Finding Truth in the “Would Not Vote for a Mormon” Polls

RomneyExperience.com ^ | 7/26/07

[tantiboh]

Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman has a very good piece up today at The Hill on the baffling and illegitimate opposition among voters to Mitt Romney due to his religion. I liked his closing paragraphs:

In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office. Within eight months, the number refusing to vote for a Catholic was cut almost in half.

[snip]

Mellman also discusses an interesting poll he helped construct, in which the pollsters asked half of their respondents whether they would support a candidate with certain characteristics, and asked the other half about another candidate with the exact same characteristics, with one difference. The first candidate was Baptist, the second candidate was Mormon. The Baptist had a huge advantage over the Mormon candidate, by about 20 points.

[snip]

However, more recent polls have attempted to fix the anonymity problem. A recent Time Magazine poll (read the original report here), for example, got to the heart of the question by asking respondents if they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney specifically because he is a Mormon. The result is not as bad as some reporting on the poll has suggested. For example, while 30% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion, fully 15% of other Republicans say that characteristic makes them more likely to vote for him. And while many have reported the finding that 23% of Republicans are “worried” by Romney’s Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...

[nowandlater]

LDS "Gods" as Monarchic Monotheism: Blake Ostler

LDS "Gods" as Monarchic Monotheism
Blake Oster's writings explain that what some theologians take for multiple "Gods" in LDS thought are Monotheistic, in a form which he calls "Monarchic Monotheism". It is made up of a "council of the gods", all of whom are clearly completely subordinate to the Most-High God.

He began teaching this in Volume one of his "Exploring Mormon Thought", which has been used in graduate philosophy courses at BYU for some years.

Love and Thanks,
Steve St. Clair

Here is the section on this subject:

=====================================

Subordinate "Gods"
The very term "God" has seemed to include in it the notions of supremacy and perfection. Nevertheless, "God" or "Gods" is found in the Hebrew scriptures referring to beings that are not supreme. For example, there are divinities who are inferior or subordinate or divinities only by per­mission of the head God. Such divinities were felt to have religious power and authority, but only by participation or permission from the higher God. In the Hebrew scripture, a member of El's court, angels and possibly gods of foreign nations are called gods in this sense. The various mediat­ing principles and half-personified divine attributes found in the Hebrew writings such as debar or the divine word or Wisdom, would belong to this class. In the New Testament, "the Word," and "the Mediator,'' are also used in this sense in the Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of John. In such passages, Christ is viewed as a subordinate being even though he is consid­ered as divine and meriting worship.However, Mormons refer to subordinate "gods" in two senses pri­marily. First, Mormons speak of the gods in the "council of the gods before the world was." Thus, the Father is referred to as ruling in "the council of Eternal God of all other gods" (D&C 121:32); and the book of Abraham states that "the gods organized and formed the heaven and the earth" (Abraham 4:1). This use of the word "gods" is essentially equiva­lent to the Old Testament usage that refers to Yahweh or to Yahweh Elohim planning with and ruling over a council of gods who are subordinate to him. As Hans-Joachim Kraus observed:

In the heavenly world Yahweh, enthroned as God and king, is sur- rounded by powers who honor, praise and serve him. Israel borrowed from the Canaanite-Syrian world the well-attested concept of a pan- theon of gods and godlike beings who surround the supreme God, the ruler and monarch. In Psalm 29:1-2 the bene elohim ("sons of God") give honor to Yahweh. They are subordinate heavenly beings stripped of theirpower, who are totally dependent on Yahweh and no longer possess any independent divine nature. In Job and the Psalter, powers of this sort are called bene elohim, elim, or qedushim ("sons of God," "gods," and "holy •ones," Job I:6ff; Ps. 58:1; • 8:5; 86:8). But Yahweh alone is the highest God CElyon) and king. . . . In Psalm 82 we have a clear example of the idea of a "council of gods.". . . "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holdsjudgment:' The "high- est god" is the judge. The gods (elohim) are his attendants. They are wit- nesses in the forum which Yahweh rules alone, and in which he possesses judicial authority. We might term the cheduth-el "Yahweh's heavenly court." All of the gods and powers of the people are in his service.

In later volumes of his multi-volume work, Blake Ostler will demonstrate conclusively that the beliefs of First-Temple Judaism (the Old Testament period), Second-Temple Judaism, the New Testament period, and early Christianity continue to clearly describe God or the Godhead in identical terms.

Here is an excerpt from his chapter on Second Temple Judaism:

============================

Monotheism and the Hierarchy of Divine Beings in Second Temple Judaism
The view that there was a hierarchy of divine beings, with the one God as the Most High accompanied by a principal divine agent second only in authority to God surrounded by a court of divine beings who serve in the Holy of Holies in the highest heaven was universal in Second Temple Judaism – the Judaism that gave rise to Christianity. The council of gods continued in this form throughout the period that gave rise to Christianity. Monotheism was not threatened by the view that there are numerous divine beings and even those who are called “gods” because it was understood that the Most High was the one God. Moreover, it was commonly believed that the divine glory could be shared by exalted humans. Indeed, it was a very common belief that humans could ascend to the throne of God and be transformed glory for glory into the same divine status as the heavenly beings by participating in the rites of washing, anointing and investiture preparatory to officiating as a priest and king in the heavenly Temple where God resides.

15.1 Jewish Views of the Hierarchy of Divine Beings. Was Second Temple Judaism characterized by the same view of God that was prominent in pre-exilic texts of a head God presiding in the council of the sons of God? On the one hand, there are those who maintain that Second Temple Judaism is characterized by the same view of God(s) that prevailed in the pre-exilic Israel and that I have argued continued even in Second Isaiah and the exile. Notwithstanding language that poetically exaggerates the difference between the gods and Yahweh by asserting that they are nothing and that Yahweh will not even recognize their existence, the notion of the council of Yahweh continued throughout this period. The point at which we leave Israelite monarchical monotheism is thus the very place where we can start to elucidate the beliefs of Second Temple Jews. Larry Hurtado summarizes the evidence regarding Second Temple “Jewish monotheism” as follows:

I propose that Jewish monotheism can be taken as constituting a distinctive version of the commonly-attested belief structure described by Nilsson as involving a "high god" who presides over other deities. The God of Israel presides over a court of heavenly beings who are likened to him (as is reflected in, e.g., the OT term for them "sons of God"). In pagan versions, too, the high god can be described as father and source of the other divine beings, and as utterly superior to them. In this sense, Jewish (and Christian) monotheism, whatever its distinctives, shows its historical links with the larger religious environment of the ancient world. There are distinctives of the Jewish version, however, both in beliefs and, even more emphatically in religious practice. As Nilsson has shown, in pagan versions often the high god is posited but not really known. Indeed, in some cases (particularly in Greek philosophical traditions), it is emphasized that the high god cannot be known. Accordingly, often one does not expect to relate directly to the high god or address this deity directly in worship or petition. In Greco-Roman Jewish belief, however, the high god is known as the God of Israel, whose ways and nature are revealed in the Scriptures of Israel.

John Collins observed: “By nearly all accounts, at the end of the first century C.E. strict monotheism had long been one of the pillars of Judaism.” However, he quickly corrects this mis-perception: “Jewish monotheism, which gave birth to the Christian movement, was not as clear-cut and simple as is generally believed. Several kinds of quasi-divine figures appear in Jewish texts from the Hellenistic period that seem to call for some qualifications of the idea of monotheism.”2 Peter Hayman reached a similar conclusion: “It is hardly ever appropriate to use the term monotheism to describe the Jewish idea of God. From the book of Daniel on, nearly every variety of Judaism maintained the pattern of the supreme God plus his vice­regent/vizier.... Needless to say, this situation left many Jews confused, especially about the identity of the number two in the hierarchy.” A similar view, which I propose to defend here, is elucidated by Adela Yarbro Collins. Collins maintains that there may have been some who in fact had a “strict” view of monotheism in Second Temple Judaism, but there was a good deal of diversity in thought. The view that there was only one God who had a fulness of divinity, but that there were also other beings who possessed divinity on a continuum of divinity, with some divine beings have a greater fulness of divinity and others less, was prominent in Second Temple Judaism. Adela Collins stated:

An abstract and strictly monotheistic theology was not, however, shared by all Jewish groups in the first century C.E.. Philo and the Wisdom of Solomon solved the philosophical problem, raised by Greek philosophy, of how a transcendent god could create and interact with the material world by positing an intermediary being, Wisdom or the Logos, whom Philo could describe as “a second god.” The Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a Palestinian Jewish ultra-observant group which favored the Hebrew language, could speak of a plurality of ‘gods’ (V X - ’elim). Not only that, but the biblical divine name ‘Elohim’, which is equivalent to the generic Hebrew word for ‘god’ ('th - El), is attributed to an angel in the fragmentary Melchizedek scroll. The evidence implies that the strict monotheism of the Deuteronomic literature had already been ‘stretched’ or even ignored in much of the literature of Second Temple Judaism. Many Jews of that period evidently did not conceive of God as absolutely unique in a metaphysical sense. Instead, they seem to have placed the deity at the top of a pyramid, so to speak, of divine beings who were the agents of God in creating, sustaining and interacting with all things.
==========================
Here is an excerpt his chapter on the New Testament, in which he demonstrates that the relationship between the Father and the Son were seen as a continuation of the "Monarchic Monotheistic" approach:

============================
The Relation of Father and the Son:Christological Monarchic Monotheism in the New Testament
The titles and roles attributed to Christ are given content and function within the culture of honor and shame. Although Christ is divine he is not identical to the one God, the Father. He is given a status of honor by God as the sole mediator through whom all must approach God as patron and king because he completed his mission of redemption that had been assigned to him by the Father. Jesus Christ is thus honored with the highest honor that God as patron and king of the universe can bestow upon him – status at his own right hand as God’s Son and heir to all that God has and is, including receiving the Name that is above all other names. He is recognized as God’s chief agent whose will is one with God’s will and Christ’s acts are honored as the acts of God Himself. God shares his glory and honor with Christ so that Christ is the sole means of salvation as the mediator/broker of relationship with God. Because Christ is the heir to the throne, God actually honors Christ by sharing the kingship and rule of the universe with Christ. Because Christ is the mediator/broker of the covenant relationship that Israel had been elected to in prior times, the only way to approach God is through Christ. Thus, early Christians honored the Father by honoring Christ. Such honor is shown by worshiping the Father through adoration of Christ, and praying to the Father and performing saving rituals such as baptism in the name of Christ. Because Christ is the only mediator/broker of the covenant relationship with the Father, it is necessary to recognize Christ as “the Lord” acclaimed by the one God.

Perhaps the most prominent feature of Christian scriptural interpretation of the relation of the Father to the Son is the practice of identifying Old Testament scriptures that refer to two divine beings – and even two distinct heavenly figures who are both referred to as “God” in Hebrews and the gospel of John. It is a practice that is present throughout the New Testament and became prominent even in later Christian scriptural arguments as demonstrated by Justin Martyr.

16.1 Acts 2:30-36: Christ as Lord at God’s Right Hand. The imagery and language of monarchy and enthronement were the focus of the earliest Christian declarations of Christ’s relation to the one God. We see this intense belief in the exaltation and enthronement of Jesus in the Christian reliance on the declaration of Psalm 110:1-2 that Christ had been exalted and honored to sit enthroned at the right hand of God as “Lord”:

30.But since [King David] was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn an oath to him, that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne;
31. He foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that neither was he abandoned to the netherworld, nor did his flesh see corruption.
32. God raised this Jesus; of this we are all witnesses.
33. Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you [both] see and hear.
34. For David did not go up into heaven: but he himself said:
Ps. 110 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
35. until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
36. Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus Christ whom you crucified.. (Acts. 2:30-36 NAB)

In this remarkable passage we have an echo of the belief of the earliest Christians stated and summarized publicly for the first time after the resurrection. Jesus is the Messiah as the descendant of David. God the Father has vindicated Jesus’s claim to be king through the resurrection which culminated in the Father’s exalting him and placing him on a throne at His own right hand. It is of the utmost importance to note that in exalting Christ as his co-regent and newly coronated king of Israel, the Father has also given Jesus Christ an honorific title that alluded to God’s own name – the name “Lord.” Whenever the word YHWH appeared in the Old Testament Hebrew texts, the text was read aloud by substituting “Adonai,” the Hebrew honorific title meaning “Lord.” The Greek translation known as the Septuagint or LXX translated both YHWH and Adonai as Kyrios (Aramaic Merah), meaning “Lord.” For those in the audience listening to this claim, they could only have understood that Jesus was coronated at his resurrection with the greatest honor that can be bestowed on a person – the honor of being made an heir and given the name of the benefactor and king. “Lord” functions in the dual capacity having connotations both as a title of honor and also as sharing the divine name because Christ has been declared to be God’s heir and son. In the context of the covenant with David, those present heard a claim that Jesus is the heir to the throne of David and can be called “Lord” because of this inheritance. However, they also would have heard more – Christ shares the divine glory because he shares the divine name behind the title “Lord,” Adonai (Aramaic merah). Christ is recognized as a king and “Lord” second only to God because he is enthroned on his right hand – the place of the co-regent or vizier to the king.1 To be placed at the right hand of the patron king was the highest honor that could be bestowed upon a member of the kingdom. However, Christ is not merely the vizier or co-regent; he is the heir to the throne and recipient of the divine name “Lord” – the one who now reigns with God. The Father is not abdicating the throne of heaven to his son as a successor heir; rather, he is sharing the co-rule of heavens and earth with Jesus Christ.

This allusion to Psalm 110 is all the more remarkable because its use appears to be utterly unique in the literature of Second Temple Judaism. However, Psalm 110 is the Old Testament text most often cited throughout the New Testament and which was used by virtually all early Christian writers in the first 100 years to explain the status of Jesus and his relation to the Father.3 The interest that Psalm 110 held for the earliest disciples of Christ was that it declared Christ at once to be an heir to the throne of David and also raises him to the right hand of the throne of God. However, it also served the Christian message because it referred to two “Lords” whereby the Lord God honored another as “Lord” by bestowing on Christ the very honorific title by which God referred to himself. The notion suggested by Bauckham that allusions to Psalm 110 envision Christ on the very throne of God misrepresents Christ’s status. Christ is not seated on the throne of God; rather, Christ is divine vizier exalted by God to sit at his right hand.4 Bauckham misses the fact that Psalm 110 was used by Christians precisely because Yahweh, “the Lord,” exalts another as “my Lord.” It is the very fact that two distinct figures are referred to that made it amenable to Christian exegesis.

[colorcountry]

I was wondering, have you seen any information from the LDS apologist Blake Ostler on the King Follet discourse, or the diefication of man, where Joseph Smith said men can become Gods, and opens the way to the belief in many Gods who dwell on multiple worlds?

Because it really makes Ostler look foolish in light of all the other times the theory is taught (and documented) in Mormonism.

(Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-22)

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.69 - p.70:Vol.2, p.9:Vol.2, p.39:Vol.2, p.44:Vol.2, p.48:

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.2:GODHOOD

Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, p.708:

Milton R. Hunter, Pearl of Great Price Commentary, p.144-145:

Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.85 - p.86, Orson Hyde, October 6, 1854:

Journal of Discourses, Vol.22, p.125, George Q. Cannon, October 31, 1880:

Joseph Smith’s Sermon on Plurality of Gods
(as printed in History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)

etc, etc,

Why, you would almost think that this Ostler dude is embarrased by the teachings of his Church, in his desperate and wordy attempt to explain the doctrine away. A man like that would have been excommunicated in my mother’s day.

[Elsie]

We can’t ask for much better than this!

We both know that events in our lives have cuased us to believe something different that we had in the past.

I still believe it’s possible for futures events to do the same.

Other than we pointing out obvious things that I see the LDS organization contradicting itself, there is not much I can post, from the Bible, that might change someone’s view of things.

I can only do the seed thing - I ain’t to good at waterin’ and reapin’.

[Elsie]

Now please give me an example of a plain message, and then the message seasoned with salt. Not honey, mind you, but salt.

"More people would rather be ruined by praise,

than saved by criticism."

[Elsie]

Dang!

I thought it was gonna be something that was not quite a wedgie!

[Elsie]

There has been a continuing theme by the mormon apologists on these threads that if they offer up the argument "the Holy Ghost told me it was true" we should all take it that the argument is to be conceded and withdraw.

When presented with 'info' from what may or not be the 'holy ghost', this Biblical test should be performed:

1 John 4
1. Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3. but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

[colorcountry]

But Mormons believe in Jesus. It’s right there in the name of their Church.

The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints, Inc.

[Old Student]

“When presented with ‘info’ from what may or not be the ‘holy ghost’, this Biblical test should be performed:

1 John 4
1. Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3. but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”

Let’s not forget “and by their fruits shall ye know them.”

Mormons have our fair share of idiots, fools, and charlatans, but so do all other churches. It’s part of the human condition. I’m blessed that I knew good Baptists, as well as my step-father, else I’d have concluded that all Baptists were like him. And even he wasn’t all bad, just bad enough to hurt.

[greyfoxx39]

Do you really think the LDS church is trying to influence voters?

I DO!

[sandude]

I was wondering, have you seen any information from the LDS apologist Blake Ostler on the King Follet discourse...

I purchased both volumes of his planned four volume set on Mormon theology but I haven't got to them yet. The editors at FARMS gave the books four stars (highest rating indicating an outstanding, seminal work of the kind that appears only rarely). Richard Sherlocks review finished with this conclusion.

Ostler's project is deeply important. Perhaps it signals the start of a true intellectually rigorous Mormon theological tradition that can stand on its own with other theologies like those of Thomism or, more recently, Karl Barth. Furthermore it might signal that we as a people are mature enough as a tradition to engage in robust theological conversations among ourselves. Such a development can only be welcomed. True faith is strong enough to withstand the most probing inquiry and analysis. It may well be the right time for Ostler's project and the right time for others to engage him in dialogue.

I'm looking forward to digging into Ostlers work.

[sandude]

That really seems like a stretch to me. Would you care to discuss why you came to this conclusion?

[greyfoxx39]

Since this thread seems to attract informative posts of different natures, here is a doozy I found. This is a little more up to date that stories about Lincoln and Arthur Conan Doyle.

U. S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada announced a $400,000 grant that will go to develop new and effective tactics to control bark beetles.

"I wonder how much will be left after the money has been filtered through his 5 legal-beagle Nevada sons."(from the original post by Texas Eagle)

Harry Reid's Real Estate Investing Plan

by Mac Johnson Posted: 10/17/2006 How you can make millions by having Dirty Harry “do nothing” on your behalf?
Order now and receive free bonus gift: “Clerical Errors” for Fun and Profit!

Are you stuck in a dead end job so boring that you spend all day at work surfing the web reading witty political commentary? Are you tired of investments that depend on unreliable “market forces” for their returns? Haven’t you always dreamed of a way to make money that was as automatic as the creeping bureaucracy that afflicts our nation’s cash flow like fiscal atherosclerosis?

Well dream no more, friend, because today I am going to let you in on one of the great secrets of American business (and the mainstream media): The Harry Reid Do-Nothing Miracle Investment System! Through this system, you can sit back and watch the cash roll in from questionable desert real estate investments with the sort of reliability that only government can provide. The system is as simple as it is hidden through shell corporations, nepotism and political contributions. Yes, there are just three easy steps to mogul-like millions in Las Vegas real estate: Find a parcel of land made undesirable by government environmental regulation, utility leases, or simple pesky zoning!

Hire a Reid, invest with a Reid, contribute to a Reid, but above all, know a Reid!

Be patient while Sen. Harry “Papa” Reid does NOTHING UNUSUAL on your behalf and watch those government barriers to wealth melt away! Got a stupid endangered tortoise on your worthless land? Let Harry Reid show the BLM a real “shell game” as that value-killing protected habitat is inexplicably moved miles away!

Want to build a primo strip mall in a residential area? Just have a “Casino Lawyer” drop Papa Reid’s name like a severed horse’s head into the silk sheets of local government. Bada-bing! The zoning changes almost as fast as the value of the land!

Bought thousands of acres of land ruined by a pre-existing government power line lease? Just pick up your personal “power line” to Harry Reid and watch with glee as he does NOT use his influence to push a special bill through Congress. ZAP! The federal right-of-way is moved right out of your way … instant millions!

Think these are just hypothetical sales hype scenarios? No, these are these real life “Reid Estate” transactions. Real Life Example No. 1: In the early 1990s a helpless corporation, Del Webb, wanted to realize its personal dream and develop some land outside Las Vegas. There was just one problem: the government owned much of it and it wasn’t for sale! Employing the simple Reid Estate wealth building system, Del Webb hired a former Reid aide, donated $18,000 to Harry Reid’s campaign fund and then did the obvious next thing: it purchased “environmentally sensitive” lands 400 miles away near Lake Tahoe. After two letters to the Interior Department from Sen. Reid and a personal meeting organized by him, at which a government employee said he felt “pressured” by Reid, the Interior Department allowed Del Webb and its partners to swap that environmentally valuable land near Lake Tahoe for the environmentally worthless (but commercially valuable) land in Las Vegas. Reid claims to have done nothing unusual.

BAM! Instant value. IT’S JUST THAT EASY TO MAKE MONEY IN REID ESTATE!

Real Life Example No. 2: In a remarkable coincidence, land adjoining the above “swapped” land was then sold by a Del Webb partner to … Sen. Harry Reid and his partner, Jay Brown. The transaction was at fair market value, Reid later stated. Mr. Brown, described by the Associated Press as a “casino lawyer” whose “name has surfaced in federal investigations involving organized crime, casinos and political bribery,” and Sen. Reid wished to develop the land as a strip mall—which would have a much fairer market value than the land they bought, which was zoned strictly residential. A Reid Estate rezoning was called for!

But first Sen. Reid sold his land (for the exact price he had paid for it) to “Patrick Lane,” a limited liability corporation created by Mr. Brown, in exchange for a share of that limited liability corporation. This move created no net value, but coincidentally resulted in Reid’s name being removed from the deed before Mr. Brown went publicly before the zoning board to represent Patrick Lane LLC, a corporation that somehow omitted Mr. Reid’s name from any of its public corporate filings.

When the first board rejected the rezoning as “inconsistent” with Clark County’s Master Development Plan, Brown appealed and the Clark County Zoning Board and the Clark County Commission overruled the decision. Coincidentally, Mr. Brown’s agent had stated to commissioners during the appeal, "Mr. Brown's partner is Harry Reid, so I think we have people in this community who you can trust to go forward and put a quality project before you." Strange—that Reid’s name was so carefully removed from legal documents and then dropped casually in the halls of government—and right before the commission overruled the previous decision. Well, the important thing is that the residential land Reid bought for $400,000 was soon sold for $1.1 million (Reid’s part) as a commercial property. And all because Sen. Reid did nothing unusual. That’s the power of the Reid Estate system! Let the wheels of government grind away your financial worries!

Real Life Example No. 3: But even the first two examples are nothing compared to the experience of one Harvey Whittemore, a simple lobbyist and long-time practitioner of the Reid Estate system. Whittemore inadvertently got a great deal on a 42,832-acre property once intended as a missile test range. The land was a development nightmare, because it was infested with the endangered Desert Tortoise and the entire road frontage along U.S. 93 was blocked by a mile-wide power line corridor leased to the federal government. Either one of these problems alone might take an act of Congress to solve. But Harvey Whittemore had that in mind all along! Whittemore understood the importance of “Step 2” of the system: “Hire a Reid, invest with a Reid, contribute to a Reid, but above all know a Reid!”—and he had all the bases covered.

"You have to understand how close the Whittemore and Reid families are," Whittemore told the Los Angeles Times. "My relationship with Sen. Reid goes back decades." In addition, Whittemore’s personal attorney is Leif Reid, the senator’s son. Rory Reid, another of the senator’s sons and head of the Nevada Democrat Party during the Clark County Commission’s decision to rezone his father’s property, was made a partner in Whittemore’s law firm. In fact, all four of Reid’s sons (Rory, Leif, Josh and Key) have worked for the firm during their careers. Whittemore has given tens of thousands of dollars to Harry Reid’s campaigns, thousands to Rory Reid’s successful campaign to be elected to the Clark County Commission, and thousands to Josh Reid’s unsuccessful bid to be elected to the city council of Cottonwood Heights, Utah.

Although neither Sen. Reid nor Leif Reid intervened on his behalf, according to Sen. Reid, the Bureau of Land Management gave Whittemore clear title to 10,000-acre rent-free lease constituting the Desert Tortoise Preserve in the middle of the site, in exchange for 10,000 acres on the eastern edge of the 5-mile by 13-mile tract. Local officials of the Interior Department objected to this minor “boundary adjustment” of the preserve, but were overruled by Washington. The Desert Tortoises, it turns out, were willing to move to the Mormon Mountains.

The federal power corridor was a bigger problem. But after Sen. Reid inserted a measure into a federal land bill opening up the property across the highway for the corridor, then repeatedly inserted a provision into bills to move the corridor across the highway, that pesky 15-square-mile corridor just disappeared. At first, this was to be a gift from the government to Mr. Whittemore, but after a minor stink was raised, Whittemore offered to pay $160,000 for the 15-square-mile improvement. Eventually, he was forced to pay the $10.4 million that government appraisers said the change was actually worth.

But that was still a bargain, since together the federal changes to the corridor and the Desert (and Mountain) Tortoise habitat freed up more than 20,000 acres of highway-accessible Reid Estate for a development that will eventually include 159,000 homes, 16 golf courses (several by Jack Nicklaus), and all the associated strip malls this new city will require. I suggest they call it “Tortuga Hills.”

But there was one last obstacle to clear. The EPA suddenly decided that bulldozing desert streambeds, as proposed, might be bad for the streambed environment. A flurry of calls from Sen. Reid arranged meetings between the EPA, Whittemore and Leif Reid. Nevada’s junior senator, Republican John Ensign, was enlisted in the cause, clearing the way for the senior senator, Harry Reid, to also become more directly involved in talking to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. Can you guess what the outcome was? That’s right—the system worked. The Harry Reid Real Estate Investment System, that is. The project proceeded with minimal changes.

There are other examples, as well. But you can see how this simple investment system, accessible by every citizen (no mater how unconnected), works to create millions and millions of dollars of new government-unleashed wealth for its practitioners

How successful is the system for its inventor, Sen. Harry Reid? So successful he doesn’t even remember how much land he owns anymore! He’s constantly “remembering” old parcels just before the ethics committee asks about them. Such oversight is often the result of “clerical errors”—just like Sen. Reid accidentally paying personal obligations with campaign funds was the result of “clerical errors.” “Clerical errors” are soon to be added as “Step 4” of the system: “What to claim upon getting caught using the system.”

In fact, the system is so successful that Harry Reid, that beacon of morality from Searchlight, Nev., can now stop worrying about money altogether, and concentrate on his true calling: fighting the “culture of corruption” in Republican Washington.

Get with the system! It works for Harry, Harry’s friends, Harry’s sons, and even Harry’s son-in-law—but that’s a whole other (998 acre) story. The system can work for you, too.

Hat tip: Texas Eagle

So, I've been asked many times just what Mitt could do with the power of the Presidency. If Harry Reid can do all this as a Senator, imagine what a President could do with the Executive power to benefit the "Kingdom of Zion" instead of his own pocketbook.

And another question comes to mind. Do the Reids hold current temple recommends? Millions of mormons go into the Bishop's office and honestly answer whether they are worthy for a recommend, and honestly try to be.

[colorcountry]

Mormons have our fair share of idiots, fools, and charlatans, but so do all other churches. It’s part of the human condition

But you guys have the only TRUE Church. You guys have the fullness of the gospel. The rest of us, well AFAIC have an excuse, we don't know any better, we are sinners.

[colorcountry]

Do I need to say .... Duh?

I was being facetious since NandL posted almost his whole book.

[tracer]

“I really do not have the respect or patience to allow you to continue in this way”

“Allow?” Who died and handed you a badge with his dying breath? Your lack of patience is your problem....

[FatherofFive]

Moreover, the problem arises not so much from the Bible, but from Mormon scripture.

Exactly!

I believe that Doctrine and Covenants 93 teaches that the Son is divine in virtue of his indwelling unity with the Father and that mortals become god(s) by becoming one, just as the Father and the Son are one.

The Son is God because it is his nature – he is God and always has been. (But later in the Sermon in the Grove Joseph Smith says that the Father and Son are two gods, not one.)

Thus the view that the Father became divine in dependence on other divine beings and was not divine from all eternity is not scriptural—and it seems to contradict both the uniquely Mormon scriptures and the Bible.

Yet this is what Romney believes!

Thus, when the Word was made flesh and became mortal by leaving aside the divine unity of complete oneness with the Father and Holy Ghost, the Son "emptied himself" of his divinity and became mortal while the Father and Holy Ghost remained divine as members of the Godhead.

The Son was always divine - In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!"

Thus, when the scriptures say that "God is from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God," it means that the Godhead has always manifested all the essential properties of godhood (whatever they may be), but the individual divine persons may not always have possessed all the properties of godhood individually.

It means no such thing!

In other words, there was a time when the Father took on himself mortality just as there was a time when the Son became mortal, but there was a Godhead before, during, and after that time.

This is why so many reject Romney as a candidate. The Father is unchanging from everlasting to everlasting, but he changed from God to man. Unbelievable!

The scriptures seem to assert that the Godhead is the same unchangeable and everlasting God from all eternity without beginning.

Not at all – Scripture clearly says that God is the same unchangeable and everlasting God from all eternity without beginning

On February 5, 1840, Joseph Smith observed: "I believe that God is eternal. That he had no beginning, and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end.” However, just a few years later, Joseph Smith reportedly stated: "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea.” How can these both be true?

They can’t possibly be true. That is why so many reject Romney as a member of an incoherent cult, and question his ability to lead the country.

Yet there is something deep in me that holds that contradictory statements cannot both be true.

The Holy Spirit trying to lead you to the Truth?

a divine person need not possess a glorified, resurrected body as both the Father and the Son now do.

Except for John 4:24, where Jesus teaches us: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." This means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, "a spirit has not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39).

there was a time when the Father was once mortal as we are now and also a time during which he is divine-as this aphorism affirms.

Saying this does not make it so.

For we know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. (Moro. 8:18) Taken together, the most obvious reading of these scriptural statements is that God the Father has been a divine person from all eternity without beginning. I add a caution: the assertion that God is "unchangeable" surely does not mean that God is unchangeable in all respects. Yet it seems fairly transparent that God is unchangeable in at least one crucial respect. The fact that God is divine does not change. As the Lectures on Faith stated, God "does not change, neither does he vary; but he is the same from everlasting to everlasting, being the same yesterday, today, and forever; and his course is one eternal round:'

Going from a God spirit to the form of a created being is a fairly significant change!

Now when these statements say that "God is without beginning,” it may mean only that the Father, as an uncreated intelligence, was never created, but that the Father became divine only after a mortal experience. However, it seems to me that such an interpretation cannot be reconciled with the assertion that it is "the Almighty God" who is without beginning of days as the Book of Moses asserts.

Something so wrong cannot be reconciled, and again, this is why so many reject Romney for believing the unbelievable.

Joseph Smith believed that the text of Genesis 1:1 had been corrupted and that it originally indicated that the head God brought forth the other gods in a council of gods.

Something is corrupted, but it is not Genesis.

In the first topic of the Sermon in the Grove, the Prophet argues that because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are "three distinct personages and three Gods ... we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural."

Joseph doesn’t understand Scripture, or the concept of Trinity. Wait, everything that contradicts the teaching of Joseph Smith has been corrupted. I get it now

This is why so many reject Romney. It is not hatred or bigotry, although I’m sure there is some of that. It is because to teach that the all-sovereign God, the infinite and supreme being, the Creator and Master of the universe, is merely an exalted man is bizarre. The deeper you go into this remarkable phenomenon of Mormonism, the more confusing, contradictory and distorted it becomes.

[sandude]

A man like that would have been excommunicated in my mother’s day.

I was making a comment in support of what you stated here.

[Utah Binger]

Mind your own business, pal.

[nowandlater]

I BELIEVE...IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH

by Norman L. Geisler

Down through the centuries orthodox Christians have always confessed with the Apostles' Creed: "I believe...in the resurrection of the flesh." This affirmation of faith in the believer's resurrection is grounded in faith in Christ's resurrection. A major purpose of the latter resurrection was to make possible the former; thus they are both of the same nature (2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 48; Phil. 3:21). The two doctrines are therefore interdependent, and will be treated as one doctrine in this article.

In spite of the historic church's unwavering belief in the resurrection of the flesh, there are those today who call themselves "orthodox" but do not adhere to the doctrine. In the past, those who deviated from this venerable truth of apostolic Christianity did so by denying the reality of the resurrection. Today, some veer from course by denying its materiality. What makes their view unique is that they affirm an "empty tomb" while ironically denying that a material body emerged from it. In short, while they deny the materiality of the Resurrection they confess its objectivity, and on the basis of this confession they conclude that their faith remains biblical.

Wolfhart Pannenburg is a case in point. He believes Jesus left an empty tomb behind but that the resurrection body was by nature invisible and immaterial. He declares that for Paul "the future body will be a different one from the present body, not a fleshly body —as he says  —a 'spiritual body.'"¹ Southern Baptist professor E. Glenn Hinson agrees, adding, "Paul was convinced that the Christ who appeared to him belonged to another order of existence than the Christ the disciples had known in the flesh. The risen Christ has not a physical but a spiritual body."² Professor Murray Harris of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School provides yet another example. He argues "that after his resurrection his [Jesus'] essential state was one of invisibility and immateriality."³ He adds that the resurrection body of Christians "will be neither fleshly nor fleshy"⁴ (emphasis added). According to this view, Jesus' resurrection body was not the same physical body He had before His death, but a second embodiment.

Why should these men be classified as "unorthodox" for simply denying that Jesus rose in the same physical body in which He died? Why did Jesus have to rise in the flesh, as long as His tomb was vacated and death was conquered? The answer to these questions has both historical and theological components.

THE CONFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

First, the confession of the Christian church is instructive. The church has not only always affirmed the immortality of the resurrection body, but also its materiality. While it has agreed with the apostle that the resurrection body is a "spiritual" (i.e., spirit-directed) body (1 Cor. 15:44), it has never denied that it is a material body.

The Apostolic Testimony

The Christian church has from the beginning confessed that the same physical body of flesh that was laid in Jesus' tomb was raised immortal. This belief is based on several explicit New Testament references and extensive tangible evidence. Jesus Himself said His resurrection body was one of "flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39; cf. 13:37). Speaking of the resurrection of Christ, Peter insisted that His "flesh did not see corruption" (Acts 2:31). Writing after the Resurrection, John declared that Jesus "came [and remained] in the flesh" (1 John 4:2; cf. 2 John 7). The body that emerged from the tomb on Easter morning was seen (Matt. 28:17), heard (John 20:15-16), and even touched (Matt. 28:9) on many occasions after the Resurrection. Moreover, Jesus ate food at least four times after the Resurrection (Luke 24:30; 24:42-43; John 21:12-13; Acts 1:4). He also showed His crucifixion scars on two occasions, once challenging doubting Thomas: "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe" (John 20:27).

The "Ante-Nicene" Testimony

Following the apostolic testimony, the church down through the centuries has confessed its belief in "the resurrection of the flesh"  —both that of Jesus in particular and of humanity in general. "Ante-Nicene" (i.e., before the 325 A.D. Council of Nicea) father Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) said plainly: "The resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which dies."⁵ As for those who "maintain that even Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh: these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise."⁶ Justin even insisted that Christ's ascension shows that it is possible "for flesh to ascend into heaven."⁷ Tertullian (c. A.D. 160-230) declared the resurrection of the flesh to be the church's "rule of faith," saying it "was taught by Christ" and only denied by heretics.⁸ In his treatise on "The Resurrection of the Dead" (ch. 3), second century Christian teacher Athenagoras concluded that God's "power is sufficient for the raising of dead bodies, and is shown by the creation of these same bodies. For if, when they did not exist, He made at their first formation the bodies of men, and their original elements, He will, when they are dissolved, in whatever manner that may take place, raise them again with equal ease: for this, too, is equally possible to Him."⁹

The "Post-Nicene" Testimony

In the fourth century, The Second Creed of Epiphanius (A.D. 374) confessed that "the Word became flesh,...the same suffered in the flesh; rose again; and went up to heaven in the same body;...is coming in the same body in glory to judge the quick and the dead."¹⁰ Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) considered any view heretical that claims "the resurrection of the Saviour was phantom-wise, and not real, not heeding Paul who says, 'Who was made flesh of the seed of David according to the flesh;' and again 'By the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead.'"¹¹ The preeminent theologian, St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430), declared: "It is indubitable that the resurrection of Christ, and His ascension into heaven with the flesh in which He rose, is already preached and believed in the whole world." Augustine even held that God would reassemble in the resurrection body "all the portions which have been consumed by beasts or fire, or have been dissolved into dust of ashes...."¹²

The Medieval Testimony

St. Anselm of Cantebury (A.D. 1033-1109) insisted on the material nature of the resurrection body. Speaking on the topic, "How man will rise with the same body which he has in this world," he argued that "if a man is to be perfectly restored, the restoration should make him such as he would have been had he never sinned....Therefore, as man, had he not sinned, was to have been transformed with the same body to an immortal state, so when he shall be restored, it must properly be with his own body as he lived in this world."¹³ The great theologian, Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1224-1274), said of the resurrection: "The soul does not take an airy or heavenly body, or a body of another organic constitution, but a human body composed of flesh and bones and the same members enjoyed at present."¹⁴

The Reformation Testimony

The Protestant Reformation continued the orthodox affirmation of the material nature of the resurrection body. The Lutheran Formula of Concord (A.D. 1576) reads: "We believe, teach, and confess...the chief articles of our faith (of Creation, of Redemption, of Sanctification, and the Resurrection of the flesh)...."¹⁵ The French Confession of Faith, prepared with the help of John Calvin and approved by the Synod of Paris (A.D. 1559), pronounced that "although Jesus Christ, in rising from the dead, bestowed immortality upon his body, yet it did not take away from the truth of its nature, and we so consider him in his divinity that we do not despoil him of his humanity."¹⁶ The Belgic Confession (A.D. 1561), adopted by the Synod of Dort (A.D. 1619), declares that "all the dead shall be raised out of the earth, and their soul joined and united with their proper bodies in which they formerly lived."¹⁷ Further, the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England (A.D. 1562) confess that "Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven...."¹⁸ And the Westminster Confession (A.D. 1647) proclaimed that Jesus "was crucified, and died; was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered; with which he ascended into heaven...."¹⁹

Even some who deny that Christ rose in the flesh admit that "until the time of the Reformation the creeds of the West spoke only of the resurrection of the flesh."²⁰

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH

Having examined the historical evidence, we must now turn to the theological question: What difference does it make whether Christ arose in the same body of flesh in which He lived and died? The New Testament's response is clear and unequivocal. Without Christ's physical resurrection there is no salvation (Rom. 10:9), for the Resurrection is at the very heart of the gospel by which we are saved (1 Cor. 15:1-5). The apostle Paul listed a litany of consequences that follow a denial of the physical resurrection. If Christ did not rise, then :1) Our faith is useless; 2) We are still in our sins; 3) Our departed loved ones are lost; 4) The apostles are false witnesses; and 5) We are the most to be pitied of all men (1 Cor. 15:14-19).

In addition to this sobering list of dire results for denying the literal resurrection, there are some crucial theological problems that follow failure to join the apostolic confession of "the resurrection of the flesh."

The Problem of Creation

God created the material universe (Gen. 1:1) and pronounced it "very good" (v. 31). Sin, however, brought death and decay to God's creation: "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men...." (Rom. 5:12). Furthermore, because of man's sin "the creation was subjected to frustration...." (Rom. 8:20). Thus, the creation has been groaning and waiting "to be liberated from its bondage to decay" (v. 21). Likewise, believers "wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we are saved" (vv. 23-24).

Since God's material creation fell, it is clear that in order for redemption to be effective it must restore this material creation. Humans sin and die in material bodies and they must be redeemed in the same physical bodies. Any other kind of deliverance would be an admission of defeat. Likewise, just as the world God created and which subsequently fell was material, even so God will eventually deliver this material universe from decay by recreating a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1-4). If redemption does not restore God's physical creation, including our material bodies, then God's original purpose in creating a material world would be frustrated. As Professor Robert Gundry aptly noted, "Anything less than that undercuts Paul's ultimate intention that redeemed man possess physical means of concrete activity for eternal service and worship of God in a restored creation." So, "to dematerialize resurrection, by any means, is to emasculate the sovereignty of God in both creative purpose and redemptive grace."²¹

The Problem of the Incarnation

The denial that Christ came in human flesh is called docetism. Hence, the denial that He rose in human flesh is a kind of neodocetism. Both diminish the full humanity of Christ, one before and the other after His resurrection. A similar doctrinal deviation existed in the first century. John addressed it when he warned against those who deny that 'Jesus Christ has come [and remains] in the flesh' (1 John 4:2). The use of the perfect participle ("has come") implies that Jesus came in the flesh in the past and He remained in the flesh when John penned these words after the Resurrection. In the parallel passage (2 John 7) John used the present tense, warning against those "who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh." This makes it even clearer that John considered it wrong to deny flesh of Christ either before or after His resurrection. The reason is obvious: human flesh is part of our true human nature as God created it. Hence, to deny that Christ was resurrected in human flesh is to deprive Him of full humanity.

The Problem of Salvation

Among other things, salvation is victory over death (1 Cor. 15:54-55). Since the death which resulted from sin directly involved the material body, the body that is raised again must be material for there to be real victory over death. Failure to confess that Christ rose in a material body undercuts the very gospel itself.

In his definitive work on the nature of "body" (Greek: soma) in the New Testament, Professor Gundry noted that unless Christ rose in the same physical body in which He died, then "the relationship of the two bodies to each other is extrinsic and to that degree unimpressive as a demonstration of Christ's victory over death."²² Hence, "the resurrection of Christ was and the resurrection of Christians will be physical in nature."²³ Anything less undercuts God's redemptive purposes for the human race.

The Problem of Deception

There is also a serious moral problem. Some claim that Christ's appearances were merely "materializations" aimed at convincing the disciples of His reality but not His materiality. But Jesus said: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:27). Jesus challenged Thomas to put his finger into the scar in His hand and to put his hand into the wound in His side and "stop doubting and believe" (John 20:27).

Given the identity of the scars with His preresurrection body, the only impression these words could have left on the disciples' minds was that Jesus was claiming to have resurrected in the same literal, material body in which He died. However, if He did not rise in this physical body, He was intentionally misleading His disciples. In short, either Jesus rose in the same material body in which He died, or else He lied.

The Problem of Immortality

A denial of the material nature of the resurrection body is fatal for Christian immortality. Unlike the ancient Greeks, Christians believe true immortality involves the whole person, including the body; not just the continuing existence of the soul. But if Christ did not rise in the same physical body in which He died, then we have no real hope that we will ever attain true immortality either. Paul declared that Christ "has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Tim. 1:10). It is only through Christ's victory over physical death that believers can proclaim: "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" (1 Cor. 15:55). Otherwise, as Paul informed the Corinthians, "if Christ has not been raised...those who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost" (1 Cor. 15:18).

The Problem of Verification

A nonmaterial resurrection has no evidential value. If Christ did not rise in the same material body placed in the tomb, then the Resurrection loses its value as an evidence for His claim to be God. However, Jesus often offered His resurrection as a proof of His claims (John 2:19-22; 10:18). On one occasion He offered it as the unique sign of who He is, declaring that no other sign would be given to that unbelieving generation (Matt. 12:40).

The apostles also offered Jesus' resurrection appearances as "many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3). They used the Resurrection as the basis of their fearless preaching of Christ over and over again (Acts. 2:22-36; 4:2,10; 13:32-41; 17:1-4,22-31). Paul told the philosophers of his day that God "has given proof...to all men by raising him from the dead" (Acts 17:31).

There is a very good reason for this repeated connection between the fact of the physical resurrection and the truth of Christianity: there is no real evidential difference between an immaterial resurrection and no resurrection at all. An immaterial body has no verifiable connection with a material body. The only objective way the world could know that Christ rose was if He rose in the same material body in which He died. As the poet John Updike powerfully stated,

Make no mistake; if He rose at all

it was as His body,

if the cells' dissolution did not reverse, the

molecules reknit, the amino acids rekindle,

the Church will fail.

Dr. Geisleris Dean of the Liberty Center for Research and Scholarship and Professor of Philosophy of Religion at Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia. He is the author of nearly 30 books, including the forthcoming The Battle for the Resurrection (Thomas Nelson Publishers).

---

NOTES

1. Wolfhart Pannenburg, Jesus —God and Man,2d ed., trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977), 75.
2. E. Glenn Hinson, Jesus Christ (Wilmington: Consortium Books, 1977), 111.
3.  Murray Harris, Raised Immortal (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 53.
4. Ibid., 124.
5. Justin Martyr, Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection, ch. 10. (All citations from the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers can be found in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vols. 1-14 [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985], and Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vols. 1-14; Second Series, vols. 1-14 [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983]).
6. Ibid., ch. 2.
7. Ibid., ch. 9.
8. Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, ch. 13.
9. Athenagoras, The Resurrection of the Dead.
10. Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed., vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 37.
11. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures, XIV, 21.
12. Augustine, The City of God, Book 12, ch. 5.
13. Anselm of Cantebury, Curus Deus Homo, Book 2, ch. 3, in St. Anselm: Basic Writings, 2d ed., trans. S. N. Deane (La Salle: Open Court, 1962), 241.
14. Thomas Aquinas, Compendium of Theology, 153, in Saint Thomas Aquinas Philosophical Texts, selected and trans. Thomas Gilby (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), 278. See also III Summa Contra Gentiles, 79, in Saint Thomas Aquinas Theological Texts, selected and trans. Thomas Gilby (Durham: The Labyrinth Press, 1982), 405.
15. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 98.
16. Ibid., 368-69.
17. Ibid., 434.
18. Ibid., 489.
19. Ibid., 621.
20. Harris, 132.
21. Robert Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 176,181-82.
22. Ibid. 176.
23. Ibid. 182.

[nowandlater]

Norman L. Geisler, one of the leading Christian apologist and intellectual, argues that the Christ being currently a physical being is ESSENTIAL to Christianity and Salvation. The logical conclusion that God is spirit is just a attribute out of many attributes which God posses’ and limiting to one is contrary to the message of the ressurection of the faith and anti-thetical to the Gospel Message.

I agree. Maybe you should check with your Evangelical intellectuals before you so easily dismiss the merits of my theology.

:)