New Kish Series: Kish critiques . . .

[sock puppet]

Regular communication with God doesn’t automatically make someone an expert in theology. For example, I have a close friend who is a physicist, but despite our frequent conversations, it hasn’t made me a physicist

I agree with Shades on this one. Knowing about God doesn't need to equate to theology. Theology is the BS that people do in absence of revelation, and it requires technical skills. Being friends with a physicist shouldn't make you better at physics unless you have the skills to master the subject. Talking with God requires no talent, other than to "be humble," and carry the message that you were told. Presumably, if God is talking to a person, the intent is to bypass the nonsense of experts and put forward plain truths, and so yes, the person talking to God should know a great deal about God.

It was as simple for Joseph Smith to tell the world the truths of God, such as regarding his physical body, as it is for anyone else to talk about their trip to the grocery store.

That is perhaps the best illustration of why multiple, differing--developing--versions of the 1st Vision is so problematic. Or, it perhaps describes the first rendition, when Joseph Smith, Jr. said he was visited by an angel, and leaves the following ones as the development of the first into eventually two God personages a rather crude attempt at theology.

[huckelberry]

KIshkumen, I would second your comments of appreciation for Kerry(Philo). I have enjoyed his thoughts, curiosity and sometimes have been amazed by his drive. I am glad he participates here and glad he makes presentations of his studies and thoughts.

I happen to agree with you about Holland's use of the Romans quote. I think Holland is making a perfectly reasonable use of it. I do not think a person needs special permission to see a relationship or idea in an old situation in scripture and apply it to modern or personal situations. People do it if they are able to think. I do not mean to disregard the value of understanding the original situation and seeing the differences between then and now.

You mention Book of Mormon and LDS people making application of scripture to new situations. That is something learned from the Protestant culture they were born in (Catholic as well) It is a common activity in those groups but I think would be common everywhere.

I hope I am not being too picky to point out that your quote, no scripture or prophesy is of personal interpretation is not Paul. It is from 2 Peter 20,21. I do not think that sort of narrow mindedness is characteristic of Paul at all. Paul is a rich and explorative thinker who can be an inspiration and a lever for opening doors. His incisive and hopefilled thought opened doors for millions.

[Bond]

I'm sad my preferred title "Kish Torches Everyone" was rejected. Check your spam folder if you didn't get the DM. There's still time to rebrand!

[Gadianton]

Hmm. That characterisation seems to me to come naturally from someone with Mormon cultural origins. From other (dare one say mainstream?) Abrahamic traditions, maybe not so much.

Modern ones, sure. Abrahamic traditions prior to the advent of Greek philosophy, not to mention Jesus himself, had nothing to do with theology.

I would think theologians throughout time are generally well-intentioned. In ancient times, I have an uncertain grasp on how the revelatory process works. I hesitate to judge. In modern times, anyone who claims "revelation" is a fraud.

However, from the perspective of the dupes, the vessels of revelation absolutely tell the world better than anyone else about the nature of God, and they are expected to.

[Gadianton]

and leaves the following ones as the development of the first into eventually two God personages a rather crude attempt at theology.

This is an important point. Nobody in the modern world can escape doing theology when they talk about God. Mormons do a ton of theology, even when they insist they aren't doing theology and that theology is evil.

It's a nonstarter though because there is no such thing as revelation, and so any first-person accounts of God will end up in inconsistencies and contradictions for starters, because they are lying about their accounts.

[Gadianton]

And, frankly, LDS authorities, both current and past, know very little about God's physical body other than

absolutely. there is very little actual claimed revelation in Mormonism after Joseph Smith. I'm just pointing out that that the dupes don't see it that way. Prophets are simplistic eye-witnesses in every sense, except for the nature of the stuff they witness.

[Kishkumen]

KIshkumen, I would second your comments of appreciation for Kerry(Philo). I have enjoyed his thoughts, curiosity and sometimes have been amazed by his drive. I am glad he participates here and glad he makes presentations of his studies and thoughts.

I happen to agree with you about Holland's use of the Romans quote. I think Holland is making a perfectly reasonable use of it. I do not think a person needs special permission to see a relationship or idea in an old situation in scripture and apply it to modern or personal situations. People do it if they are able to think. I do not mean to disregard the value of understanding the original situation and seeing the differences between then and now.

You mention Book of Mormon and LDS people making application of scripture to new situations. That is something learned from the Protestant culture they were born in (Catholic as well) It is a common activity in those groups but I think would be common everywhere.

I hope I am not being too picky to point out that your quote, no scripture or prophesy is of personal interpretation is not Paul. It is from 2 Peter 20,21. I do not think that sort of narrow mindedness is characteristic of Paul at all. Paul is a rich and explorative thinker who can be an inspiration and a lever for opening doors. His incisive and hopefilled thought opened doors for millions.

Thanks, huckelberry! I agree with your thoughts, value what you have taught me, and thank you for the correction on 2 Peter. The thought crossed my mind that I might be wrong, but I knew it was in an epistle. Thanks again!

[Kishkumen]

I'm sad my preferred title "Kish Torches Everyone" was rejected. Check your spam folder if you didn't get the DM. There's still time to rebrand!

I am always open to making sagacious adjustments.

[drumdude]

Kish Owns the Morgbots and Antis with Facts and Logic

[Kishkumen]

Kish Owns the Morgbots and Antis with Facts and Logic

I moderate expectations in the hope of surpassing them.