Was Jesus a Mormon?

[_huckelberry]

Quest to demonstrate things Joseph Smith taught came from Jesus. Try to do this not using things we know Jesus said as they are not lost. You can not use things taught later by followers that are similar but not exactly Joseph version. You cannot apply to things lost as they are not in evidence.

I see no possible path left to persue for this quest whether Joseph restored anything or not.. Its a fools journey. Several poster noted that right off.

Mormons believe that the church and its authority were restored. That does not require that all doctrines Joseph taught were taught previously by Jesus in his early ministry. A believer might well expect that they were not.

I suspect there is enough difference between what Jesus taught and some of the distinct Mormon doctrines to make a person doubt the idea of restoration. It is a judgement call not a proof. The judgement call could be influenced by things like the reliability of the Book of Mormon, or Abraham. It might be influenced by lifelong prejudice.

[_huckelberry]

There is today no doubt that when Joseph Smith said he was restoring ancient teachings that had been lost, he was simply speaking the truth.

Joseph Smith taught of a grand council of the gods in heaven. This was a part of First Temple Judaism. The Deuteronomists tried to obliterate it from the Hebrew Bible, but vestiges remain. This is the view of current non-LDS Old Testament scholars.

http://thedivinecouncil.com/

Modern non-LDS Old Testament scholars also tend to agree that the Hebrew God of First Temple Judaism had a wife. This was also suppressed by the Deuteronomists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_God_Have_a_Wife%3F
--Consiglieri

Consiglieri, nobody connected with your question about possible restored ideas. They require a small moment of thought to connect to the opening question. Saying somethings were restored actually makes more sense to me than expecting a whole shopping list to be explicitly and demonstrably from Jesus.

Now I wanted to ask if you meant irony pointing to the degree of ambiguity in the opening post or were you proposing these in seriousness. They could be interesting to discuss. My impression in reading other posts that the serious ambiguity in what was taught in first temple time and more importantly what authority and truth value such views had is viewed only as an area of uncertainty and fexibilty into which Joseph's understood authority can speak further clarity.

[_Radex]

BrianH, my darling, you said:

What BC did is what what Mormons almost always do

Fallacy: argument from omniscience.

and what you just accused me of doing

Fallacy: tu quoque.

He copied and pasted from a list of deceptive boilerplate quotes bullets prepared by some LDS apologist for the faithful to keep them toting the LDS line.

Would you mind enlightening me as to what, exactly, constitutes a "deceptive boilerplate quote bullet?" Perhaps my cultural heritage is different from yours (likely it is), and I can't seem to grasp the concept.

And, friendly advice: it's toeing the line, not toting the line. This phrase is something that I am quite familiar with, but the rule makers have now changed it to the "front-foot law." It's an old Cricket term, BrianH.

This may be hard for you to swallow but, believe it or not, Mormons are not the only ones to have ever studied the Bible or the ECFs.

Peculiarly, it isn't difficult for me at all. Call me a nutter, but I imagine most people who consider themselves Christian have studied the Holy Bible. Perhaps less popular is the study of the Early Christian Fathers, however (again, ramblings from a crazy chap), I imagine the vast majority of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox members have read those writings.

Furthermore, only two of BC's citations were of Jesus and, like the others, it was a case of deceptive quoting and pure eisogesis. The challenge here was not to show that the ECFs taught the seven LDS "restored" doctrines, I listed, but to show that Jesus taught them.

Well, BrianH, I wonder if by eisogesis you mean eisegesis. And if you do, please understand that the term is flopped about as an accusation by many denominations. Some Roman Catholics believe some Protestant denominations practice eisegesis; some Jews believe that Christians practice it with regard to the Old Testament (testifying of the coming of Christ, for example).

Secondly, the fallacies I accused BC of are the ones he committed.

Whether correct or not, please understand that logic is helpful as a means for reaching an end (preferably the truth). Think of it as a tool. It is not the end-all say-all and dismiss-all of the conversation.

Now then, perhaps if you will let down your arrogant blow-horn, stop claiming "fallacy!" to simply dismiss someone's point, and cease butchering the English language, we can engage in polite conversation?

Radex,

You would do a lot better here if you did not refer to the work of the Maxwell Institute and FAIR as if it had any credibility to anyone outside the LDS Church.

DrW: I was unaware that I was not doing well here, or doing anything at all. I have posted, perhaps 10 times and am, by any definition, a newcomer.

Admittedly, though, The Foundation is targeted toward LDS members. Why is that a negative?

The Maxwell Institute, as part of Brigham Young University, no doubt reaches a much broader audience. Are you aware of Brigham Young University's rankings? It's a very good school.

Radex, having recently read Thuderstruck by Erik Larson, I must say your link is eminently cool.

Thank you. I am glad to have found that archive. I have always been somewhat of an amateur broadcast historian. You could call it my hobby. I'll have a look at Thunderstruck, for sure. If you have any interest in radio, you should look up the documentary Empire of the Air.

[_DrW]

DrW: I was unaware that I was not doing well here, or doing anything at all. I have posted, perhaps 10 times and am, by any definition, a newcomer.

Admittedly, though, The Foundation is targeted toward LDS members. Why is that a negative?

The Maxwell Institute, as part of Brigham Young University, no doubt reaches a much broader audience. Are you aware of Brigham Young University's rankings? It's a very good school.

Radex,

If you were to run a poll on this board with questions regarding the credibility of MI, FAIRS, and their associated apologists when it comes to logical and straightforward responses to " standard critics bullet points", you might be very surprised at the outcome.

The term "Mopologist" is used here to describe the folks at FAIR and MI who come up with these "standard responses". Mopologetics is seen as an especially egregious form of apologetics, one that employs logic and explanations so twisted that they bear special study.

If you are old enough to remember the Cold War, think of the attitude of the world outside Mormonism with regard to the output of FAIR and MI as analogous to the attitude towards Pravda in the world outside the former Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Lots of propaganda - not much credibility.

If you think I am off base on this, please go ahead and run the poll.

With regard to BYU being a "good school" in that it provides a high quality college education - well you might find some strong and well-founded counterarguments to that assertion here as well. My two children who attended BYU are now earning, on average, approximately half of what their siblings who attended the University of Washington are earning, for example.

[_bcspace]

Firstly, to BCSpace: splendid response.

Thank you very much. I hope you find it useful. I've been defending the Church against antiMormon evangelicals since I was a teen in the early 1980's when some friends of mine took me to see The Godmakers at the tender age of 16. It is not difficult to shut down a Bible based argument against the LDS Church because the Bible is in complete harmony with LDS doctrine. Sure, they will howl and cry fowl and change the subject and ignore verses and their own history, but when that happens, you've won the debate. It is not possible to criticize the LDS Church using the Bible without also trashing the Bible.

[_bcspace]

The term "Mopologist" is used here to describe the folks at FAIR and MI who come up with these "standard responses".

Standard responses come from standard and long-refuted anti Mormon chestnuts. The argument has been thoroughly refuted and unless you can come up with something different, you will get the standard response.

[_bcspace]

There is today no doubt that when Joseph Smith said he was restoring ancient teachings that had been lost, he was simply speaking the truth.

Joseph Smith taught of a grand council of the gods in heaven. This was a part of First Temple Judaism. The Deuteronomists tried to obliterate it from the Hebrew Bible, but vestiges remain. This is the view of current non-LDS Old Testament scholars.

http://thedivinecouncil.com/

Modern non-LDS Old Testament scholars also tend to agree that the Hebrew God of First Temple Judaism had a wife. This was also suppressed by the Deuteronomists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_God_Have_a_Wife%3F
--Consiglieri

What other things have been suppressed from the Bible? The early Christians also complained about such erasures:

Here Trypho [the Jew] remarked, "We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled." [Justin quotes some passages which the Jews evidently removed from Esdras and Jeremiah.] "And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'"
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 71-72, in ANF 1:234-235.

Also witness to the same:

And in Jeremias He thus announces His death and descent into hell, in the words: "And the Lord the Holy One of Israel bethought Him of His dead, who in the past had slept in the dust of the earth, and went down unto them, to bring the good news of salvation, to deliver them." Here He also gives the reason for His death; for His descent into hell was salvation for the departed.
Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 78, translated by Joseph P. Smith (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1953), ACW 16:97.

I love how the early Christians expounded on 1 Peter 3:21 and 1 Peter 4:6 in almost LDS-like fashion on the preaching of the gospel in the afterlife. Of course this doctrine is now lost to apostate christianity......

[_Radex]

Radex,

If you were to run a poll on this board with questions regarding the credibility of MI, FAIRS, and their associated apologists when it comes to logical and straightforward responses to " standard critics bullet points", you might be very surprised at the outcome.

The term "Mopologist" is used here to describe the folks at FAIR and MI who come up with these "standard responses". Mopologetics is seen as an especially egregious form of apologetics, one that employs logic and explanations so twisted that they bear special study.

I like what BCSpace said about this, but reserve the right to observe that new critical claims are made frequently and don't necessitate the rote apologetic responses.

If you are old enough to remember the Cold War, think of the attitude of the world outside Mormonism with regard to the output of FAIR and MI as analogous to the attitude towards Pravda in the world outside the former Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Lots of propaganda - not much credibility.

Oh dear, now you've gone and reminded me of what a gaffer I am. I am aware of Pravda; did you know that you can still read what's left of it online at www.pravda.ru?

If you think I am off base on this, please go ahead and run the poll.

I'm unsure of what value such a poll would add to this conversation. Are members of Mormon Discussions a sufficient representative sample of how The Foundation or The Institute are viewed by the world as a whole?

With regard to BYU being a "good school" in that it provides a high quality college education - well you might find some strong and well-founded counterarguments to that assertion here as well. My two children who attended BYU are now earning, on average, approximately half of what their siblings who attended the University of Washington are earning, for example.

I would imagine, DrW, that there are strong opinions about the quality of education or sport about any school in the world. Those opinions do not determine whether the school provides quality academic education. A better indicator, I'm sure you'll agree, are publications like The Princeton Review and US News and World Report (in the United States).

I hold no degree, for example, but have always been comfortably successful in my life. Some of my extended family hold advanced degrees from prestigious universities and have been less successful than I have been (by choice or by happenstance is unknown).

Thank you very much. I hope you find it useful. I've been defending the Church against antiMormon evangelicals since I was a teen in the early 1980's when some friends of mine took me to see The Godmakers at the tender age of 16. It is not difficult to shut down a Bible based argument against the LDS Church because the Bible is in complete harmony with LDS doctrine. Sure, they will howl and cry fowl and change the subject and ignore verses and their own history, but when that happens, you've won the debate. It is not possible to criticize the LDS Church using the Bible without also trashing the Bible.

BC: I agree with what you've said here. I think the astonishing claims of traditional Christianity are no less astonishing than those of restoration Christianity. It is more difficult to present a believable argument in favor of religion to our atheist friends, in my humble opinion.

Standard responses come from standard and long-refuted anti Mormon chestnuts. The argument has been thoroughly refuted and unless you can come up with something different, you will get the standard response.

Clever quip, and I mostly agree. There are things emerging which are "different" from the critical perspective, and I believe the Maxwell Institute caters more to this emerging critical scholarship.

[_BrianH]

The topic HERE in THIS discussion, is my challenge to Mormons to show that Jesus Christ ever taught the doctrines listed above…

The books that Mormons revere as scripture show that Jesus did exactly that. Which entirely satisfies your challenge.

So, what keeps you from accepting the divinity of some scriptures but not others?

Wait a minute. You say that LDS "scripture" show that Jesus Christ taught the doctrines listed above?

Really?

Okay, please show me where Mormon scripture portrays Jesus teaching the 7 "restored" doctrines I listed in the OP.

-BH

.

[_BrianH]

BC>>>>So tell me, does Jesus have a God?

BH>>>Yes, of course. Jesus was a man, in fact, the perfect man and as such did not only have "a" God, he had the ONE and only TRUE God according to God himself - the God of Israel

BC>>John 20:17 yes, Jesus has a God.

BC>>So is Jesus also Jehovah and did anyone ever call Jesus God?

BH>Yes Jesus is Jehovah and yes he is called both "God" AND "Jehovah", the latter at least by implication.

Then it's proven. The very nature of Jesus proves that there is a plurality of Gods and that by your own admission.

No, your polytheism is not "proven" at all, not unless you want to simply tear out every single reference in the Bible and even in the early "scriptures" of Mormonism (ie the "Book of Mormon"), that explicitly state in absolutely unmistakable terms that there was, is and forever will be only ONE God.

The fact that Jesus is called "Jehovah" (or its equivalent) does not prove that he is a SEPARATE God at all, if anything it proves the exact OPPOSITE: that he is the ONE God known to the Jews by the holy name. Meanwhile, Jesus himself fully affirmed monotheism never once teaching polytheism.

John 20:17 God the Father is Jesus' God
Hebrews 1:8 God the Father refers to Jesus as a God
Hebrews 1:1-2 Jesus' Godhood is an exact replica of the Father's Godhood.

And the numerous other Bible references which I gave lend further support if one is a Bible believer that is.....

...and if one is willing to IGNORE or eliminate the numerous passages throughout the Bible that he believes, which explicitly declare the truth of monotheism. Your hermeneutics are awful, but they are at least consistent with those used by all the other 19th century American restorationist cults. Using your tactics of isolating a verse here and a few words there from various contexts of the Bible, while totally ignoring others and even ignoring the context and the genre of the passages you are butchering and then glueing them together with the limp spittle of your own mere a-priori assumptions permits anyone to construct apparent support for almost anything they want to imagine. For example, using YOUR atrocious hermeneutics, I can quickly show you, for example, that the Bible explicitly teaches the truth of atheism, communism and UFOs ...maybe even Bigfoot.

BH>>You have simply chosen to ignore the many places throughout the Bible where God himself makes it perfectly clear that he alone is the only God there is, was or ever will be.

BC>I haven't ignored any of them. The Isaiah 40-45 set merely defines which God is created for the Hebrews to worship; Jesus. And that dovetails with the first two of the ten commandments which expressly refer to the existence of real and divine Gods.

Yes you most certainly have ignored them. And your assertion about Ish 40-45 is not supported by the actual words of the passage themselves, where God repeatedly tells the Israelites in perfectly clear and unmistakable terms that he alone is the only God there IS, not just the only God they are to worship. Furthermore, you are apparently unfamiliar with the Bible beyond the snipets prepared for your use by your organization, since its many affirmations of monotheism spread far and wide before and beyond Isaiah's contributions, and you are clearly ignoring those.

And then of course Jesus comes revealing a higher order and points them to the worship of the Father. That's two Gods right there. John 17 explains how the Father and Son are "one" (of the same mind) and "in" (standing next to in support of) each other; check your Lexicon.

The worship of the Father was "a higher order"? Hilarious. No, son, the worship of the Father was not a new revelation to the Jews; it was the normative dogma of the Jewish religion ever since Abraham. Secondly, this is not two Gods (by definition the "polytheism" you previously denied), IF Jesus and the Father are the same God present in different persons.

If the Bible had taught a trinity, then don't you think the early Christians would have taught it too? They didn't, and it took several hundred years for the trinity to be created by man as the Church fell into universal apostasy.

I appreciate your need to try to change the subject here. I really do. But the doctrine of the trinity is not the subject here so you will not succeed in turning this into a debate on the trinity. Logically speaking that topic is irrelevant, since even IF your comment above was correct (and it is not), that STILL would not answer the challenge I have posed for you here in this thread. The topic of THIS debate is my challenge to YOU to simply SHOW ME where Jesus Christ ever taught the uniquely LDS doctrines that you attribute to him every time you claim to have "restored" HIS gospel and HIS doctrine.

When are you going to get around to doing that, BC?

-BH

.