, His influence and power would still be there.

                              7up wrote: Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier. And you scoffed when I said, "I never said that Cherbonnier agrees with every aspect of Mormon theology...." So, you demonstrate your hypocrisy.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              No, moron. I took issue with your abuse of Cherbonnier in general, not a single specific aspect of it.
                              You have not effectively demonstrated how I have "abused Cherbonnier"; whether it be in general or specifically.

                              7up: Nevertheless, it is obvious that Cherbonnier is describing the superior existence of spirit combined with physicality as the "Biblical" point of view, a concept which is closer to the LDS perspective compared to your contradictory viewpoint. A disembodied spirit is to be pitied.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              A spirit had to have a body FIRST in order to become "disembodied". When it is away from the body, it is incomplete, meaning when the body dies. That is what Cherbonnier was saying. He was not arguing for the pre-existence of the spirit.
                              Again. He doesn't have to be arguing for the "pre-existence" of a spirit. Just that, in general, it is preferable for a being to have a body, rather than not having one.

                              7up: As this conversation develops, you will see that Cherbonnier and the mainstream Christian view, including yours, do not agree in many places.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Whatever you say. What I am seeing is what I said at the outset - that you do not understand what he was arguing against, and therefore you are shoehorning his arguments to fit your preconceived agenda. And it's pathetic.
                              As seen above, he is arguing against a God who dwells in a "timeless eternity". This is an error about God's existence that Catholics and Protestants tend to make.

                              7up: Look at all the twisting you will have to do to the Westminster Confession of Faith , or twisting Cherbonnier, in order to try and pretend that they are meaning the same things.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              No I never did that. I am saying that what Cherbonnier means is NOT what you are trying to make him mean.
                              In this section, I am saying that Cherbonnier argued for a "temporal" God. He says, "Quite consistently with this view, Mormons also conceive God as temporal, not eternal in the sense of timeless. ... 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."

                              By the way, the ... in the above quote is where Cherbonnier chimes in, and gives his agreement.

                              7UP: Right, so just admit that Cherbonnier is taking a position closer to the LDS position than yours when it comes to that topic.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              No he isn't. He is taking a position closer to the LDS than the MYSTICS. Mine was never in Cherbonnier's mind when he was arguing against them. Yet, you refuse to even admit that he was arguing against the mystics, so your feeble attempts can be summarily dismissed. You are completely incompetent, as everyone is seeing it.
                              He hadn't even brought up "mystics" in this article. The only groups he brought up so far in the text, as seen above, were "Catholics" and "Protestants", and how they criticize Mormons for believing the concepts that he goes on to describe.

                              It is only recently, and possibly thanks to Cherbonnier and thinkers like him, that some Christians begun to doubt the idea of God in a "timeless eternity", or an "eternal now". In fact, as you have mentioned, William Lane Craig does not argue for a timeless God. He has spent considerable time and energy trying to convince other "mainstream Christians" that God does exist in some kind of temporal existence. Only by looking into this kind of philosophy, do people realize the problems that exist with a "timeless eternity" and that God dwells in that "timeless eternity". Often, Christians will say that God dwells "outside of time and space". You have expressed the same thing.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat
                              I hold to the belief of classical theologians who declare the eternal "Now" that God exists in. But, I do realize this causes some other issues that I don't feel able to respond to from a philosophic standpoint.
                              Well, there you go then.

                              By the way, what you said earlier an apparent contradiction,

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Spirits are non-corporeal, yet they exist in time and space.
                              You say that spirits exist in time and space. So, are you saying that God is not a spirit? You may have to add another caveat in your theology to cover that as well.

                              So, that covers God in Time, and it partially covers God in space.

                              -7up

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Did GOD change from a Spirit to a "man" with flesh and bone? Or did Mormon Doctrine change?

                                The concept of God, and how LDS understood God, likely changed.

                                Mormons were essentially Protestant converts. What they knew and understood about God was based from protestant doctrines. 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

                                Comment

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