Posted on 09/03/2010 5:27:36 AM PDT by Paragon Defender
Glenn Beck has been in the news lately and, not surprisingly, so has his religion. Some have warned Christians to be wary of Beck, not because of his political views but because of his religious affiliation. He is, they say, not a real Christian.
I'm betting, though, that he is. I don't know Mr. Beck personally, but he belongs to the same church I do, and I'm a pretty mainstream member. I'll wager that his beliefs resemble mine.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth. I also believe in Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, the Lord of all humankind, who, before being born to the Virgin Mary, was the Jehovah of the Old Testament. I believe that Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, that he was crucified, died and was buried. While his body lay in the tomb, he descended into the realm of the spirits of the dead and preached the gospel there. On the third day, Jesus rose, physically, from death. He ascended into heaven, where he sits at the right hand of the Father. He will return, however, in power and great glory, to judge the living and the dead. In the meantime, we can receive guidance from the Holy Spirit, the third member of the Trinity.
I believe that Christ founded a church in order to teach his doctrine and administer the ordinances of salvation to all humanity and that the fellowship of the Saints, Christ's disciples, transcends not only all ethnic, cultural and national divisions but even death itself. I believe in the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the body, which are made possible only through the gracious Atonement of Jesus Christ, in whom we have our only hope of salvation. And, finally, I believe in everlasting life.
Some will have recognized that the structure and phrasing of the two paragraphs above were modeled, quite consciously, on the ancient "Apostles' Creed" — a text dating to roughly the late fifth century. In the modern translation favored by the Church of England, the Apostles' Creed reads as follows:
"I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended into hell. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen."
Now, obviously, I've changed the language a bit. Mostly, I wanted to use more familiar or more typically Mormon terms. For instance, the word "catholic" is rarely used, nowadays, in its original sense of "universal" — it should be obvious that Henry VIII's church isn't announcing its surrender to the pope when it recites the Apostles' Creed — but Latter-day Saints do most definitely believe that the church established by Jesus has a universal mission.
More significantly, where the original Apostles' Creed says that Christ was "conceived by the Holy Spirit" ("conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto"), Latter-day Saints will want to insist that Jesus is the divine Son of God the Father. The scriptures are completely silent as to the mechanism of Christ's conception, and they do say that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary (Luke 1:35), but they also plainly declare that Jesus was and is "the Son of the Highest" (Luke 1:32). And emphasis on the fact that Jesus is the Son of God the Father scarcely seems a plausible basis for claiming that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians.
Believing what we do, because we agree so closely with the traditional Apostles' Creed, either Glenn Beck and I (and, for that matter, Mitt Romney and Harry Reid) are Christians, or those who formulated the creed and all those who have affirmed it during the centuries since then haven't been, either.
Since the real God is a God of fact and reason, I and my friends have nothing to worry about...
Ejonesie22- our morg apologist here refuses to recognize the better work done. Nib (and shirts) rely upon the initial translation of the materials 70 or so years ago. Unfortunately for the mormon argument, they haven't been ignored either as better translations have come forth as well as other materials. Torczyner's translation and interpretations have been shown to be incorrect as stated in post 839
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2582699/posts?page=839#839
Where abundant links are present to refute shirts and nibley on this piece of poor scholarship.
What in the name of blue blazes are you talking about?
Uhm, excuse me. The "most correct book on earth", supposedly translated with the help of a divinely inspired tool, (or tools depending on which version you're reading) with divine assistance has now been deemed to have been written in JS's own vocabulary?
Did I miss something here?
In the world of the LDS, archslosical, literary and in as a much as one can try to do it, genetic science, is all focused not on finding the truth but ub supporting a created world that doesn't exist but whose existence, or appearance there of, is hypercritical to the cash flow mechanism of the organization.
No BoM, no Smith, no Smith, no Godhood, no Godhood no check...
“Archaeological”
I find it really interesting that you appear to get great joy out of the fact that people will not go to your heaven or that your jesus is to good for people (non lds) and that people will be judged by Joseph Smith, then jesus (lds) to punishment.
That is what I love about the LDS, that always moving goal post on what a "prophet" can do...
I will love to here the practiced reasonable explanation of this one...
The historical notes about the “translating” process refer to God giving one word or letter, waiting for it to be written correctly then giving the next word or letter.
Now in order to twist history into a more flattering light, we see these terrible apologists attributing the poor translation to an uneducated farm boy.
Joseph Smith was a man who had a school teacher as a parent and read the Bible extensively as a youth AND he was in his twenties when he foisted this tale upon the world.
Your scholar misses one of about sixty things that align perfectly, and I stand refuted, LOL maybe in whatever reality you inhabit with this post.
Since nibs relied upon Torczyner's imagination filling in the blanks as facts - still poor scholarship - especially since shirts couldn't seem to do independent study of his own. Here's one -
The whole mulek story allegedly supported by the lackish letters fails miserably with the new translation. Referring to the mulek 'parallel' nibs states "According to the Book of Mormon, eleven years after Lehi left Jerusalem, i.e., 589 [b.c.], a company escaped from the land of Jerusalem bearing with them the youngest son of Zedekiah, the only member of the family not put to death when Jerusalem was taken. From the descendants of these people, arrived in the New World, the Nephites learned that Jerusalem actually did fall as prophesied: "… will you dispute that Jerusalem was destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not slain, all except it were Mulek? Yea, and do ye not behold that the seed of Zedekiah are with us, and they were driven out by the land of Jerusalem?" (Helaman 8:21).
In any case, Nibley relates his discussion to the Lachish Letters through the term (nkd) that Torczyner found in III:19-20, "And a letter, which Nedabyahu the nkd of the king had brought to Shallum the son of Yaddua‘ the prophet." Nibley goes into a lengthy discussion of Torczyner’s attempt to translate the phrase, "the grandson of the king." It is now universally accepted that line 19, which Torczyner read as (ndbyhw nkd hmlk; "Nedabyahu the ‘nepos’ of the king") is to be read instead as (Fbyhw ‘bd hmlk; "Tobiah, the servant of the king"). For this see Gibson, pp. 38-39; De Vito, ABD 4:127; Tamara Eskenazi, "Tobiah," in ABD 6:584; and The New Koehler-Baumgartner in English, vol. 2, p. 372. The latter source indicates that the Hebrew for Tobiah is found in the Lachish Letters, and Letter 3:19 is the only possible source for it. Since the reading that Nibley refers to is no longer considered to exist, his long discussion is irrelevant.
Just one of the many refutations noted. Additionally, most of the other so-called parallels (Nibs lists 16, not 60 Du) are already present in the bible - so any bom parallel would easily have been lifted from it, not the lackish letters.
And if you are aware that you are supporting any "scholar" that supports your opinion and tearing down everyone who's research opposes you, then you are a fraud and a lie. (see how easy it is to just plug your name in to your logic and it sounds really bad for you too.
Nice try Du, personal attacks aside, citing a translation that has been proven many times over to be erroneous - and presenting it as the correct translation (as shirts has) is fraudulent and a lie. (I'll cut nibs slack, iirc he died before most of this new research was made available). These are technically proven issues - not personal opinions that you like to make the comparison to.
So I have to accept your "scholars" or I am a liar, fine, only if you have to accept mine, no? Such an attitude is hypocritical.
When my scholars (current scholarship) show that Torczyner's translations and interpretations are not correct, that is not hypocritical - that is recognizing the current state of the scholarship. The translation no longer supports shirts / Nibley - so say it does is not honest (if you want to link that to a lie - be my guest), but it is not hypocritical to show the errors.
Them, take our continuing disagreement over the man made dogma of the Trinity,. . .
LOL, you may disagree - but that doesn't make you correct.
you have never admitted that you have been refuted by the facts in the Catholic encyclopedia. If that does not merit acknowledgment... why should anything you think you have proved.
Ah yes a communique from the land of hypothetical. Imagine, catholic teaching on the Trinity really isn't teaching about the trinity. DU that is so stupid it is unbelievable - almost as unbelievable as when you stated the writers of the CE were forced to write what they didn't believer. Epic fail on your part DU.
orry I did not see this in time to respond, I'm doing this in my spare time, remember? You seem to always be here, I don't know how you do it without being paid to be an anti Mormon.
Yep, watch out for that big boogie man du - the paid antimormon. LOL.
Further reading of post 1535 is quite revealing...copied in order..."redeemer (2), Flesh, him, My Judge, his, Promises (BOM), Prayed, savior, he (is perfect), Good (work), (not my )masters. Last of all, I testify to you that Jesus lives! The bonds of death and hell cannot prevail against him nor against any who he calls his in the last day, my hope is to be among them and to have him wash me clean that I may enter in and dwell with him forever."
Since the nit-picking on this thread appears to be extensive on DU's part, it seems fair to expose a few of his nits on capitalizing the name(s) of God.
“There is nothing of goodness here”
Restornu, that is an opinion. Everything I posted was factually accurate and it does not escape my notice that
your response was to attack me, instead of refuting a
single point in the post. Ad hominem attacks on me.
NOTHING that shows you have any evidence, facts or a
logical argument that refutes ANYTHING I posted.
As such, my post stands as FACT.
best,
ampu
Maybe that payment is direct deposi...
I will look in my magic hat...
I’ve found that Mormons will often bear their testimony when they’ve hit a wall and have nothing else. They act like their “feelings” should trump all logic and reason. In this instance it in fact “bared” his inner motivation...Flesh, Judge, Promises (Book of Mormon, Good works,
I was wondering the other day which of the three individuals in the god troika of Momronism was the greater, then I remebered their fantasy of progressive exaltation, such that Jesus must have attained equality to be in the Troika. But then it hit me that God The Father—according to Mormmonism mythology—was once a man who had to gain exaltation, and I wondered if God The Father was ‘exalted’ into a previous troika of gods then somehow transferred into the current troika ... it’s hard to make up new mythology like that don’tchaknow, but Mormons don’t see any problems witht he illogical pathways their mythos requires.
Oh, what a tangled web they weave, when first practicing to deceive.
mormonism will never stop sending out the missionaries, so you will never have a chance to call me a liar du.
Mormons are christian, that is between us and Jesus, you don't get a vote and to comment is just rude.
Looking for more cheese du? There is only one way they would be Christian DU - the Bible way, not the joseph smith way. And the message of your missionaries are rude then in the same way.
The trinity you and I have gone 'round and 'round on is "the apostasy" point I point to, you won't admit that it's supported in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Only by your grossly twisting and redefining terms and meanings DU. Imagine the CC, Trinity believing, yet denying that trinity. That is too stupid even to start down the road with DU. Nor will you admit that the only way it 'disproves' the Trinity is by calling modalistic terms and definitions "Trinitiarian".
You want to say we are not Christians, fine (for the sake of this point). Shouldn't you have a higher standard of behavior than us?
Mind reading DU? If using innuendo is your standard - then yes, mine is higher.
I mean you have the truth of God, right? You have Jesus telling you to turn the other cheek. If you don't believe I have that teaching, you shouldn't expect behavior from that teaching. If you believe you have the teaching of going the extra mile and we do not, shouldn't you be going out of your way fro us and not expecting that from us?
The only reason I put up with you is that I'm going hundreds of miles DU, not just one, for you. Turning the other cheek does not equate to rolling over doctrinally because the truth dares to hurt a mormon's feelings.
God will judge me, you should remain silent.
Indeed He will, and you won't be able to blame me either.
Mormon Doctrine is a doctrine of faith and works together, see James 2:14-26
It is a doctrine of works before faith DU. Do I need to repeat the long list of mormon doctrine that teaches that your works and life must be perfect BEFORE grace and salvation can come from Jesus. James teaches salvation by faith without works in James 2:23, "...Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness..."
The day morg apologists and defenders can really stand up and support their doctrines unashamed without obfuscating or dodging the issue will be a remarkable day indeed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.