Hall of FameHall of Fame  Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp  chatChat
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
InterReligious Dialogue
 Whyislam.org Forums : General : InterReligious Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: The Abrahamic traditions Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 3 Next >>
Author Message
Janet Waters  
Mureed
Mureed
Avatar
Location: United States
Religion: Christian(Mormon)
Posts: 3617
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Janet Waters Replybullet Posted: 18 April 2008 at 5:02pm
Originally posted by yishmael

Hi Janet,

I appreciate your kind response and your efforts bearing your testimony. I'm from an old pioneer family and I respect that.

I actually looked around last night. The first time I can see the term Godhead defined in the way that you define it, is in speeches by Brigham Young in the 1870s.

In one of those same speeches (I found them in the Journal of Discourses) the prophet Brigham Young (saw) also said that Adam was God, our Heavenly Father. I doubt you believe that now, as few Mormons do, though I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

If President Young was wrong in this area, I think it's also possible that he made other mistakes.
 
Adam helped in the creative process along side of Jehovah (Jesus Christ) under the direction of Elohim.

Adam is a god (creator)...in the respect that he helped in the creation of this earth and peopling it. 
 
He is also a god (divine spirit) in that he is an immortal son of Elohim and has been exalted over the human race. 
 
He is the first physical father of humanity and he presently dwells in heaven.  He is an exalted personage and will go on to create....for he has attained Eternal Life which includes the gift of eternal lives.  (One of the many names attributed to Elohim is "Eternal Father.")

Originally posted by yishmael

I'm snipping some things just so that I can stay on topic of the original post.  You wrote:

Originally posted by Janet Watersl

We pray to the Father "in the name of the Son."  The Son is our Advocate with the Father and he pleads our case for us.  He took upon himself our sins...thus we have become "blameless" because of his sacrifice (as well as our repentance!)


Originally posted by yishmael

I've heard that from Mormon scholars before. However, I've also heard the theory that Satan is the accuser (i.e. a sort of agent provocateur and prosecuting attorney all rolled into one) and the Holy Ghost is the comforter (advocate, barrister, defense attorney). In this alternate theory, Jesus is our judge, who announces and executes sentence on behalf of Heavenly Father.

All that the Father hath....he gave unto the Son.  The Son becomes our spiritual leader (father figure/rabbi/mentor) as we are spiritually reborn (through baptism) and take upon us his name (Christ) becoming the "children of Christ."  He becomes our adopted spiritual father (patriarch/shepherd) who leads back into the presence of God the Father (Elohim).  But no unclean thing can withstand the presence of the Father (Elohim) unless it has been cleansed every wit. 

In the Final Judgment Jehovah (Jesus Christ) judges us.  Then if we are found "blameless of sin" (because of the atonement and our repentance) we are introduced into the presence of Elohim to forever dwell with him.  This is when Christ (Advocate/Defence Attorney)pleads our case for us....saying to the Father that HE bore our sins and therefore we are washed clean in the blood of the Lamb.  (Repentance and forgiveness is necessary for one's sins of scarlet to become white as snow). 
 
When the Final Judgment is happening--- for those who are of celestial and terrestrial glory.......Satan is bound in hell.  It will not be possible for Satan's presence before Jehovah (Jesus Christ) until those who are of the telestial glory are redeemed from hell and those who are being judged as "sons of perdition" are being judged.  So for the good people of the earth---during their judgment......Satan is not present.  


Originally posted by yishmael

The problem with studying Mormon theology is that it changes so rapidly. You seem to be a little bit older than I, because your view is consistent with the view of my parents.
 
I have not found any doctrine change.......it is only the individual's understanding of it that changes.  For God is not a changable being....only man's understanding and character changes.
 
Originally posted by Janet Waters

I understand that you don't want to waste the Advocate's
time or maybe even God's time.  I have felt that way before too.  In fact after I finished reading the Book of Mormon, I didn't ask if it was true......because I thought I already knew....and I didn't want to offend God by asking about something which I already knew.  That is where I was taught a great lesson.  I was taught of the great love that they have for us.  Since that time, my life changed.  I testify to you that God lives and he loves us enough to send his Son!!
  

Originally posted by yishmael

God's son is simply a man like me. I'm God's son too (though I'd never claim to be comparable to the Jesus character (saw)).
 
Yes....we are the sons and daughters of God.  First of all we are not simple.  Secondly, God's Only Begotten Son is definately not simple. 
 
Originally posted by yishmael

Why pray to Jesus, when Jesus hasn't been exalted?
 
Jehovah/Jesus has always been exalted in one way or another.
 
Originally posted by yishmael

He did his job, so that I could go directly to the source. My dad (who unlike me, actually does believe all this stuff) calls him "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
 
This knowledge does not come from adhering to the principles of the scientfic method or from scholarly study....in order to know this....it has to be be revealed.  This knowledge is available to all who truly seek for it.  Even you! 

Originally posted by yishmael

Of course, this is all theoretical, because I am skeptical of a historical Jesus and I don't believe in God, except in the way ibn-Sina might have, as something so abstract, powerful and pervasive that no human can possibly wrap his mind around the concept.
 
Oh...the "Unknown Christ" interesting idea.  Usually when you want to know something--- then you go to those who know.
 
Originally posted by yishmael

I am absolutely certain that God isn't an exalted human being (as many observant Mormons believe), and I've had my own testimony of that since I was young, but I respect people who differ and I appreciate your opinion.
 
Like I said before.....in order to know....it has to be revealed......  This goes beyond believing or having an "opinion" about something.

Originally posted by yishmael

Nice to meet you too, and I'm sure we'll talk again...Yishmael
 
Nice to meet you too.  Please say hello to your father for me!! 
 
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
yishmael  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member
Avatar
Chairman Meow
Religion: Atheist(Atheist)
Posts: 309
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote yishmael Replybullet Posted: 18 April 2008 at 5:38pm
Hi Janet,

Originally posted by Janet Waters


Adam helped in the creative process along side of Jehovah (Jesus Christ) under the direction of Elohim.

 
Adam is a god (creator)...in the respect that he helped in the creation of this earth and peopling it. 
 
He is also a god (divine spirit) in that he is an immortal son of Elohim and has been exalted over the human race. 
 
He is the first father of humanity and he is presently in heaven.  He is an exalted personage and will go on to create....for he has attained Eternal Life which includes the gift of eternal lives.


The Adam-God doctrine proposed by the Prophet Brigham Young was pretty specific. Wikipedia has a good write-up on it, found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_theory

In Mormonism, the Adam–God theory (also called the Adam–God doctrine) is a doctrine taught by Brigham Young and some early leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) involving the status of Adam as the God of humanity. The details, meaning, and reporting of the doctrine are disputed; however, the most comprehensive statement of the doctrine, found in the transcript of Young's sermon at the church's 1852 General Conference, includes the ideas that Adam (1) entered the Garden of Eden "with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him", (2) and (3) that Jesus was conceived, not by the Holy Spirit, but by "the Father", i.e., "the first of the human family" (Young 1852, p. 50).

During the life of Brigham Young elements of the Adam–God theory were taught in church meetings, sung in church hymns, and included in the church's Endowment ceremony; however, after his death in 1877 this controversial theory gradually lost prominence and was eventually abandoned. The theory was questionable even during Young's lifetime, and was vocally rejected by the influential contemporary Mormon apostleOrson Pratt. Other apostles remained silent on the issue.

In 1976, the most common interpretation of the theory was rejected by the LDS Church as false doctrine. However, in branches of Mormon fundamentalism that are no longer affiliated with the LDS Church, but who closely follow the teachings of Brigham Young, the doctrine remains.

It seems like you (and other Mormons) agree with the Muslims at this point, and disagree with President Young. Adam was not our God, but only an honorable man (a prophet), despite what the prophet of the church preached, as recorded in the JoD.

So when President Young claimed that Jesus was a god, and that he ruled in a divine committee with Heavenly Father (and the Holy Ghost too) which he called the godhead, he could also have been mistaken, right?

And how is it that Jesus was our elder brother in the pre-existence? If he were exalted, he'd be a god in his own right, on some other world...

This is the problem I have with Mormon theology, and it's the first main reason I choose not to actively practice Mormonism at this point. The godhead concept, at least as it has been understood by Mormons since Brigham Young, just doesn't make any sense in the larger context.

There is a second, equally important reason I choose not to take a literal belief in religion at this time. You illustrated that too.

Originally posted by Janet Waters


This knowledge does not come from adhering to the principles of the scientfic method or from scholarly study....in order to know this....it has to be be revealed.  This knowledge is available to all who truly seek for it.  Even you!


The great Muslim philosopher, ibn-Rushd said that
that there is no incompatibility between religion and philosophy when both are properly understood.

He also said that God could be revealed through revelation (like Qur'an or Book of Mormon) or through the scientific method. Either was a valid way of finding God. He also alluded to the fact that God created people like me (people who couldn't believe in God literally) and sent us our own prophets (people like Aristotle, Charles Darwin and Karl Marx) and he insisted that science, philosophy and religion did not contradict one another, but enhanced each other to the ultimate pleasure of Allah.
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/tt/index.html

Folks like him were the real reason my European ancestors finally pulled themselves out of feudalism.

I don't want you to think I like Islam better than Mormonism. At one level, I don't take either literally. At another, I like Mormonism better because I'm most familiar with it, but the Muslims have developed a theology that at least makes sense, and they've had time enough to produce a pretty rich variety of contemplative literature.

I think if Mormonism lasts for another 200 years, we'll probably have our own ibn-Rushd. Until then, studying Islam gives me a way to reconstruct at least the possibility of God. So that's a good thing, in my opinion. I trust my Heavenly Father will understand my desire to get to know him, in what way I can.

No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Janet Waters  
Mureed
Mureed
Avatar
Location: United States
Religion: Christian(Mormon)
Posts: 3617
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Janet Waters Replybullet Posted: 18 April 2008 at 6:50pm
Originally posted by yishmael

Hi Janet,
 
Hey Yishmael!

Originally posted by Janet Waters

Adam helped in the creative process along side of Jehovah (Jesus Christ) under the direction of Elohim.

Adam is a god (creator)...in the respect that he helped in the creation of this earth and peopling it. 
 
He is also a god (divine spirit) in that he is an immortal son of Elohim and has been exalted over the human race. 
 
He is the first father of humanity and he is presently in heaven.  He is an exalted personage and will go on to create....for he has attained Eternal Life which includes the gift of eternal lives.  (Another name for Elohim is "Eternal Father.")


Originally posted by yishmael

The Adam-God doctrine proposed by the Prophet Brigham Young was pretty specific. Wikipedia has a good write-up on it, found here:  In Mormonism, the Adam–God theory (also called the Adam–God doctrine) is a doctrine taught by Brigham Young and some early leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) involving the status of Adam as the God of humanity. The details, meaning, and reporting of the doctrine are disputed; however, the most comprehensive statement of the doctrine, found in the transcript of Young's sermon at the church's 1852 General Conference, includes the ideas that Adam (1) entered the Garden of Eden "with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him", (2) and (3) that Jesus was conceived, not by the Holy Spirit, but by "the Father", i.e., "the first of the human family" (Young 1852, p. 50).
 
The prophets do not teach theories and pass them off as doctrine.  There is no such "theory" amongst us, only the theory that those without an understanding of our beliefs have asscribed to us.  Adam had a heavenly body of the paradiscal order as he was in the Garden of Eden, since that time, he has attained a greater resurrection.  Jesus Christ is the Son of God....not the Son of the Spirit/Holy Ghost (God's spirit messenger).
 
Originally posted by yishmael

During the life of Brigham Young elements of the Adam–God theory were taught in church meetings, sung in church hymns, and included in the church's Endowment ceremony; however, after his death in 1877 this controversial theory gradually lost prominence and was eventually abandoned. The theory was questionable even during Young's lifetime, and was vocally rejected by the influential contemporary Mormon apostleOrson Pratt. Other apostles remained silent on the issue.

Originally posted by yishmael

In 1976, the most common interpretation of the theory was rejected by the LDS Church as false doctrine. However, in branches of Mormon fundamentalism that are no longer affiliated with the LDS Church, but who closely follow the teachings of Brigham Young, the doctrine remains.

The opportive word here is......interpretation.   Those who were excommunicated continued to have their own interpretations.....therefore they created their own belief system which supported their chosen tradition (instead of on-going revelation concerning the matter).  They did not understand the mind of the Lord in giving this instruction in the first place.
 
 
Originally posted by yishmael

It seems like you (and other Mormons) agree with the Muslims at this point, and disagree with President Young. Adam was not our God, but only an honorable man (a prophet), despite what the prophet of the church preached, as recorded in the JoD.
 
I did not say that I disagreed with Pres. Young....I disagree with the interpretation that other's have asscribed to his comments.

Originally posted by yishmael

So when President Young claimed that Jesus was a god, and that he ruled in a divine committee with Heavenly Father (and the Holy Ghost too) which he called the godhead, he could also have been mistaken, right?
 
Brigham Young wasn't the first to teach the doctrine of the Godhead.  It was taught by the apostles as well as all who knew of such things. 

Originally posted by yishmael

And how is it that Jesus was our elder brother in the pre-existence? If he were exalted, he'd be a god in his own right, on some other world...
 
Being "exalted" has more than one meaning: 
(1)  Position of honor, pre-eminance, and glory that one is granted.
(2)  A Ressurected being who has attained Eternal Life (exaltation).

Originally posted by yishmael

This is the problem I have with Mormon theology, and it's the first main reason I choose not to actively practice Mormonism at this point. The godhead concept, at least as it has been understood by Mormons since Brigham Young, just doesn't make any sense in the larger context.
 
I have taught Seminary and Sunday School for many years, and I have yet to hear that someone had a hard time understanding this doctrine.  I have only heard former trinitarian converts who have been releaved to rid themselves of the trinity theory.  They exclaim that the Godhead doctrine is easy to understand once they get the trinity theory out of their head.  But there again they have had a spiritual conversion through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Originally posted by yishmael

There is a second, equally important reason I choose not to take a literal belief in religion at this time. You illustrated that too.


Originally posted by Janet Waters


This knowledge does not come from adhering to the principles of the scientfic method or from scholarly study....in order to know this....it has to be be revealed.  This knowledge is available to all who truly seek for it.  Even you!


Originally posted by yishmael

The great Muslim philosopher, ibn-Rushd said that
that there is no incompatibility between religion and philosophy when both are properly understood.

I agree there is no incompatibility between true religion and true philosophy/science.....when both are understood correctly.

But you see.....human philosophy and science is subject to constant change.  For no human has acquired all knowledge.  New discoveries are found every day which debunk the interpretations of the past.

There is absolute truth.....however philosophers/scientists have not acquired it....but they have only acquired various perceptions about the truth.  Which may be far from it!!

If a scientist has faith in God and looks to prove his existence in science..that scientist will find him.  If a scientist does not believe in God and looks to prove he doesn't exist through science....that scientist will not find him. 
 
However God cannot be totally found through physical means....only through spiritual means....for that is how God opperates with man.
 
 
Originally posted by yishmael

He also said that God could be revealed through revelation (like Qur'an or Book of Mormon) or through the scientific method. Either was a valid way of finding God.
 
Once a person has determined what he believes in--that belief colors his perception of himself and the world.  We see the world not as it is....but as we are.
 
Originally posted by yishmael

He also alluded to the fact that God created people like me (people who couldn't believe in God literally) and sent us our own prophets (people like Aristotle, Charles Darwin and Karl Marx) and he insisted that science, philosophy and religion did not contradict one another, but enhanced each other to the ultimate pleasure of Allah.

People who couldn't believe in God or who didn't want to?

Originally posted by yishmael

Folks like him were the real reason my European ancestors finally pulled themselves out of feudalism.
 
God inspires the great minds of men to fulfill his purposes.  Columbus was inspired to find the American continent the Founding Fathers were inspired to write the Constitution.  Martin Luther was inspired to break away from the traditions of the past to look for truth...he was inspired as well.  There is nothing wrong with appreciating these fine men for their contribution to the world.  Each had their own missions to perform...which missions do not take away from the missions that others were sent here to accomplish.


Originally posted by yishmael

I don't want you to think I like Islam better than Mormonism. At one level, I don't take either literally. At another, I like Mormonism better because I'm most familiar with it, but the Muslims have developed a theology that at least makes sense, and they've had time enough to produce a pretty rich variety of contemplative literature.

Yes I see you would rather find God your own way....with less risk....by involving other means such as the philosophic/scientific methods instead of the way HE has provided. 

Originally posted by yishmael

I think if Mormonism lasts for another 200 years, we'll probably have our own ibn-Rushd.
 
Who says there hasn't been one?
 
Originally posted by yishmael

Until then, studying Islam gives me a way to reconstruct at least the possibility of God. So that's a good thing, in my opinion. I trust my Heavenly Father will understand my desire to get to know him, in what way I can.
 
I see that you are safely hiding from making a choice--- but not disputing, lest you are forced into making a choice and be on wrong side of the fence.  There are no fence-sitters in the Celestial Kingdom....but all you have is time....which time....you know not.
 
 
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
yishmael  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member
Avatar
Chairman Meow
Religion: Atheist(Atheist)
Posts: 309
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote yishmael Replybullet Posted: 18 April 2008 at 7:58pm
Hi Janet,

This is the most interesting conversation I've had with another Mormon in a long time.

When you say you taught seminary: did you work for CES or did you do it as a calling?

Originally posted by Janet Waters

Adam helped in the creative process along side of Jehovah (Jesus Christ) under the direction of Elohim.

Adam is a god (creator)...in the respect that he helped in the creation of this earth and peopling it.


Right, that's the way Modern Mormons see things. And yet Brigham Young (pbuh) said:
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.
Journal Of Discourses (1:50)

The aforementioned apostle, Orson Pratt (dedicated monotheist that he was) was the only person who had the courage to challenge this idea while Brigham Young was alive, and history suggests that you don't propose it today because of his efforts to bring Mormons back to a more monotheistic interpretation.

Incidentally, what do you think the church would look like today had Pratt been running the show?

I have taught Seminary and Sunday School for many years, and I have yet to hear that someone had a hard time understanding this doctrine.  I have only heard former trinitarian converts who have been releaved to rid themselves of the trinity theory.  They exclaim that the Godhead doctrine is easy to understand once they get the trinity theory out of their head.  But there again they have had a spiritual conversion through the power of the Holy Ghost.


I understand it perfectly
, and I agree that it makes far more sense than the traditional Christian interpretation. It's still lacking, in my opinion, for the reasons that aviatrix mentioned on another thread here.

Committees aren't efficient. Committees are a sacrifice of expediency on the altar of democracy and common consent. Human beings need committees. God doesn't need a committee. If there is a God (which I doubt) I'm convinced it's one single will and intelligence. It's the only way the universe makes sense to me.

I see that you are safely hiding from making a choice--- but not disputing, lest you are forced into making a choice and be on wrong side of the fence.  There are no fence-sitters in the Celestial Kingdom....but all you have is time....which time....you know not.


Sister Waters, I would never call your character into question simply over a disagreement in interpreting scripture.

I am not hiding from anything, and cowardice is not the underlying motivation for my lack of faith. I have done everything that was required of a faithful Latter-Day Saint. I asked many times for the sorts of spiritual witnesses that you referred to. I got nothing.

Our differences don't mean that either of us are deficient. Supposing for a moment that I assume God to be a reality. I'd be confident in that case that God loves both of us, equally. God created us both, for his own purposes, and gave us our unique outlooks and experiences. For you to suggest otherwise implies God created me deficiently, which means God is himself deficient. Or it implies that God created us so that we would fight with one another, which means that he is petty. Or it implies that God created me simply so that he could punish me for my unbelief, which means that he's a sadist. I reject all these suppositions. After all, "if he wished it, God could have created us all one people..." (I had to get that from the Muslims too, but someday we might have similar ideals).

Take Care,

Yishmael

No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
eldon  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member

Location: United States
Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 312
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote eldon Replybullet Posted: 19 April 2008 at 1:27pm
 
 
di·vin·i·ty
1. the quality of being divine; divine nature.
2. deity; godhood.
3. a divine being; a God.
4. the Divinity, (sometimes lowercase) "the Deity."
5. a being having divine attributes, ranking below God but above humans: minor divinities.
6. the study or science of divine things; theology.
7. godlike character; supreme excellence.
 
 
 
 
 
yes, there is much in the present definition of the term divinity that would allow one to think that the term Godhead could be applied to Jesus. However, looking at the more simple definition of the word divine is what I suggested:
 
divine : partaking of the nature of God; excellent in the highest degree; godlike; sacred; holy..
 
all of these phrases and terms can be applied to man, including Jesus, without necessitating him being part of any Godhead, a term foreign to the languages of Revelation.
 
 [quote]God·head
–noun
1.
a. the essential being of God; the Supreme Being.
b. Some use to describe the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
2. (lowercase) divinity; godhood.
3. (lowercase) Rare. a god or goddess; deity.
 
 
 
The Greek words are the same.  The English words overlap.  The English term of Godhead (noun) predates the term of divinity (which is a noun that also can be used as an adverb).
 
 
Again, there is no Greek term equating to "Godhead". That is simply a relatively modern term superimposed upon those Greek words I posted earlier.
 
It is not a matter of which English word predates another, it is a matter of how the only true God views the idea of others having headship with Him, especially seeing that the other alleged God in question defined their relationship for us: "~the Father is my God and your God~" John 20:17
So lose not heart nor fall into despair, for ye MUST gain mastery if ye are true in faith.3:139

Islam">Islam
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Janet Waters  
Mureed
Mureed
Avatar
Location: United States
Religion: Christian(Mormon)
Posts: 3617
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Janet Waters Replybullet Posted: 19 April 2008 at 1:44pm
[QUOTE=yishmael]Hi Janet,This is the most interesting conversation I've had with another Mormon in a long time.When you say you taught seminary: did you work for CES or did you do it as a calling?[/QUOTE]
 
As a ward calling.

Originally posted by Janet Waters

Adam helped in the creative process along side of Jehovah (Jesus Christ) under the direction of Elohim.

Adam is a god (creator)...in the respect that he helped in the creation of this earth and peopling it.


Originally posted by yishmael

The aforementioned apostle, Orson Pratt (dedicated monotheist that he was) was the only person who had the courage to challenge this idea while Brigham Young was alive, and history suggests that you don't propose it today because of his efforts to bring Mormons back to a more monotheistic interpretation.
 
The modern coined theory:  Monotheism....is not part of our lingo or part of our typical conversation.   

Originally posted by yishmael

Incidentally, what do you think the church would look like today had Pratt been running the show?
 
A shambles.  For it is not an individuals' position to "run the show."  This Church is led by it's owner.....Jesus Christ.  We are to conform ourselves to HIS will....not to our own or the will of any other man.
 
That is an interesting question....
 
First of all, we believe that the prophets and apostles of the Church are foreordained before they were born.  Orson Pratt was an apostle who may or may not have been foreordained to become the next Prophet.  Where much is given much is required.  One must constantly be worthy of such callings, otherwise opportunities of service may not be still offered to an individual.  The majority of the apostles continued to be worthy of such calls, however, if they were not foreordained to become the prophet, they will die before their seniority comes up.  
 
In the case of Church callings we are not to use our personal ambition and seek that our will be done.  It is the Lord's Church and we are to conform ourselves to HIS will....not our own.... in trying to obtain callings from the Lord.  The Lord sets those perimeters.  Our position is to seek for the will of God to be accomplished and offer ourselves in whatever capacity the Lord calls us to accomplish.
 
But back to your question---If Orson sought to obtain the calling when it was not the Lord's will for him to hold it.....
 
Whenever there is a vacancy in the General Presidency (because of a death of member) all members meet together in the Temple and pray to know the Lord's will concerning the matter.  Seniority is a factor, however, it is the will of God that takes presidence.  All members must receive the same answer to their prayer in order for an individual to become the next member and/or prophet.  If they don't, then that individual does not assume that position.  
 
So therefore, Orson would not have had a unamious vote at that point (if he had not died earlier). 
 
Originally posted by Janet Waters

I have taught Seminary and Sunday School for many years, and I have yet to hear that someone had a hard time understanding this doctrine.  I have only heard former trinitarian converts who have been releaved to rid themselves of the trinity theory.  They exclaim that the Godhead doctrine is easy to understand once they get the trinity theory out of their head.  But there again they have had a spiritual conversion through the power of the Holy Ghost.


Originally posted by yishmael

I understand it perfectly
, and I agree that it makes far more sense than the traditional Christian interpretation. It's still lacking, in my opinion, for the reasons that aviatrix mentioned on another thread here.
 
It is not lacking....if anything it is the perception about it... that lacks. 

Originally posted by yishmael

Committees aren't efficient. Committees are a sacrifice of expediency on the altar of democracy and common consent.
 
Mortal committees are created by imperfect beings. 
You are asscribing that which is on a mortal level (of the telestial order) to that which is on a perfect level (celestial order-heavenly).
 
Originally posted by yishmael

Human beings need committees. God doesn't need a committee.
 
God doesn't need anything---it is not about what God needs.  You are missing the point.  How are we to learn if we don't do?  God delegates his authority to teach others and to develop others......  It is for the other's benefit......  Not because HE can't do these things.  
 
Originally posted by yishmael

If there is a God (which I doubt) I'm convinced it's one single will and intelligence. It's the only way the universe makes sense to me.
 
That is where we get into the "ONENESS" of God.....this is how perfection is possible.  Elohim is at the helm, he delegates his authority to his sons and daughters for them to learn how to be like him. 
 
If a Father has his Son working with him on his truck....does that say that the Father is incompetent? 
 
Not at all.....it shows that the Father knows how to be a FATHER.  That is HIS role, he teaches how to accomplish these things to his son, he teaches his son about mechanics, he teaches his son skills that he can take with him, HE works alongside of his son, he is developing his son's work ethic.  But most of all.......he teaches his son HIS Character.....so that his son can develop that character too.
 
Originally posted by Janet Waters

I see that you are safely hiding from making a choice--- but not disputing, lest you are forced into making a choice and be on wrong side of the fence.  There are no fence-sitters in the Celestial Kingdom....but all you have is time....which time....you know not.


Originally posted by yishmael

Sister Waters, I would never call your character into question simply over a disagreement in interpreting scripture.
 
I am not calling your character into question.  I am not talking about interpreting scripture.  I am asking you to dig deeper. 

Originally posted by yishmael

I am not hiding from anything, and cowardice is not the underlying motivation for my lack of faith.
 
Then what is the "underlying motivation for your lack of faith"????
 
Originally posted by yishmael

I have done everything that was required of a faithful Latter-Day Saint. I asked many times for the sorts of spiritual witnesses that you referred to. I got nothing.
 
So tell me....what are all the "required things" that would cause you to receive the witnesses that you desire?
 

Originally posted by yishmael

Our differences don't mean that either of us are deficient. Supposing for a moment that I assume God to be a reality. I'd be confident in that case that God loves both of us, equally. God created us both, for his own purposes, and gave us our unique outlooks and experiences. For you to suggest otherwise implies God created me deficiently, which means God is himself deficient.
 
I am not trying to suggest that God created you as deficient.  I am asking you to dig deeper. 
 
 
Originally posted by yishmael

Or it implies that God created us so that we would fight with one another, which means that he is petty.
 
My intention is not to fight with you.............I'm challenging you. 
 
Originally posted by yishmael

Or it implies that God created me simply so that he could punish me for my unbelief, which means that he's a sadist.
 
This is quite a path to go down.....If you allowed yourself to go down this path....could you imagine asking yourself this question?  Can you say it out loud?  It is a very hurtful question.  It is a hurtful thing to say to God.  Would those unsaid things be better unsaid?  I perceive that you love God and choose not to go down this path.
 
Originally posted by yishmael

I reject all these suppositions. After all, "if he wished it, God could have created us all one people..." (I had to get that from the Muslims too, but someday we might have similar ideals).Take Care,Yishmael
 
Sometimes those hurtful things need to said outloud--- in order to work them out.  I hope that I have not offended you.....if I have.....I am sorry.
 
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
yishmael  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member
Avatar
Chairman Meow
Religion: Atheist(Atheist)
Posts: 309
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote yishmael Replybullet Posted: 19 April 2008 at 2:52pm
Hi Janet,

I'm not offended at all. I don't take anything I read on the internet too seriously. I've enjoyed the conversation.

I do find it curious to note that you haven't addressed the real subject of the original article re: how Mormonism does or does not fit within the bounds of traditional Abrahamic tradition.

Why did our prophet, seer and revelator Brigham Young propose that Adam was "the only god with which we have anything to do" if we don't advocate that today?

Monotheism is a compound with Greek roots. I don't know the etymology, but the definition is ancient. If you've ever been to a Jewish temple and heard the cantor sing "shema yisrael" that's what he's talking about: "The master, God of Israel, is only one"


Or it implies that God created me simply so that he could punish me for my unbelief, which means that he's a sadist.
 
This is quite a path to go down.....If you allowed yourself to go down this path....could you imagine asking yourself this question?  Can you say it out loud?  It is a very hurtful question.  It is a hurtful thing to say to God.  Would those unsaid things be better unsaid?  I perceive that you love God and choose not to go down this path.



Well, supposedly we all fought a war in the pre-existence, came to earth to get bodies through a veil, which prevents us remembering such stuff, and here we are. God knew I was skeptical before I came here. Why did he allow me to pass through the veil? Either he didn't know that I would use my own brain to examine the universe, and find his presence lacking, in which case he's not much of a God...or he allowed it anyway simply for the sake of punishing me on judgment day. In that case he's nobody I'd want to know anyway, and I'd reject him on principle.

God created me as a skeptic, and He's allowed me to use the free agency and the critical thinking skills with which He endowed me to become pretty confident that He doesn't exist...at least not in the way that the Mormons tell me he does.

Back to the topic: How does Mormonism fit into the Abrahamic tradition? It seems like it simply doesn't. Our prayer would probably go: "Oyez, Deseret: The Lords, Gods of the Mormons are Three of Many"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism

I don't disagree about Pratt running the early church, by the way. I think a Stalinesque character like Brigham Young was the only way the church survived in those early years. Most movements like ours either dissolve or they end badly (like David Koresh, Jim Jones or Heaven's Gate) and Pratt was way too nice a guy to pull it off.
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Janet Waters  
Mureed
Mureed
Avatar
Location: United States
Religion: Christian(Mormon)
Posts: 3617
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Janet Waters Replybullet Posted: 19 April 2008 at 5:03pm
Originally posted by eldon

Again, there is no Greek term equating to "Godhead". That is simply a relatively modern term superimposed upon those Greek words I posted earlier.
 
It is not a matter of which English word predates another, it is a matter of how the only true God views the idea of others having headship with Him, especially seeing that the other alleged God in question defined their relationship for us: "~the Father is my God and your God~" John 20:17
 
All schools of thought, should recognize that when it comes to Elohim (God),
there is both a plurality and a oneness.
Elohim is used as the plural
and singular. 
 
However, the usage of "oneness" is not referring to the singular ("1"ness of person).  For all mankind are commanded to become "one" as they (the Father and the Son) are one.  In other words....unified as one heart, might, mind, strength, and purpose.  To become "one" with them.  If we are not "one" Christ tells us then we are not HIS.  Those who are not for him are against him. 
 
When God placed Adam and Eve together
and commanded them to become "one" flesh. 
Their skin didn't stretch and grow together
to become a simease twin!!! 
That is not what God was commanding. 
 
However, within Christianity we differ in how the"oneness" of God is achieved.
 
non-LDS scholar Margaret Barker made this comment:
Evidence that the early Christians identified Jesus with the God of the Jews is overwhelming; it was their customary way of reading the Old Testament. The appearances of Yahweh or the angel of Yahweh were read as manifestations of the pre-existent Christ. The Son of God was their name for Yahweh.
 
This can be seen clearly in the writings of Paul who applied several 'Lord' texts to Jesus. . . . Now Paul, though completely at home in the Greek world, claimed to have been the strictest of Jews, educated in Jerusalem and zealous for the traditions of his people.
 
How is it that he, of all people, could distinguish between God and Lord as he did in 1 Corinthians, if this was not already a part of first century Jewish belief? He emphasized that this distinction was fundamental to his belief: "there is one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 8:6).
 
This is, to say the least, a remarkable contradiction of Deuteronomy 6:4, if he understood that verse in the way that we do, as a statement of monotheism ("One God"=Trinity).
 
If, on the other hand, it was a statement of the unity of Yahweh as the one inclusive summing up of all the heavenly powers, the 'eloheim (GODHEAD) then it would have been compatible with belief in God the Most High also and not a contradition of Deuteronomy. (emphasis in Barker's original text) /
 
Speaking of the Plurality of God (Eloheim)........
who are united as "one" in heart, might, mind, strength, and purpose.....
 
Genesis 1: 1-3, 26-27
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
 
26  And God [Eloheim] said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepth upon the earth.
27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
 
Moses 2:1-3, 26-27
And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying:  Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak.  I am the Beginning and the end, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.
And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come up upon the face of the deep; and my Spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God.
3  And I, God said:  Let there be light; and there was light.
 
26  And I God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning:  Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.  And I, God said: Let them have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27  And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.
 
Abraham 4:1-31
And then the Lord said: Let us go down.  And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is, the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.
3  And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.
6  And the Gods also said...
7  And the Gods ordered the expanse....
8  And the Gods called the expanse heaven....
9  And the Gods ordered, saying....
10  And the Gods pronounced the dry land....
11  And the Gods said....
12  And the Gods organized the earth....
13.  And it came to pass....
14  And the Gods organized the lights....
15  And organized them....
16  And the Gods organized....
17  And the Gods set them in the expanse....
18  And the Gods watched....
19  And it came to pass...
20  And the Gods said....
21  And the Gods prepared....
22  And the Gods said....
23  And it came to pass...
24  And the Gods prepared....
25  And the Gods organized....
26  And the Gods took counsel amongst themselves and said:  Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27  So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form them him, male and female to form they them.
28  And the Gods said.....
29  And the Gods said.....
30  And to every beast of the earth....
31  And the Gods said...
 
 
 
Originally posted by yishmael

I do find it curious to note that you haven't addressed the real subject of the original article re: how Mormonism does or does not fit within the bounds of traditional Abrahamic tradition. Back to the topic: How does Mormonism fit into the Abrahamic tradition? It seems like it simply doesn't. Our prayer would probably go: "Oyez, Deseret: The Lords, Gods of the Mormons are Three of Many".
 
The above is Abraham's tradition for he wrote it!!  Despite the current "traditional view" of what others assume Abraham believed....for they have no documentation to support their varied assumptions.
 
 
 
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Janet Waters  
Mureed
Mureed
Avatar
Location: United States
Religion: Christian(Mormon)
Posts: 3617
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Janet Waters Replybullet Posted: 19 April 2008 at 11:01pm


Abraham 3:22 - 25

22  Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23  And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
24  And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
25  And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

This is Abraham's "tradition" (this knowledge was revealed to him by God)....about himself....that he himself states.

The account of Moses adds to Abraham's words........

Moses 1:31 - 33
31  And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face.  And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things.  Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
32  And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
33  And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.





No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
yishmael  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member
Avatar
Chairman Meow
Religion: Atheist(Atheist)
Posts: 309
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote yishmael Replybullet Posted: 19 April 2008 at 11:43pm
Hi Janet,

In 1987 (I was 16) I read the Book of Abraham alongside Freud's Introduction to Psychoanalysis and gained some wonderful insights into the workings of Joseph Smith's mind. I presented my findings as a paper to my psychology class at Pine View High School in St. George Utah. My teacher (he was also my football coach) was not amused.

In any event, I really appreciate you making my point with all these fabulous sources which suggest Mormonism is indeed not an authentic version of monotheism.

Lest anyone here be deceived, the "Book of Abraham" is a part of a now discredited work by Joseph Smith that Mormons know as the Pearl Of Great Price. Smith successfully fooled several hundred early Mormons with the idea that he had translated an Egyptian funerary text. About a hundred years after this work was published, the original text was taken around to various Egyptologists who actually did understand the meanings. Here are a sample of the responses to Joseph Smith Jr.'s "translation":

Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:

"It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations"[35]

Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology,

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the Goddess [in Facsimile No. 1] into a king and Osiris into Abraham.”[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

Curious people can read the Pearl of Great Price in its entirety here:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/pgp/contents

In conclusion, the "Abraham" character created by Joseph Smith (along with Smith's "Moses") can not be called consistent with the prophetic characters that Muslims and Jews revere. I think it's fine that Smith founded a new religion, based upon new ideas, but it's confusing to Mormons (like yourself) today who try and reconcile the two. He could have called the polytheists in the PGP by fabricated names, such as "Nephi" or "Korihor" or something like that.

It should also be noted in passing that many Mormons (not all, but many) cling to a monotheistic interpretation of the divine. Mormonism is a very new religion and every time two Mormons get together, there will be three opinions (this thread is an excellent example of that).
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Janet Waters  
Mureed
Mureed
Avatar
Location: United States
Religion: Christian(Mormon)
Posts: 3617
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Janet Waters Replybullet Posted: 20 April 2008 at 12:44am
Originally posted by yishmael

Hi Janet,

In 1987 (I was 16) I read the Book of Abraham alongside Freud's Introduction to Psychoanalysis and gained some wonderful insights into the workings of Joseph Smith's mind. I presented my findings as a paper to my psychology class at Pine View High School in St. George Utah. My teacher (he was also my football coach) was not amused.


I bet he wasn't amused!!!
  You know you remind me somewhat of my son.  He also has a knack at choosing to make all the wrong comments....it makes you laugh and then say "Alright....it is time that you leave."......(plus the football part).

Originally posted by yishmael

In any event, I really appreciate you making my point with all these fabulous sources which suggest Mormonism is indeed not an authentic version of monotheism.


Authentic monotheism????  Try again....modern theory about a very
ancient doctrine.

Originally posted by yishmael

Lest anyone here be deceived, the "Book of Abraham" is a part of a now discredited work by Joseph Smith that Mormons know as the Pearl Of Great Price.


The Book of Abraham is authentic.  Those who attempt to discredit an authentic text....do so to protect their own special interests.


Originally posted by yishmael

Smith successfully fooled several hundred early Mormons with the idea that he had translated an Egyptian funerary text.


Joseph Smith did not fool anyone....the Book is as authentic today as in the days of Abraham.

Originally posted by yishmael

About a hundred years after this work was published, the original text was taken around to various Egyptologists who actually did understand the meanings. Here are a sample of the responses to Joseph Smith Jr.'s "translation":Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:

"It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations"[35]

Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology,

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the Goddess [in Facsimile No. 1] into a king and Osiris into Abraham.”[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

Curious people can read the Pearl of Great Price in its entirety here:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/pgp/contents


Learned men who think that they are wise!!!  The wisdom of the world is nothing according to the wisdom of God.

These comments are completely ignorant.  In 1966, fragments from an ancient papyrus was found in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art by a member of the LDS Church.  When the Smith family (descendants of Joseph) were in desperate need for money, they sold 12 fragments to the museum (under the guise that they were the Book of Abraham).

In the days of Joseph Smith, according to eye witnesses of the scrolls, it was recorded that they contained more than our present day Bible.  Not only did it include the Books of Abraham and Joseph--- but the traditional funerary texts belonging to the individual mummy it was wrapped inside of.

Whomever of the Smith family, sold those 12 fragments to the Museum, did so to make money....(they would have been foolish to give that which is most precious... if they had something else to give instead).  The main text was believed to have burned in the Chicago fire, however, they just maybe in the possession of the RLDS Church if they still exist.  But it is unlikely that they still do, for immediately after they are unwrapped, and exposed to air (and our pollution!!) they would start to disintegrate.

Emma was known to hide them by sewing them into her dress with the intent of keeping them safe from the mobs who were intent on finding them.  They hid them in various places to protect them.  It is very unlikely that they still exist today.  And the RLDS Church would have done anything to have protected them from being taken away....including the government or us taking them away!!

Originally posted by yishmael

In conclusion, the "Abraham" character created by Joseph Smith (along with Smith's "Moses") can not be called consistent with the prophetic characters that Muslims and Jews revere. I think it's fine that Smith founded a new religion, based upon new ideas, but it's confusing to Mormons (like yourself) today who try and reconcile the two. He could have called the polytheists in the PGP by fabricated names, such as "Nephi" or "Korihor" or something like that.


I am not the confused member here.  If you know anything about Hebrew....your above comment just exposed your ignorance.  For there are also ancient Hebrew pronunciations of Lehi, Nephi, Laban, Moroni.....ect....ect....even though many of these names are not recorded in our present day Bible for Joseph Smith to have copied them from.

But I see that truth is not what you are looking for-- just as the above professors.  But you are looking for evidence to support what you want to believe.  When people choose this instead....they do not learn truth.  Which is the typical human choice.  The ego looks to all avenues to support itself, even if it is not a positive to do so.






No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
yishmael  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member
Avatar
Chairman Meow
Religion: Atheist(Atheist)
Posts: 309
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote yishmael Replybullet Posted: 20 April 2008 at 1:41am
Janet,

Rather than debate the real issues, you continue to get personal. You'll understand if I respond in kind.

I'm actually wondering here if you're still LDS. For example: My bishop knows that the Book of Abraham is a fraud. My brothers and sisters know. My parents and grandparents know. It was my father who explained it all to me, in 1987, and he was in the stake presidency at the time.

The brethren surely know. You will never hear any Mormon apostle quote the Book of Abraham in general conference, or use it to make a point.

I am not the confused member here.  If you know anything about Hebrew....your above comment just exposed your ignorance.  For there are also ancient Hebrew pronunciations of Lehi, Nephi, Laban, Moroni.....ect....ect....even though many of these names are not recorded in our present day Bible for Joseph Smith to have copied them from.

But I see that truth is not what you are looking for-- just as the above professors.  But you are looking for evidence to support what you want to believe.  When people choose this instead....they do not learn truth.  Which is the typical human choice.  The ego looks to all avenues to support itself, even if it is not a positive to do so.


I don't speak Hebrew, but my sister-in-law does (she's a gen-yoo-wine Sabra who grew up in Haifa). We've had many, many conversations over the years. Needless to say, she's not impressed with the idea that "Nephi" or "Mormon" or "Lehi" are authentic Hebrew names. Even Smith didn't claim they were...they were supposedly recorded in "Reformed Egyptian", remember?

I appreciate you calling my character into question, but the thread wasn't about me originally. It was a decent deconstruction of The Abrahamic Traditions, to which you added a version of the Mormon perspective. I appreciated that and added my own comments (from the secular Mormon side of the fence). If you'd like to debate the issues, I'd love to continue. If you're just going to ignore the topic and speculate as to whatever you feel causes me to not accept your version of "the truth", then I'll have to leave it here.

Back to the topic: What do you think about the idea that Orson Pratt had a copy of Qur'an? You've been here for a while, talking to Muslims. Don't you think it's funny how we allofasudden got the "don't drink alcohol" admonition, about the same time we got the "Jesus is just a human being, don't pray to him" rule, and the criticism of the Christians who make statues out of stone?

Maybe it's a coincidence, but I doubt it. Mormonism would have ended up being the Nation Of Islamic White Collective Farmers, had history gone just a little bit differently.
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Janet Waters  
Mureed
Mureed
Avatar
Location: United States
Religion: Christian(Mormon)
Posts: 3617
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Janet Waters Replybullet Posted: 20 April 2008 at 5:08pm
Originally posted by yishmael

Janet,

Rather than debate the real issues, you continue to get personal. You'll understand if I respond in kind.

I'm actually wondering here if you're still LDS. For example: My bishop knows that the Book of Abraham is a fraud. My brothers and sisters know. My parents and grandparents know. It was my father who explained it all to me, in 1987, and he was in the stake presidency at the time.

The brethren surely know. You will never hear any Mormon apostle quote the Book of Abraham in general conference, or use it to make a point.


I have never heard such a tradition taught within the membership.  I'm sorry to hear this is your family tradition.   So is this why you have such a problem with faith?

I am not the confused member here.  If you know anything about Hebrew....your above comment just exposed your ignorance.  For there are also ancient Hebrew pronunciations of Lehi, Nephi, Laban, Moroni.....ect....ect....even though many of these names are not recorded in our present day Bible for Joseph Smith to have copied them from.

But I see that truth is not what you are looking for-- just as the above professors.  But you are looking for evidence to support what you want to believe.  When people choose this instead....they do not learn truth.  Which is the typical human choice.  The ego looks to all avenues to support itself, even if it is not a positive to do so.


Originally posted by yishmael

I don't speak Hebrew, but my sister-in-law does (she's a gen-yoo-wine Sabra who grew up in Haifa). We've had many, many conversations over the years. Needless to say, she's not impressed with the idea that "Nephi" or "Mormon" or "Lehi" are authentic Hebrew names. Even Smith didn't claim they were...they were supposedly recorded in "Reformed Egyptian", remember?


They are Israelite names, Lehi himself being a merchant could communicate in several languages.  To speak one language and write in another was very common during that time in history.

Originally posted by yishmael

I appreciate you calling my character into question, but the thread wasn't about me originally. It was a decent deconstruction of The Abrahamic Traditions, to which you added a version of the Mormon perspective. I appreciated that and added my own comments (from the secular Mormon side of the fence). If you'd like to debate the issues, I'd love to continue. If you're just going to ignore the topic and speculate as to whatever you feel causes me to not accept your version of "the truth", then I'll have to leave it here.


I looked up a couple of, as you call it-- "secular Mormon" sites.  They turned my stomach.  Why not call yourself anti-mormon?  Call it what it is.  Either you are for it or against it......but this fence sitting....

Reminds me of a story about a man that dies and is judged, he is asked if he renounces Jesus Christ.  The man says, "Oh, no sir."  Then when asked if he renounced Satan his reply, "Oh, no sir."  When asked why.....he made the comment, "Where I'm going I can't afford to make enemies."


The man thought that sitting on the fence was his best strategy.  I don't think so!!! 
  Sorry there is no sympathy from this gal....I'm true blue.


Originally posted by yishmael

Once again I was not calling your character into question...as I stated.... I was asking you to dig deeper. 

Back to the topic: What do you think about the idea that Orson Pratt had a copy of Qur'an? You've been here for a while, talking to Muslims. Don't you think it's funny how we allofasudden got the "don't drink alcohol" admonition, about the same time we got the "Jesus is just a human being, don't pray to him" rule, and the criticism of the Christians who make statues out of stone?


You are really grasping here.....

I have a copy of the Qur'an too... so what?  I don't have a problem with people being well informed with the finer things of life.  It sounds like you've been consuming anti- crap.  That stuff can really mess with a person's perception of reality....just like drug abuse or pornography.


Originally posted by yishmael

Maybe it's a coincidence, but I doubt it. Mormonism would have ended up being the Nation Of Islamic White Collective Farmers, had history gone just a little bit differently.


I don't know what you are trying to say by this comment.  However, it has strong racial overtones.
......is that how you meant it?

No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
yishmael  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member
Avatar
Chairman Meow
Religion: Atheist(Atheist)
Posts: 309
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote yishmael Replybullet Posted: 20 April 2008 at 5:28pm
Hey Janet,

The guy who refused to renounce Satan on his deathbed was Voltaire, but Bernard Shaw is said to have done it too.


I don't know what you are trying to say by this comment.  However, it has strong racial overtones.
......is that how you meant it?


Well, early Mormonism was pretty vehemently racist, or at least anti-Black, so perhaps. Brigham Young was certainly a vicious racist. I don't know that Pratt was so much. It was also an allusion to the Nation of Islam which actually does exist in North America.

I think the Modern Mormon tradition of re-writing our scriptures is a good thing, in that it has done away with most of the racial hatred our great-grandparents were steeped in. President Kimball is to thank for most of that. The NOI has also moderated itself in recent years and now has some non-Black members, or so they tell me, and my hat's off to them too.

I'm not stretching and you're just continuing to rely upon personal slights rather than discussing the relevant issues. Calling me an anti-Mormon, simply because I don't agree with you on the issues, is a great example of why I choose not to actively practice all the tenets of Mormonism. It's an anti-intellectual and small minded tactic that Muslims don't seem to embrace. For example, I have seen all manner of arguments and debates by Muslims among themselves, but I have yet to see any Muslim accuse an intellectual opponent of apostasy simply because he disagreed. You've alluded to me possibly being a racist, involved in illicit narcotics and/or being a fan of pornography. The casual reader will note that no Muslim has ever made such wild associations, despite the fact that I disagree with them too. You'll also note that I have not and will never allude to such things when I respond to you.

Why do you suppose Mormons (not just yourself) are inclined to rely on such fallacies so readily?

If God exists, he's big enough to tolerate his children taking different points of view. Your style of debate reflects an image of the divine which seems incredibly weak and insecure. I'm sorry you see God this way.

In any event, it's clear you don't want to discuss Mormonism's role in or compared to the Abrahamic structure, so I'll wish you a pleasant Sunday and let you have the last word if you'd like it.

Regards,

Yishmael
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 3 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums version 8.03
Copyright ©2001-2006 Web Wiz Guide
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed by members of the Whyislam Forum do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the Whyislam Team, or any of its subsidiaries, or parent organizations.