Bernard Gui is Saved

[_Kishkumen]

It should be noted that even in Nauvoo, when some Indians came to visit Joseph Smith, he referred to God as the "Great Spirit" in conversation with them.

I think it is fairly clear that Joseph Smith's theology evolved over time. The desperate attempts that apologists make to harmonize Book of Mormon theology with Nauvoo theology require so many interpretive gymnastics that its pretty sad. Why they think that Book of Mormon theology has to be the same as Nauvoo theology is the part that is puzzling to me.

[_Brackite]

Mosiah Chapter 15 verse five Points to God the Father being Spirit.
Here is this Scriptural Passage:

Mosiah 15:

[5] And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

(Underline Emphasized Mine.)

[_Darth J]

Just for the road, who on earth is Ron Lafferty?

Gee, I don't know. Who is/was Johnnie Cochran?

[_Droopy]

Just for the road, who on earth is Ron Lafferty?

Gee, I don't know. Who is/was Johnnie Cochran?

I'm more concerned with who Bob is. Anyone know?

[_Darth J]

That is the pre-mortal Jesus talking about how he is going to be born in the flesh when he enters mortality. It is irrelevant to the idea of God the Father having a physical body.

As you may see above, Graham nowhere mentions "God the Father" until later in his post (indeed, the second to last paragraph) where he introduces this definitional equivocation in his argument. He says "God," for the bulk of it, only introducing "God the Father" once, in a later paragraph.

Now, Christ and the Father are "one." If one has seen me, Jesus says in the New Testament, one has "seen the Father," Paul says that the Father is "the express image" of the person of the Father. "Let us go down," the Grand Council said, and make man in "our" image and in "our" likeness.

The Savior also mentioned that he did nothing, and came to do nothing, that he had not seen the Father do. His entire life was an extension and representation of the Father's. A "spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." was Jesus remark about his fundamental material structure and individuality, and if Jesus and the Father are one, and if everything Jesus does is a representation of that which has and is done by the Father, then Christ and his Father are of the same species, the same type, the same class, and the same ontological nature, a part of which, because it is ultimate and fundamental, is their individual and material form.

The Book of Mormon says nothing out of harmony with the New Testament here, and indeed, goes beyond it in the Book of Ether toward the full understanding of God's nature as found in D&C 130:22.

Its long become apparent that having a philosophically substantive and intellectually mature debate with either you or Graham is a human impossibility, but respond I continue to do, just for the record.

That sure was a lot of verbiage when "the Book of Mormon teaches a Trinitarian view of God, but I have to force modern LDS theology into it" would have worked just as well.

Since you are trying to reconcile the Book of Mormon with the Bible, I take it that you were not aware that a great many Christians who believe in the Bible believe in the Trinity.

Did you have an explanation as to why the Community of Christ is able to believe in both the Book of Mormon and the Trinity, if the D&C 130 version of God is so obvious in the Book of Mormon? Will it take you less than 4,000 words involving redundant strings of synonyms to say, "No, I don't"?

[_Droopy]

That sure was a lot of verbiage when "the Book of Mormon teaches a Trinitarian view of God...

If you would like to demonstrate the neo-Platonic metaphysics present in the Book of Mormon view of God, I would love to take a look at that. That's biting off a great deal, but chew it if you can.

Since you are trying to reconcile the Book of Mormon with the Bible, I take it that you were not aware that a great many Christians who believe in the Bible believe in the Trinity.

Unfortunately, early Christians didn't, and that's one of the major problems faced by sectarian Christian critics of the restored gospel.

Did you have an explanation as to why the Community of Christ is able to believe in both the Book of Mormon and the Trinity, if the D&C 130 version of God is so obvious in the Book of Mormon?

Probably in the same manner that certain Mormons can believe both in the gospel and in socialism at the same time without cognitive dissonance.

Its called "doublethink."

dou•ble•think ('d&-b&l-"thi[ng]k), noun, Date: 1949 : a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas.

[_Kevin Graham]

Loran is so dumb that he misses the point that these guys were doing precisely the same thing he is doing. He is expecting everyone to read the Book of Mormon through a Mormon doctrinal lens, when there is no reason to do so. They are not permitted to accept the text on its own terms. No, we have to assume that current Mormon doctrine was implied, even in cases where the Nephites clearly claimed that this so-called "heretical" doctrine was true. Loran can't get around this fact so he just attacks me with rhetoric as usual. The simple fact is that Rob Bowman correctly pointed out that the Book of Mormon teaches God is a "great spirit." There is nothing in the Book of Mormon to support the current Mormon doctrine that God has a body of flesh and bones.

Bernard also fails to understand that the entire point is moot because, as altersteve said, to say God is a spirit doesn't cause problems for Mormon doctrine anyway. It is as if he'd never seen a single apologetic response to the various biblical passages referring to God as a spirit! These guys are such amateurs, even for apologists. Since it isn't problematic for Mormon doctrine, why in the world is he calling it heretical and attacking Bowman for refusing to read the Book of Mormon through his Mormon lens? They can't make up their minds how they want to argue, they just know they want to argue for the same reasons wade just has to "dispute" everything we say, just for the sake of saying it has been disputed.

This weekend I'll put together a thorough refutation of Loran's frequent idiotic comments about how there is no evidence suggesting we have the source for the Book of Abraham. Of course, this is the same moron who said we've been arguing that it came from the hypocephalus!

It would be nice if FAIR could produce a single apologist worthy of debate. Schryver is a coward who fled the forum in the face of numerous refutations, wade is a joke who hasn't even looked at the papyri, and Loran is just a a subterfuge machine who never has anything informative to say. He's never once produced a single original thought on these matters. He just appeals to degrees apologists who work for the Church they're trying to defend.

[_Darth J]

That sure was a lot of verbiage when "the Book of Mormon teaches a Trinitarian view of God...

If you would like to demonstrate the neo-Platonic metaphysics present in the Book of Mormon view of God, I would love to take a look at that. That's biting off a great deal, but chew it if you can.

One of the reasons you are so horrible at framing issues and asking pertinent questions is your complete inability to come up with an original thought. Every time you ask a question it is argumentative, every time you make a statement it is begging the question, and every time you purport to answer someone it is nothing but conclusory statements and appeals to authority.

The question you are begging here is whether the Christian concept of the Trinity is in fact "neo-Platonic metaphysics." Christian theologists dispute this. E.g., http://www.ukapologetics.net/hellenism.htm

However, the Trinity in the Book of Mormon is found passim. Here are a couple of examples, though:

Alma 11:44

Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Notice verse 44 says "which is" (third person singular) one God, not "who are" (third person plural) one God. Remember, this is the most correct book on earth that was translated by the power of God.

Alma 11 also says this:

26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.

But D&C 130 says there are three Gods.

Now, there are some verses that use the third person plural to talk about God.

Moroni 7:7

And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end

But Alma told us that there is only one God, so in order to maintain internal consistency within the most correct book on Earth that was translated by the power of God, we can't be reading this as "three Gods who are one in purpose." But don't take my word for it. Look at what the statement attributed to the Three Witnesses:

And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God.

Oh, look: it's that third person singular again.

Since you are trying to reconcile the Book of Mormon with the Bible, I take it that you were not aware that a great many Christians who believe in the Bible believe in the Trinity.

Unfortunately, early Christians didn't, and that's one of the major problems faced by sectarian Christian critics of the restored gospel.

Christian apologists who believe in the Trinity answer this issue about the Bible the same way that LDS apologists address it in the Book of Mormon: by making it a foregone conclusion that their predecessors had the same beliefs, and then reading that foregone conclusion into the scriptures.

However, your statement is non-responsive. The issue is whether the plain language of the Book of Mormon looks like Trinitarianism, or looks like D&C 130. Since it is a demonstrable fact that other (non-LDS) denominations believe in the Book of Mormon and accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, and yet do not believe in the theology of D&C 130, parroting the correlated faith-promoting narrative of the modern LDS Church (and that is all you are doing) is not a particularly impressive demonstration of your having any original thoughts.

Did you have an explanation as to why the Community of Christ is able to believe in both the Book of Mormon and the Trinity, if the D&C 130 version of God is so obvious in the Book of Mormon?

Probably in the same manner that certain Mormons can believe both in the gospel and in socialism at the same time without cognitive dissonance.

Its called "doublethink."

dou•ble•think ('d&-b&l-"thi[ng]k), noun, Date: 1949 : a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas.

That took a lot less prolixity to say "No, I can't explain it" than I expected.

[_Droopy]

Loran is so dumb that he misses the point that these guys were doing precisely the same thing he is doing. He is expecting everyone to read the Book of Mormon through a Mormon doctrinal lens, when there is no reason to do so.

No, just with an open mind.

They are not permitted to accept the text on its own terms.

You are welcome to present your evidence for neo-Platonic metaphysics in the Book of Mormon teachings regarding God. Bite off, and begin chewing at your convenience. Please relate Book of Mormon teachings to key texts of the great Christological controversies of the Third and Fourth Centuries between the Arians and Athanasians, with reference to central concepts as found in the Nicene Creed.

No, we have to assume that current Mormon doctrine was implied, even in cases where the Nephites clearly claimed that this so-called "heretical" doctrine was true.

CFR

Loran can't get around this fact so he just attacks me with rhetoric as usual. The simple fact is that Rob Bowman correctly pointed out that the Book of Mormon teaches God is a "great spirit."

Of course he is. And?

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon to support the current Mormon doctrine that God has a body of flesh and bones.

Except the ones I posted which clearly imply precisely that, in lucid harmony with the teachings of the New Testament.

Bernard also fails to understand that the entire point is moot because, as altersteve said, to say God is a spirit doesn't cause problems for Mormon doctrine anyway. It is as if he'd never seen a single apologetic response to the various biblical passages referring to God as a spirit! These guys are such amateurs, even for apologists. Since it isn't problematic for Mormon doctrine, why in the world is he calling it heretical and attacking Bowman for refusing to read the Book of Mormon through his Mormon lens? They can't make up their minds how they want to argue, they just know they want to argue for the same reasons wade just has to "dispute" everything we say, just for the sake of saying it has been disputed.

This confused gibberish isn't worth responding to, and its not at all apparant at this point that Graham is even lucid enough to follow his own arguments.

This weekend I'll put together a thorough refutation of Loran's frequent idiotic comments about how there is no evidence suggesting we have the source for the Book of Abraham.

I've seen all your arguments time and again, so don't knock yourself out. You have nothing new to offer that other serious thinkers who are capable of bringing both critical thought and intellectual honesty to the table have not already shown to be less than logically and evidentially convincing.

Of course, this is the same moron who said we've been arguing that it came from the hypocephalus!

As you continue to lie about his incident, which I've already made clear, time and again, was a mental mistake I made one day writing a hastily put together post, be advised that it is noted that your own moral bearings long ago sank like the Titanic to the level of Scratch himself, which places you well below the water line of credibility on any issue, let alone the Book of Abraham (but well within traditional anti-Mormon precincts).

It would be nice if FAIR could produce a single apologist worthy of debate.

Become a decent human being again, Kevin, and then come back and ask for a worthy opponent. No faithful, truly converted Latter day Saint takes you seriously, whether scholar or non-scholar. You are situated in a cubby hole with fundamentally two groups of people: apostates from the church and neo-orthodox liberals who do not accept all the core truth claims of the church as true, and who wish to foist there own "scholarly" interpretations of core LDS doctrine on the church to as remake the church in their own image.

This is ultimately itself a project of incremental, intellectually massaged apostasy from "every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God," and doesn't help your position at all, since the tiny cabal of rogue LDS scholars whom you have recruited to your cause of delegitimizing the Book of Abraham as an authentic ancient document have apparently already, to a substantial degree, left the fold themselves.

No faithful members sustains these scholars as General Authorities. No faithful members look to them to define doctrine, determine the origins and provenance of scripture, or the veracity of Joseph Smith's claims to the historicity of the documents he produced.

Let's cut to the proverbia chase, shall we? OK. The vast majority of faithful Latter day Saints who have a personal witness of this work and its origins don't give a tinker's damn what Brian Hauglid or Don Bradly think bout the origins of the Book of Abraham, let alone what you or Brent Metcalf think.

You are all, for the vast majority of LDS, unknown, utterly obscure people who do not really understand the texts you hold in your uncomprehending fingers, and who refuse to seek wisdom and light from its source, preferring your own abysmally frail, limited, isolated and self referential intellects to revelation and faith.

You will, of course, both within and without the church, have your reward, if you continue in this manner.

[_Droopy]

One of the reasons you are so horrible at framing issues and asking pertinent questions...

Blah, blah, blah...

Snip gibberish...

The question you are begging here is whether the Christian concept of the Trinity is in fact "neo-Platonic metaphysics."

We know this to be the case, as many LDS,secular, Catholic, and Protestant scholars and theologians together have long been aware and made clear. This is long, long past serious argument except among primarily Protestant fundamentalists and uninformed, secularist, anti-Mormon lawyers trolling for polemical chum.

However, the Trinity in the Book of Mormon is found passim. Here are a couple of examples, though:

Alma 11:44

Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Notice verse 44 says "which is" (third person singular) one God, not "who are" (third person plural) one God. Remember, this is the most correct book on earth that was translated by the power of God.

Now, please show me where the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in this verse. You are being intelligence insulting here, which will not get you very far. Your semantic quibbling indicates how far you are required to stretch here to make your argument appear as if it was anything but a concoction.

"Which is" is perfectly acceptable in an LDS context, as the oneness of God in mind, perception, and aim is total. The Grand Council in Heaven is one; it is a unity and a totality. I can quibble back, by showing that nuances of LDS doctrine can easily support the traditional LDS view, but why bother? Socratic sophistry and serious philosophical discourse are only distantly related.

Alma 11 also says this:

26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.

Any Blazer B could untangle this for you. Should I go get one and see if you could be educated on LDS doctrine a bit for firmly?

Moroni 7:7

And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end

But Alma told us that there is only one God, so in order to maintain internal consistency within the most correct book on Earth that was translated by the power of God, we can't be reading this as "three Gods who are one in purpose." But don't take my word for it. Look at what the statement attributed to the Three Witnesses:

And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God.

Oh, look: it's that third person singular again.

The Grand Council is an entity, a unitary body, and unified whole. As you have no idea what was in the minds of the original authors here, your semantic/grammatical nickpicking is nothing more than a straw grasping exercise that focuses on fine points of 19th century English word usage because you cannot get past the very serious problem you have in that other parts of the Book of Mormon clearly teach that Jesus Christ has a body of flesh and bones and that that body corresponded to the spirit body shown to the Brother of Jared.

Again, by your own logically self contradictory argument, if God and the Father are one, not only in a mental and personological sense, but in essential nature, then God the Father must have a body of flesh and bones. He must be, in all senses, like the Son. If the Son does nothing but what he has seen the Father do, then it follows necessarily that the Father has done those things (been born in mortality, lived in a mortal state, died and been resurrected, and functioned in all ways as Jesus Christ functioned - as a physical being composed of element have form, structure, and extension in space).

If God and Christ are one, then they are identical in fundamental nature. If the fundamental nature of Jesus included his being a physical, embodied personage, then God the Father must be a physical, embodied personage.

1. Anything that is true of the Father is true of the Son.
2. It is true that the Son has a body of flesh and bones.
3. Therefore, it is true that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones.

Christian apologists who believe in the Trinity answer this issue about the Bible the same way that LDS apologists address it in the Book of Mormon: by making it a foregone conclusion that their predecessors had the same beliefs, and then reading that foregone conclusion into the scriptures.

Which is not a relevant argument for or against anything, but only an observation the different people hold different views. Brilliant deduction.

Did you have an explanation as to why the Community of Christ is able to believe in both the Book of Mormon and the Trinity, if the D&C 130 version of God is so obvious in the Book of Mormon?

Because they choose to do so, against both the plain evidence of both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.

Roll the dice again.