I think you're reversing the process. Elohim has a hotline to the Prophet, not vice-versa. Too many members get it into their head that God will answer any question the Prophet comes up with. I don't think that is true. God has never answered all of my questions. Some he says "not in this life", others "not now", and some he answers.
Nice God we have... gives some folks information, that may or may not be true, gives all sorts of conflicting information, doesn't answer unless he feels like it, creates all sorts of confusion, tells different folks different things, gives information in a way that a "prophet" can't even tell if the information is from God or not, creates a plan that completely makes no sense whatsoever so you have to either live with the confusion or pretend it doesn't exist...
Wow!
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
I think you're reversing the process. Elohim has a hotline to the Prophet, not vice-versa. Too many members get it into their head that God will answer any question the Prophet comes up with. I don't think that is true. God has never answered all of my questions. Some he says "not in this life", others "not now", and some he answers.
Nice God we have... gives some folks information, that may or may not be true, gives all sorts of conflicting information, doesn't answer unless he feels like it, creates all sorts of confusion, tells different folks different things, gives information in a way that a "prophet" can't even tell if the information is from God or not, creates a plan that completely makes no sense whatsoever so you have to either live with the confusion or pretend it doesn't exist...
Wow!
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
I think you're reversing the process. Elohim has a hotline to the Prophet, not vice-versa. Too many members get it into their head that God will answer any question the Prophet comes up with. I don't think that is true. God has never answered all of my questions. Some he says "not in this life", others "not now", and some he answers.
Nice God we have... gives some folks information, that may or may not be true, gives all sorts of conflicting information, doesn't answer unless he feels like it, creates all sorts of confusion, tells different folks different things, gives information in a way that a "prophet" can't even tell if the information is from God or not, creates a plan that completely makes no sense whatsoever so you have to either live with the confusion or pretend it doesn't exist...
Wow!
~dancer~
That depends on how God communicates with people. What are the rules? God seems to rarely come directly.
In my experience God gives information commensurate with how clean we can make ourselves. Twisted cultures tend to have very twisted Gods. The Christian God has gotten this veneer in many cultures. This also applies on an individual level. Another problem is human nature. In my experience God reveals a perfect tidbit of truth. The recipient then goes hog-wild fitting it into their pre-existing paradigm and then begins to teach not the truth revealed but how it fits in their paradigm. Then falsehood follows. I've caught myself doing this before. I remember giving a talk about something I was sure was revelation. I then turned back to my journal that evening and found that God had told me nothing of the sort. Now I know why it was so hard to give that talk.
The only antidote I know of to this problem is to open direct lines of communication and keep re-writing the paradigm. The Prophet is an aid to this process but without the real process you might as well listen to lectures on the Time-Cube theory to figure out how the Gospel works.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Blixa wrote:Yeah, but how does that change the fact that Blake's Nobodaddy is also the Lamb?
I didn't remember Nobodaddy, so I googled it. Great poem! Except for the last two lines, though, seems like I'm the only one who objects to secrecy and I'm a female. How do you interpret those lines, Blixa? I see it's a portion of a longer work so maybe there's some context?
Thanks, Lucretia (who got BA in English from BYU and didn't even hear about sexual symbology until after I graduated)
To Nobodaddy
Why art thou silent & invisible Father of jealousy Why dost thou hide thyself in clouds From every searching Eye
Why darkness & obscurity In all thy words & laws That none dare eat the fruit but from The wily serpents jaws Or is it because Secresy gains females loud applause
I think you're reversing the process. Elohim has a hotline to the Prophet, not vice-versa. Too many members get it into their head that God will answer any question the Prophet comes up with. I don't think that is true. God has never answered all of my questions. Some he says "not in this life", others "not now", and some he answers.
Nice God we have... gives some folks information, that may or may not be true, gives all sorts of conflicting information, doesn't answer unless he feels like it, creates all sorts of confusion, tells different folks different things, gives information in a way that a "prophet" can't even tell if the information is from God or not, creates a plan that completely makes no sense whatsoever so you have to either live with the confusion or pretend it doesn't exist...
Wow!
~dancer~
That depends on how God communicates with people. What are the rules? God seems to rarely come directly.
In my experience God gives information commensurate with how clean we can make ourselves. Twisted cultures tend to have very twisted Gods. The Christian God has gotten this veneer in many cultures. This also applies on an individual level. Another problem is human nature. In my experience God reveals a perfect tidbit of truth. The recipient then goes hog-wild fitting it into their pre-existing paradigm and then begins to teach not the truth revealed but how it fits in their paradigm. Then falsehood follows. I've caught myself doing this before. I remember giving a talk about something I was sure was revelation. I then turned back to my journal that evening and found that God had told me nothing of the sort. Now I know why it was so hard to give that talk.
The only antidote I know of to this problem is to open direct lines of communication and keep re-writing the paradigm. The Prophet is an aid to this process but without the real process you might as well listen to lectures on the Time-Cube theory to figure out how the Gospel works.
Keep on re-writing that paradigm, Nehor. Eventually, you'll rewrite yourself right out of the church, and you'll bless the day it happens. That is my experience.
I think you're reversing the process. Elohim has a hotline to the Prophet, not vice-versa. Too many members get it into their head that God will answer any question the Prophet comes up with. I don't think that is true. God has never answered all of my questions. Some he says "not in this life", others "not now", and some he answers.
Nice God we have... gives some folks information, that may or may not be true, gives all sorts of conflicting information, doesn't answer unless he feels like it, creates all sorts of confusion, tells different folks different things, gives information in a way that a "prophet" can't even tell if the information is from God or not, creates a plan that completely makes no sense whatsoever so you have to either live with the confusion or pretend it doesn't exist...
Wow!
~dancer~
That depends on how God communicates with people. What are the rules? God seems to rarely come directly.
In my experience God gives information commensurate with how clean we can make ourselves. Twisted cultures tend to have very twisted Gods. The Christian God has gotten this veneer in many cultures. This also applies on an individual level. Another problem is human nature. In my experience God reveals a perfect tidbit of truth. The recipient then goes hog-wild fitting it into their pre-existing paradigm and then begins to teach not the truth revealed but how it fits in their paradigm. Then falsehood follows. I've caught myself doing this before. I remember giving a talk about something I was sure was revelation. I then turned back to my journal that evening and found that God had told me nothing of the sort. Now I know why it was so hard to give that talk.
The only antidote I know of to this problem is to open direct lines of communication and keep re-writing the paradigm. The Prophet is an aid to this process but without the real process you might as well listen to lectures on the Time-Cube theory to figure out how the Gospel works.
Keep on re-writing that paradigm, Nehor. Eventually, you'll rewrite yourself right out of the church, and you'll bless the day it happens. That is my experience.
Fair enough but I see no indications of that happening to me. However I'll stick with Brigham Young's advice and not say that I will never leave the Church.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Blixa wrote:Yeah, but how does that change the fact that Blake's Nobodaddy is also the Lamb?
I didn't remember Nobodaddy, so I googled it. Great poem! Except for the last two lines, though, seems like I'm the only one who objects to secrecy and I'm a female. How do you interpret those lines, Blixa? I see it's a portion of a longer work so maybe there's some context?
Thanks, Lucretia (who got BA in English from BYU and didn't even hear about sexual symbology until after I graduated)
To Nobodaddy
Why art thou silent & invisible Father of jealousy Why dost thou hide thyself in clouds From every searching Eye
Why darkness & obscurity In all thy words & laws That none dare eat the fruit but from The wily serpents jaws Or is it because Secresy gains females loud applause
William Blake
I think he's refering to "church lady" types... you can't quite see it here, but I'm going on the body of his work in general for that interpretation. Also Nobodaddy comes up in the giant, long epic poems of Blake as well.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
== Ironically, your argument is the same the Muslims make against the Bible and the divinity of Jesus Christ;
Actually it is nothing like the Muslim argument, which essentially says the Bible is too corrupt to have any meaning for anyone. There is a reason why the Bible is barred from some Muslim countries and carrying it around in some Muslim countries is a crime. There is a reason why Muslims don’t read the Bible. The “People of the book” designation is not a compliment.
== that is, the term "begotten" is Greek's gennao and not monogenes.
That isn’t an accurate description of the argument, but it exists outside an Muslim context - always has. The argument I think you’re referring to has to do with the root of genes in monogenes. Some speculate that it derives from gennao – which drives the traditional “only begotten” rendering - but most believe it derives from genos. Mono means “only” while genos[i] means “kind or type.” Some scholars insist it means "alone," "unique," or "incomparable." This is supported by the LXX of Ps 25:16 which uses the term [i]monogenes to refer to loneliness. The LXX was the Old Testament version used by the first Christians, so it makes it unlikely that they understood monogenes to mean “only begotten” given that this would make no sense in Ps 25:16.
== Latter-day Saints stand alone in the world in proclaiming that Jesus was conceived in the flesh
What does this “conceived in the flesh” mean to you? The claim that he was the only begotten “in the flesh” was a later apologetic innovation in order to get around the “only begotten” implication. Only begotten son means God has no other sons, so LDS apologists had to come up with some way to make the text seem consistent with LDS belief that all humans are sons and daughters of God. So they added the qualifier, “begotten in the flesh.” But how exactly does that make him different from us, since we are also flesh? According to LDS theology, God begot all of his children in the preexistence spiritually. Christ was and is the firstborn among us, so he had already been begotten spiritually like the rest of us. He came to earth in physical form like the rest of us too. Just because he didn’t have an earthly Father this, encapsulates all that makes him unique?
== this is heresy to the rest of Christendom.
Because it sounds like you’re referring to the famous “God had sex with Mary doctrine,” which is also considered heresy to most LDS.
== To that extent, the "uniqueness" of Christ -- the only one conceived in the Flesh from the Father, establishes his uniqueness.
But that is not what the Bible says. That is ad hoc apologetic mish-mash. The Bible says Christ is unique because, unlike others before him, he actually proceeded forth from God (John 8:42;13:3;16:27,30). Whether by spiritual or physical means, this was never a distinction worth mentioning in New Testament theology. This is only a distinction made by LDS as a means to plug several holes in the claim that LDS Christology is biblical. Christ “proceeding from the Father”; this is an ingredient that would be used for the Trinity, but has never had a place in LDS Christology. In LDS theology, Christ doesn’t proceed from the Father in any sense. Instead, the Father’s physical chromosomes were inserted into Mary’s womb and Christ was born naturally like the rest of us.
== The use of the word "begotten" in Psa. 2:7, "I will declare the decree: The LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day I have begotten thee," has reference to birth, not uniqueness.
Yes, and notice that nowhere does it say “begotten in the flesh.”
In any event, the point I am trying to make here is that the phrase “only begotten son” appears to be a mistranslation for most modern scholars. If it is a mistranslation then it why does it appear dozens of times in LDS scriptures? This means Joseph Smith was most likely borrowing from the New Testament a phrase he thought made sense to Moses and Nephi.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
== Ironically, your argument is the same the Muslims make against the Bible and the divinity of Jesus Christ;
Actually it is nothing like the Muslim argument, which essentially says the Bible is too corrupt to have any meaning for anyone. There is a reason why the Bible is barred from some Muslim countries and carrying it around in some Muslim countries is a crime. There is a reason why Muslims don’t read the Bible. The “People of the book” designation is not a compliment.
== that is, the term "begotten" is Greek's gennao and not monogenes.
That isn’t an accurate description of the argument, but it exists outside an Muslim context - always has. The argument I think you’re referring to has to do with the root of genes in monogenes. Some speculate that it derives from gennao – which drives the traditional “only begotten” rendering - but most believe it derives from genos. Mono means “only” while genos[i] means “kind or type.” Some scholars insist it means "alone," "unique," or "incomparable." This is supported by the LXX of Ps 25:16 which uses the term [i]monogenes to refer to loneliness. The LXX was the Old Testament version used by the first Christians, so it makes it unlikely that they understood monogenes to mean “only begotten” given that this would make no sense in Ps 25:16.
== Latter-day Saints stand alone in the world in proclaiming that Jesus was conceived in the flesh
What does this “conceived in the flesh” mean to you? The claim that he was the only begotten “in the flesh” was a later apologetic innovation in order to get around the “only begotten” implication. Only begotten son means God has no other sons, so LDS apologists had to come up with some way to make the text seem consistent with LDS belief that all humans are sons and daughters of God. So they added the qualifier, “begotten in the flesh.” But how exactly does that make him different from us, since we are also flesh? According to LDS theology, God begot all of his children in the preexistence spiritually. Christ was and is the firstborn among us, so he had already been begotten spiritually like the rest of us. He came to earth in physical form like the rest of us too. Just because he didn’t have an earthly Father this, encapsulates all that makes him unique?
== this is heresy to the rest of Christendom.
Because it sounds like you’re referring to the famous “God had sex with Mary doctrine,” which is also considered heresy to most LDS.
== To that extent, the "uniqueness" of Christ -- the only one conceived in the Flesh from the Father, establishes his uniqueness.
But that is not what the Bible says. That is ad hoc apologetic mish-mash. The Bible says Christ is unique because, unlike others before him, he actually proceeded forth from God (John 8:42;13:3;16:27,30). Whether by spiritual or physical means, this was never a distinction worth mentioning in New Testament theology. This is only a distinction made by LDS as a means to plug several holes in the claim that LDS Christology is biblical. Christ “proceeding from the Father”; this is an ingredient that would be used for the Trinity, but has never had a place in LDS Christology. In LDS theology, Christ doesn’t proceed from the Father in any sense. Instead, the Father’s physical chromosomes were inserted into Mary’s womb and Christ was born naturally like the rest of us.
== The use of the word "begotten" in Psa. 2:7, "I will declare the decree: The LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day I have begotten thee," has reference to birth, not uniqueness.
Yes, and notice that nowhere does it say “begotten in the flesh.”
In any event, the point I am trying to make here is that the phrase “only begotten son” appears to be a mistranslation for most modern scholars. If it is a mistranslation then it why does it appear dozens of times in LDS scriptures? This means Joseph Smith was most likely borrowing from the New Testament a phrase he thought made sense to Moses and Nephi.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein