Husbands/fathers as spiritual leaders in the home

[Limnor]

After reading it, perhaps you could identify which specific teaching you believe contradicts the scriptures you’ve cited.

Also, you mentioned corruption again. If you believe the councils introduced corruption, what exactly do you see as corrupted, and what earlier Christian teaching was replaced?

good luck with that

I ended up looking myself on the LDS site and on the intertubes.

Turns out there isn an official identification of which doctrines were lost, when they were lost, who changed them, and what the original Christian teachings looked like before those changes.

[Gadianton]

Turns out there isn an official identification of which doctrines were lost, when they were lost, who changed them, and what the original Christian teachings looked like before those changes.

You'll be hard pressed to find anything as the Church has backed way of from promoting the idea of a great apostasy. This is out of concern for their image, they want to be part of the club. I doubt you'll find anything but the most vague and general statements about losing anything in the last 20 years or more.

[MG 2.0]

Turns out there isn an official identification of which doctrines were lost, when they were lost, who changed them, and what the original Christian teachings looked like before those changes.

You'll be hard pressed to find anything as the Church has backed way of from promoting the idea of a great apostasy. This is out of concern for their image, they want to be part of the club. I doubt you'll find anything but the most vague and general statements about losing anything in the last 20 years or more.

I would maintain that the Restoration "cut through" the mass of confusion created over time as non literal ideologies/philosophies (which conflicted with scripture) crept into the church as I previously mentioned on the preceding page of this thread when I was attempting to have a conversation with Limnor.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Of course you would maintain that, you maintain the party line no matter what it is, but you have no examples whatsoever of any confusions that the restoration cut through, it's just a talking point that this is what the church did. As I have explained to Limnor, it is unlikely he will find any clear examples in recent times because the Church doesn't want to rock the boat politically with its Christian neighbors. He could pick up a copy of The Great Apostasy, but okay, baptism by full immersion and God has a body. I'm surprised you didn't come up with that much actually. It's not clear at all that God was taught to have a body, John certainly doesn't convey that sense even if Jehovah was in human form; there isn't a consistent belief here in the first place. Baptism for the dead happened but there is no reason to believe it was an official practice by a primitive church.

you can simply believe all your doctrines are restorations of the same in ancient times. I can believe that God as a great pumpkin is also a restoration of the true nature of God. Just because there is no evidence for it doesn't mean it isn't a lost teaching. I maintain that it is by revelation.

[I Have Questions]

Of course you would maintain that, you maintain the party line no matter what it is, but you have no examples whatsoever of any confusions that the restoration cut through, it's just a talking point that this is what the church did. As I have explained to Limnor, it is unlikely he will find any clear examples in recent times because the Church doesn't want to rock the boat politically with its Christian neighbors. He could pick up a copy of The Great Apostasy, but okay, baptism by full immersion and God has a body. I'm surprised you didn't come up with that much actually. It's not clear at all that God was taught to have a body, John certainly doesn't convey that sense even if Jehovah was in human form; there isn't a consistent belief here in the first place. Baptism for the dead happened but there is no reason to believe it was an official practice by a primitive church.

you can simply believe all your doctrines are restorations of the same in ancient times. I can believe that God as a great pumpkin is also a restoration of the true nature of God. Just because there is no evidence for it doesn't mean it isn't a lost teaching. I maintain that it is by revelation.

Here is how the church (now) describes The Great Apostasy…

Following the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted and killed many Church members. Other Church members drifted from the principles taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority—including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church—was taken from the earth. Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost. This period is called the Great Apostasy.

There are a number of problems with this statement, and as Gadianton points out, the church has softened its language in a bid to cozy up to Christian denominations, especially the Catholic Church, in a bid to be considered “friendly” and “one of the group”. It’s a friendship of convenience and one of attempting to gain credibility by being under the umbrella of Christianity rather than what it used to be - the one, and only, true church and everyone else was corrupted and was to be considered the “whore of all the earth”.

This is how Joseph Smith said God described it “they are all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their Creeds were an abomination in his sight”. So not exactly “good people” and “much truth”.

Can the Mormon Church demonstrate that all the Apostles were killed? Erm, no. Can the Church demonstrate that what they teach is no less and no more than Jesus taught (because those were his instructions)? Erm, no.

If you ponder which religious denominations most closely align with what Jesus is known to have taught, you don’t come up with the Mormons. It’s the Mennonites, the Anabaptist, perhaps - the Quakers, Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholics, or Wesleyans and Methodists.

By comparison, Mormonism is light years away from the teachings of Jesus.

[huckelberry]

Here’s a fairly straightforward explanation of the Trinity, including its biblical foundations:

https://www.biblegateway.com/learn/topi ... s-trinity/

After reading it, perhaps you could identify which specific teaching you believe contradicts the scriptures you’ve cited.

Also, you mentioned corruption again. If you believe the councils introduced corruption, what exactly do you see as corrupted, and what earlier Christian teaching was replaced?

Limnor, I agree with the position you're taking in that proponents of the creeds are going to look at these scriptural references and come away saying that they don't contradict Trinitarianism as they simply show that Incarnation and Subordination can explain it all.

Latter-day Saint takes a different view. These verses are read literally rather than filtering them through the Incarnation and Subordination lens/filter.

The Creeds take these verses and squeeze them to fit philosophical categories. At that point I would maintain the the verses in question become corrupted by Greek philosophy and other competing ideas present at that time(s). This happened over a significant length of time. That lends itself to corruption in my opinion.

A mass of confusion spread over years of deliberative argumentation and exegetical formulations to fit their own methodologies of finding 'the truth'.
And again, Greek philosophical categories playing large part in all of this.

The Restoration cuts through all the confusion and reconstructs, through revelation, everything so that it fits the plain, separate identities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as described in the New Testament.

Regards,
MG

Supporters of Trinity understanding would see Nicea as being as literal as possible. ( and focused upon the identity of Father Son Holy Spirit)

I think that considering the difficulty in the subject and its historical development it is not surprising MG tries to simplify. People not agreeing with him find that frustrating but perhaps that frustration does not require changing the subject to why he is like a troll.

Dan McClellan is in agreement with MG on this matter and is happy to explain why. He also sees precedent in Old Testament language for alternative understanding of the relationship between Jesus and God the Father.

Historically what is seen is a variety of ways of understanding Jesus and God. People came to argue and fight about it. I know of no history which sees a time of united understanding which was lost. What LDS and MG see is way to put the scriptures together they find more satisfying.

I wonder if there is a way to discuss personal satisfaction. People in favor of the Trinity thought it better understanding of atonement.

[MG 2.0]

Dan McClellan is in agreement with MG on this matter and is happy to explain why.

I’m happy to let him…since he’s the expert and I’m not.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Of course you would maintain that, you maintain the party line no matter what it is…

Really? Just yesterday I mentioned that I’m not on board with God having a body of literal flesh and bone.

I have my own views and ways of thinking about many things.

Gosh, if the party line dictates that we have a Father in Heaven and that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son…are you expecting that I would tow YOUR party line and say that we don’t?

Get real.

No harm, no foul. We can move on.

Those that claim membership in the LDS Church are human beings. We have brains just.like.you. We may think differently on some matters and see things with our own mind and heart.

I do admit, there are some things I do maintain the party line…even if at times it may be conditionally.

That’s called faith/hope.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I think that considering the difficulty in the subject and its historical development it is not surprising MG tries to simplify. People not agreeing with him find that frustrating but perhaps that frustration does not require changing the subject to why he is like a troll.

Huck, I appreciate your attempt to return the discussion to the theological questions, but I think you’ve misunderstood the source of my frustration.

My question to MG was about the Restoration. If the early Christian understanding of God became corrupted, what specifically was lost that Joseph Smith subsequently restored?

I asked that question repeatedly, but rather than identify what had been lost, MG redirected the discussion toward whether I was a creedal Christian and whether Jesus’ relationship with the Father was compatible with the Nicene Creed.

I also think there is a misreading of the Nicene creed, but when I asked what his understanding was of the creed, he required that I should explain it. Given the direction of the conversation, I believe his “confusion” is deliberate. And, to top it off, any identification of frustration or awareness of the argument fallacy is labeled “whining.” I can only conclude that he is trolling.

I’d offer that the Nicene Creed already distinguishes the Father from the Son, nowhere does the Incarnation explain otherwise. I don't understand or agree with the accusation of corruption. How does corruption follow just be because Christians employed Greek philosophical categories to explain their understanding of scripture? Using philosophical language is corruption? How?

I think the most frustrating part is the clear evidence that Joseph’s understanding evolved instead of a one time restoration of something lost. Why would his understanding need to evolve if he was revealing a restoration?

[huckelberry]

I think that considering the difficulty in the subject and its historical development it is not surprising MG tries to simplify. People not agreeing with him find that frustrating but perhaps that frustration does not require changing the subject to why he is like a troll.

Huck, I appreciate your attempt to return the discussion to the theological questions, but I think you’ve misunderstood the source of my frustration.

My question to MG was about the Restoration. If the early Christian understanding of God became corrupted, what specifically was lost that Joseph Smith subsequently restored?

I asked that question repeatedly, but rather than identify what had been lost, MG redirected the discussion toward whether I was a creedal Christian and whether Jesus’ relationship with the Father was compatible with the Nicene Creed.

I also think there is a misreading of the Nicene creed, but when I asked what his understanding was of the creed, he required that I should explain it. Given the direction of the conversation, I believe his “confusion” is deliberate. And, to top it off, any identification of frustration or awareness of the argument fallacy is labeled “whining.” I can only conclude that he is trolling.

I’d offer that the Nicene Creed already distinguishes the Father from the Son, nowhere does the Incarnation explain otherwise. I don't understand or agree with the accusation of corruption. How does corruption follow just be because Christians employed Greek philosophical categories to explain their understanding of scripture? Using philosophical language is corruption? How?

I think the most frustrating part is the clear evidence that Joseph’s understanding evolved instead of a one time restoration of something lost. Why would his understanding need to evolve if he was revealing a restoration?

limnor, I am inclined to shrug my shoulders over annoying habits MG has or uses. Not everybody(annybody?)agrees with this, perhaps not myself always. I come here to ruminate and trade thoughts and views, not to win. It is unlikely to pin MG down to enough specifics to win.

My rumination at the moment is that the corrupt creed in LDS view is predestination. It is true that some other folks at the time were eager to reject predestination but were stuck in the long tradition that the idea rests on. Melantheon considering Luther's predestination could not say a lot more than it might be better not to tell everybody.

Joseph Smith was proposing a restart. The Book of Mormon was confirmation of Christian basics not some simple revelation of new doctrine. In time however in the D and C the foundations of the doctrine of predestination are completely removed. A new start became possible and a new organizing center was established.

I think these are specifics for the idea of restoration. I do not think that is completely empty even if I see the results a mixed bag at best and the foundation sandy.