Mormon Trinity

[Bill the Cat]

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



Jesus said he would be "with" the disciples. Is that a "lie" if Jesus is not literally standing besides them. This is a foolish game you are attempting to play Bill.

From a Trinitarian perspective, He is with us through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is not foolish. It is basic Trinitarian doctrine. Yet ANOTHER thing you can't get through your skull.

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

According to you though, the Holy Spirit was nowhere else except inside Jesus.

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

He is in heaven, meaning that is the localized manifestation of His glory.

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

Which would mean that God no longer had any wisdom in heaven, since Jesus is God's Wisdom.

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

Which means that it is no anywhere else in heaven or earth.

A localized presence can not dwell in more than one place. So, something can not dwell in more than one "house" at a time.

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

This should be a hoot!

Let's start with this one:



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

Of course not. It means that the flesh is not the one ruling them. It is the spirit that lives within them that leads them. But indeed, the Spirit of God lives within them.

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

No. I am allowing the context of the verse to give it meaning.

There is no difference between the two. The "Spirit of Christ" is the Holy Spirit.

Are you a modalist Bill?

Are you a Strangite?

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

So what? They, just like you, ignore other scriptures that refute their abuse of one verse.

Fortunately, for LDS, this is a topic which is enlightened by LDS scriptures and teachings.

Trying desperately not to snicker too loudly...

More made up crap from J.F. Smith to try to cover up yet another giant hole in Mormon polytheism.

Bruce R McConkie also explained, It is not an entity nor a person nor a personage.

So, a "spirit" can NOW be not an entity or person. Make up your mind, 7...

The Holy Spirit makes use of the Light of Christ to perform his work. McConkie went on to explain,

Yet more made up crap to cover gaping holes in Mormon polytheism.

Yes.

Correct. Through the presence of the Holy Spirit, Jesus is said to be "in us", since both are the One God. But, His omnipresence does not mean that God is our master. The Holy Spirit is said to indwell us when we make Him the master of our inner selves.

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

He does not say that He is "living in them". He is "in them" meaning He was their head, their Rabbi, and that His name was upon them and that they were His disciples. It was a Hebrew idiom. This is not the same thing as being "indwelled" by Him.

What is clear from this verse is that strict monotheism from a "modalistic oneness" perspective is false. It does not in any way dismiss the fact that there is only one God.

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

Please cite ANYWHERE where the Holy Spirit is said to be "indwelled" Himself.

He is in us because He and the Holy Spirit are One God.

; Acts 7:55-56

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

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

Acts 8:14-19

; Acts 10:44-48

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

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

; Acts 19: 1-6

(See McConkie Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 2:78)

ALL of these verses are literally talking about the physical presence of the Holy Spirit himself, and the full indwelling of Him in believers through their submission to Him.

7UP: Brigham Young gave a more extensive answer:

He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).

BY was a loonie tune who claimed that the "great architect" was Adam, and that Adam was the only god in whom we have to deal.

[Cow Poke]

That isn't how religious movements work. Jesus didn't reveal everything to the apostles/disciples from the "get go" either.

Show me ONE THING that Jesus taught, that he had to walk back and say, "OK, guys -- sorry* -- I was wrong about that, so let me set it straight".

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





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

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

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

Look at all the flim flam you have to spew forth to try to cover for his deception.

[Cow Poke]

He didn't miss the opportunity.

Correct -- he just totally made it up.

God used Joseph to restore the gospel.

That's beyond goofy.

[seven7up]

So, Smith had a brand new clean slate upon which to "restore" the Gospel, but he missed that opportunity?

He didn't miss the opportunity. God used Joseph to restore the gospel. It worked, despite having to work through imperfect human instruments.

Smith had a beautiful opportunity to set that straight from the "get go".

That isn't how religious movements work. Jesus didn't reveal everything to the apostles/disciples from the "get go" either.

It's just GOOFY to believe that God called a Prophet to RESTORE the Gospel, and he stumbled right out of the gate.

It is natural to make assumptions. In the Book of Mormon, the Lord showed himself to the Brother of Jared. Since this was before the incarnation, the Spirit of the Lord was a "personage of spirit". The Lord said,

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

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

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

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

GOD: "OK, Joseph, you're going to RESTORE the Gospel and make things right, but I'm going to let you stumble around preaching and teaching what is already being preached by the Churches you claimed I condemned, then we'll fine tune it as we go along".

Yes, God does allow men to stumble. That is pretty obvious. The Bible demonstrates this quite well. And it wasn't the same as what was other churches were teaching, as I just demonstrated from the Brother of Jared account. Other churches were not teaching that man was actually made in the image and likeness of God.

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

-7up

[Cow Poke]

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

It's just ASTOUNDING to me that you're suckered into believing that God called "The Prophet of the Restoration" to set things straight, yet He allowed Smith to teach the SAME allegedly CORRUPT GOSPEL from the Protestant Churches that God SUPPOSEDLY told him not to join because they were... here's the SISSIFIED version currently on your website:

Source: lds.org

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

© Copyright Original Source

Here's the non-sissified version...

Source: lds.org

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt

© Copyright Original Source

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

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

That's just downright goofy.

[Cow Poke]

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

So, Smith had a brand new clean slate upon which to "restore" the Gospel, but he missed that opportunity?

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

Smith had a beautiful opportunity to set that straight from the "get go".

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

-7up

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

GOD: "OK, Joseph, you're going to RESTORE the Gospel and make things right, but I'm going to let you stumble around preaching and teaching what is already being preached by the Churches you claimed I condemned, then we'll fine tune it as we go along".

[seven7up]

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

[seven7up]

God in Time and Space

God in Time and Space

Do you know what "diffused" means?

Yes. Yes I do.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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

[Cow Poke]

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?

[seven7up]

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,..."

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.

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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

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.

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.

To which Christians agree. Only mystics and gnostics believe matter is evil - thus his critique is against mystics and gnostics.

7up: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Cow Poke]

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!

[seven7up]

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?

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.

Bruce R McConkie also explained, It is not an entity nor a person nor a personage.

The Holy Spirit makes use of the Light of Christ to perform his work. McConkie went on to explain, 7UP: Brigham Young gave a more extensive answer:

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.

[Bill the Cat]

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.

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,

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.

[Sparko]

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)

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,

© 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.

[Cow Poke]

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)

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,

© 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.