7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?
Yes. And the plates were the words of ancient prophets, some of whom did not always specify the members of the Godhead. Guess what? The Old Testament prophets did not specify either. Therefore, you have nothing but another double standard.
He had to understand it in order to relay the doctrines to other people. I explained an example to Cow Poke. Joseph understood from the First Vision and the translated plates that we truly are created in the image of God (likeness and image). However, there was not anything in his experience or in the translation which would have clarified the idea that God the Father was not only a Spirit. It took a specific revelation to reveal that the Father, like Jesus, is a Spirit that dwells within flesh and bone. As Paul describes it, "a spiritual body" which Christ demonstrated in the resurrection to be tangible.
You act as if he was entirely controlled by God in everything he did, said or wrote. Sorry, but Joseph was not a puppet. That isn't how it works.
Even when Jesus attempted to correct them, they still did not grasp it fully.
They got the same message from the Father that Joseph did, which was Christ at the right hand of the Father, who said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him."
Here is an example of a straw man. You don't have to "point out" to LDS that the Joseph and the Book of Mormon are not perfect. We knew it all along. In fact, it is specifically taught in the LDS church that there are flaws. Only evangelical Christians hold to "inerrancy". The Book of Mormon is claimed to be "an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and an abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, ... And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God " Prophets and apostles are given revelations or have experiences with God, then they write down those revelations or experiences (sometimes history). The very fact that spiritual ideas have to be placed in human language ruins the idea of "inerrancy".
Even the original plates were not claimed to be completely "perfect" and admits the idea of faults/mistakes. Certainly you have in mind the phrase Joseph Smith said about the Book of Mormon being "the most correct of any book on earth". Of course, anti-mormons often take that phrase out of context, and purposefully miss the point that Joseph was making. Being "correct" was not referring to punctuation, spelling, grammar, or even deep doctrine. Joseph said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” His point was about Christ-like living and drawing closer to God in a personal relationship. Anti-Mormons purposefully ignore that part and pretend that Joseph meant something entirely different.
Your analysis is far too shallow. It is NOT a statement of the Trinity unless "ONE God" is specifically described as a "single metaphysical substance". LDS never taught that. We understand "ONENESS" in the same sense as it is used everywhere else in the Bible. Here are some examples:
Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh".
Do you believe that when a man and a woman marry ... they become the same person, one in metaphysical substance? Of course not.* How about some more?
Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul
Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ
2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind
Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ
Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together
Go through these and attempt to take them literally. Go ahead. That is how wrong you are about "oneness" in the Godhead. Now the real kicker:
John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."
We are to be one EVEN AS Jesus is one with the Father. This is not in a literal sense of becoming the same single Being.
How does it feel to learn that the view of "oneness" in the LDS church is more Biblical than the Trinitarian view?
7UP: Trust me Sparko, I have likely read more anti-mormon literature than you have. And when I come upon accusations like you and Cow Poke just attempted to promote, such as "early LDS taught the Trinity/Modalism" , I just shake my head and marvel at how uninformed you guys really are. All you have investigated is a bunch of biased sources providing half-truths and misinformation.
You are wrong at every assertion.
Treating history fairly (and not with a double standard), is not the same as 'hand waving'. Perhaps you can tell me where I have "ignored problems".
You have not demonstrated that you know much at all about LDS doctrine, history, or practice. Like I said, all I see from you are the typical talking points from anti-sites.
As for my history, I began investigating the LDS church when I was studying for my undergraduate degree at the University of Missouri and it was at that time that I began studying anti-Mormon literature.
-7up
Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Even the original plates were not claimed to be completely "perfect" and admits the idea of faults/mistakes. Certainly you have in mind the phrase Joseph Smith said about the Book of Mormon being "the most correct of any book on earth". Of course, anti-mormons often take that phrase out of context, and purposefully miss the point that Joseph was making. Being "correct" was not referring to punctuation, spelling, grammar, or even deep doctrine. Joseph said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” His point was about Christ-like living and drawing closer to God in a personal relationship. Anti-Mormons purposefully ignore that part and pretend that Joseph meant something entirely different.
Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh".
Do you believe that when a man and a woman marry ... they become the same person, one in metaphysical substance? Of course not.* How about some more?
Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul
Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ
2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind
Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ
Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together
Go through these and attempt to take them literally. Go ahead. That is how wrong you are about "oneness" in the Godhead. Now the real kicker:
John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."
We are to be one EVEN AS Jesus is one with the Father. This is not in a literal sense of becoming the same single Being.
How does it feel to learn that the view of "oneness" in the LDS church is more Biblical than the Trinitarian view?
7UP: Trust me Sparko, I have likely read more anti-mormon literature than you have. And when I come upon accusations like you and Cow Poke just attempted to promote, such as "early LDS taught the Trinity/Modalism" , I just shake my head and marvel at how uninformed you guys really are. All you have investigated is a bunch of biased sources providing half-truths and misinformation.
Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Treating history fairly (and not with a double standard), is not the same as 'hand waving'. Perhaps you can tell me where I have "ignored problems".
You have not demonstrated that you know much at all about LDS doctrine, history, or practice. Like I said, all I see from you are the typical talking points from anti-sites.
As for my history, I began investigating the LDS church when I was studying for my undergraduate degree at the University of Missouri and it was at that time that I began studying anti-Mormon literature.
-7up
Comment