Mormon Schizophrenia disorder - The QUAD

[_dberrie2000]

Joseph's view of the godhead changed over time but that would be denied by most TBMs,

Joseph Smith's theology on the Godhead, without doubt in my view(TBM)--changed.

Just as the New Testament theology evolved:

1 Corinthians 8:6--King James Version (KJV)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

The fact is--if it didn't evolve--then continuing revelation can't be claimed--either for Joseph Smith--or the New Testament writers.

[_spotlight]

Joseph's view of the godhead changed over time but that would be denied by most TBMs,

Joseph Smith's theology on the Godhead, without doubt in my view(TBM)--changed.

Just as the New Testament theology evolved:

1 Corinthians 8:6--King James Version (KJV)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

The fact is--if it didn't evolve--then continuing revelation can't be claimed--either for Joseph Smith--or the New Testament writers.

Problem is Joseph would have known the nature of God from the moment he received the first vision in the grove. It would not have been a matter of continuing revelation for him. The account of the first vision did change with time though.

[_Mittens]

http://eom.BYU.edu/index.php/Lectures_on_Faith
Lectures on Faith

Lecture Five 2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made…. They are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and in his image.

This was published in 1835

[_dberrie2000]

[

Problem is Joseph would have known the nature of God from the moment he received the first vision in the grove. It would not have been a matter of continuing revelation for him.

How so? I could fit Joseph Smith's claim of the First Vision into a Trinitarian doctrine, without any contradiction--which was still the common theology of that day.

It would require continuing revelation to define what Joseph Smith saw into the theology that was declared in the King Follet sermon--or Joseph Smith's later declarations on the Godhead.

The same being true for the New Testament authors--as this would have been blasphemy to any traditional Jew--or any Trinitarian:


1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

[_dberrie2000]

http://eom.BYU.edu/index.php/Lectures_on_Faith
Lectures on Faith

Lecture Five 2. There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made…. They are the Father and the Son: the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fulness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, is a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, being in the form and likeness of man, or rather man was formed after his likeness and in his image.

This was published in 1835

That the position of the early church evolved over time has been conceded.

As did the position of the New Testament writers:

1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

That would have been blasphemy to any traditional Jew, and still is--and most anyone who professes a Trinitarian doctrine.

The LDS can chalk it up to continuing revelation, just as their theology on the Godhead was formed--how do you explain the New Testament contradiction to the Trinitarin theology?

[_spotlight]

[

Problem is Joseph would have known the nature of God from the moment he received the first vision in the grove. It would not have been a matter of continuing revelation for him.

How so? I could fit Joseph Smith's claim of the First Vision into a Trinitarian doctrine, without any contradiction--which was still the common theology of that day.

It would require continuing revelation to define what Joseph Smith saw into the theology that was declared in the King Follet sermon--or Joseph Smith's later declarations on the Godhead.

The same being true for the New Testament authors--as this would have been blasphemy to any traditional Jew--or any Trinitarian:


1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Well if someone had had the experience Joseph Smith claimed to have and didn't know the nature of the godhead from said experience then there would not exist any one in the history of the earth that could know the nature of the godhead and an appeal to what is written in the Bible would not help since the authors would have been as clueless as Joseph apparently was.

You can save yourself a lot of work though by just realizing that there are human remains older than the mythical Adam and Eve, or not.

ETA: Continuing revelation is not equal to changing revelation.

[_Maksutov]

How so? I could fit Joseph Smith's claim of the First Vision into a Trinitarian doctrine, without any contradiction--which was still the common theology of that day.

It would require continuing revelation to define what Joseph Smith saw into the theology that was declared in the King Follet sermon--or Joseph Smith's later declarations on the Godhead.

The same being true for the New Testament authors--as this would have been blasphemy to any traditional Jew--or any Trinitarian:


1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Well if someone had had the experience Joseph Smith claimed to have and didn't know the nature of the godhead from said experience then there would not exist any one in the history of the earth that could know the nature of the godhead and an appeal to what is written in the Bible would not help since the authors would have been as clueless as Joseph apparently was.

You can save yourself a lot of work though by just realizing that there are human remains older than the mythical Adam and Eve, or not.

ETA: Continuing revelation is not equal to changing revelation.

Your doublespeak dictionary needs updating.

[Guest]

Spotlight wrote: Well if someone had had the experience Joseph Smith claimed to have and didn't know the nature of the godhead from said experience then there would not exist any one in the history of the earth that could know the nature of the godhead

IMO--there is no contradiction in seeing the Father and Son as two separate beings, as Joseph Smith did, and Trinitarian theology.

That, in and by itself-- leaves many things about the nature of God to be explained.

and an appeal to what is written in the Bible would not help since the authors would have been as clueless as Joseph apparently was.

Can't argue with your take on your point--it's just not my take--but you are welcome to your opinion, and I would die to protect your right to that opinion.

.... there are human remains older than the mythical Adam and Eve, ...

I agree. And I don't see anything to disprove there could have been several earths with life forms on them such as ours within the elements that constitute the substance of this earth.

ETA: Continuing revelation is not equal to changing revelation.

That may be true--but I don't know of why revelation would be given, unless there need be some kind of change.

[_Maksutov]

Well if someone had had the experience Joseph Smith claimed to have and didn't know the nature of the godhead from said experience then there would not exist any one in the history of the earth that could know the nature of the godhead

IMO--there is no contradiction in seeing the Father and Son as two separate beings, as Joseph Smith did, and Trinitarian theology.

That, in and by itself-- leaves many things about the nature of God to be explained.

and an appeal to what is written in the Bible would not help since the authors would have been as clueless as Joseph apparently was.

Can't argue with your take on your point--it's just not my take--but you are welcome to your opinion, and I would die to protect your right to that opinion.

.... there are human remains older than the mythical Adam and Eve, ...

I agree. And I don't see anything to disprove there could have been several earths with life forms on them such as ours within the elements that constitute the substance of this earth.

ETA: Continuing revelation is not equal to changing revelation.

That may be true--but I don't know of why revelation would be given, unless there need be some kind of change.

You have my quotes and Spotlight's mixed up.

[_spotlight]

I don't see anything to disprove there could have been several earths with life forms on them such as ours within the elements that constitute the substance of this earth.

You may want to invest in a course in geology or at least a free online course. There is plenty that debunks that idea. Try starting with the dating of the ocean floor from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge moving outward to the places of subduction under the continents. So the continents did not separate quickly. Then take a look at a typical biogeography illustration like the following.



I'll get back to the thread later. Right now we are about to move from Seattle back to California and I am like Jesse Pinkman as he escapes at the end of the final episode of Breaking Bad, crying and laughing at the same time and a little delirious.