No. The foundation doctrines remain the same. Understanding has increased over time.
Harrell disagrees with you
Harrell emphasizes that LDS doctrine has not been static and that such evolution is both historically evident and theologically significant.
Theologically significant evolution (change). That’s your source. When you start rebutting yourself you put me out of a job
Of course it's theologically significant. Otherwise it wouldn't need tweaking. But the foundation is there. Without the foundation, there is nothing to build upon. What's important is whether or not the builder is God.
You seem to have a rather rigid view of things.
It doesn't seem to be taking you anywhere. We have absolutely no idea if you have a moral compass or north star that guides you.
Harrell disagrees with you Theologically significant evolution (change). That’s your source. When you start rebutting yourself you put me out of a job
Of course it's theologically significant. Otherwise it wouldn't need tweaking. But the foundation is there. Without the foundation, there is nothing to build upon. What's important is whether or not the builder is God.
You seem to have a rather rigid view of things.
It doesn't seem to be taking you anywhere. We have absolutely no idea if you have a moral compass or north star that guides you.
Regards,
MG
You're now attempting to reframe what you said, hoping nobody will notice. That’s gaslighting. Stop it.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Of course it's theologically significant. Otherwise it wouldn't need tweaking. But the foundation is there. Without the foundation, there is nothing to build upon. What's important is whether or not the builder is God.
You seem to have a rather rigid view of things.
It doesn't seem to be taking you anywhere. We have absolutely no idea if you have a moral compass or north star that guides you.
Regards,
MG
You're now attempting to reframe what you said, hoping nobody will notice. That’s gaslighting. Stop it.
Not a substantive reply. Nothing there to really respond to. It's been that way ALOT lately, IHQ.
Of course it's theologically significant. Otherwise it wouldn't need tweaking. But the foundation is there. Without the foundation, there is nothing to build upon. What's important is whether or not the builder is God.
You seem to have a rather rigid view of things.
It doesn't seem to be taking you anywhere. We have absolutely no idea if you have a moral compass or north star that guides you.
Regards,
MG
You're now attempting to reframe what you said, hoping nobody will notice. That’s gaslighting. Stop it.
Lol, no change in core doctrine has morphed into an unchanging foundation? But the sources were clear, the foundation and the core all changed.
You're now attempting to reframe what you said, hoping nobody will notice. That’s gaslighting. Stop it.
Lol, no change in core doctrine has morphed into an unchanging foundation? But the sources were clear, the foundation and the core all changed.
You seem to have the comprehension level of a bat. Which kind of bat that comes into your mind may not make any difference.
Sorry, Marcus, but I am unimpressed with your ability to 'dig in' for understanding. Your responses are superficial and don't show any in depth analysis and thinking.
Show me where the foundation was changed beyond recognition.
You're now attempting to reframe what you said, hoping nobody will notice. That’s gaslighting. Stop it.
Lol, no change in core doctrine has morphed into an unchanging foundation? But the sources were clear, the foundation and the core all changed.
But Shades has already shown, in detail, that the foundation (how is that different to core?) doctrine about the Godhead has changed. I’m wondering just how far back he will try to walk this to avoid acknowledging he’s wrong (something he seems pathologically unable to do).
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Lol, no change in core doctrine has morphed into an unchanging foundation? But the sources were clear, the foundation and the core all changed.
But Shades has already shown, in detail, that the foundation (how is that different to core?) doctrine about the Godhead has changed. I’m wondering just how far back he will try to walk this to avoid acknowledging he’s wrong (something he seems pathologically unable to do).
The early 19th-century theological environment (including anti-trinitarian debates) may have initially influenced the binitarian emphasis, with later revelations restoring a more complete three-person Godhead.
Joseph’s early theological focus was on unity within the Godhead, not tri-personalism.
Earlier I asked Shaded if he could flesh out any examples pre School of the Prophets in which Joseph explicitly taught that the HG was a personage of spirit.
To the best of my recollection neither he or anyone else did do.
But Shades has already shown, in detail, that the foundation (how is that different to core?) doctrine about the Godhead has changed. I’m wondering just how far back he will try to walk this to avoid acknowledging he’s wrong (something he seems pathologically unable to do).
The early 19th-century theological environment (including anti-trinitarian debates) may have initially influenced the binitarian emphasis, with later revelations restoring a more complete three-person Godhead.
Joseph’s early theological focus was on unity within the Godhead, not tri-personalism.
Earlier I asked Shaded if he could flesh out any examples pre School of the Prophets in which Joseph explicitly taught that the HG was a personage of spirit.
To the best of my recollection neither he or anyone else did do.
Regards,
MG
No wonder you fashion yourself a mental gymnast. Mental contortionist would be more apt.
"Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving god, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs." Sam Harris
The early 19th-century theological environment (including anti-trinitarian debates) may have initially influenced the binitarian emphasis, with later revelations restoring a more complete three-person Godhead.
Joseph’s early theological focus was on unity within the Godhead, not tri-personalism.
Earlier I asked Shaded if he could flesh out any examples pre School of the Prophets in which Joseph explicitly taught that the HG was a personage of spirit.
To the best of my recollection neither he or anyone else did do.
Regards,
MG
No wonder you fashion yourself a mental gymnast. Mental contortionist would be more apt.
Earlier I asked Shaded if he could flesh out any examples pre School of the Prophets in which Joseph explicitly taught that the HG was a personage of spirit.
In what way(s) is that relevant?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
