Sunday School Teacher Arrested on Molestation Charges (police say he molesting a 12-year-old boy)

kxtv ^

[chance33_98]

Sunday School Teacher Arrested on Molestation Charges

Sacramento police have arrested a 36-year-old Sunday school teacher on charges of molesting a 12-year-old boy.

Christopher Todd Hettiger was a church elder and taught Sunday school for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on Rio Tierra Avenue in south Natomas.

Hettiger apparently met the boy and his mother through the church and hired the woman as a housekeeper. The boy attended Hettinger's Sunday school class and stayed overnight at Hettiger’s home on several occasions.

According to police, the case broke when the boy no longer wanted to visit Hettiger. When his mother asked why, he revealed the alleged molested, which had been going on for more than a year.

Hettiger also worked in the Big Brothers/Big Sisters program four years ago. His many contacts with young people have raised suspicions that there might be additional victims.

According to investigators, Hettinger has no criminal record. He is self-employed, working out of his house as a computer consultant.

Anyone with information on the case is asked to call (916) 443-HELP.

[scripter]

When I said: That's pretty obvious from the context, isn't it.

I'm not sure how that came across - I just got back home and read my post again. What I meant was that it's pretty obvious from the context that Jesus is referred to as the first and the last, which is also Jehovah from the Old Testament. I think my one statement above could be read in an unfriendly tone and that definitely was not my intent.

[Grig]

"You mean Jonah 3:3-4."

Opps, I did mean that. It was a typo.

"I guess you've never read verse 10:...you have to use the same standard you said above:"

I read it before. I'm not saying that Jonah or any of the rest of them werer false prophets, I'm saying that the standard you are trying to apply to Joseph Smith is a standard that the prophets of the Bible can't even meet.

"If I demonstrated to you that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, when speaking "in the name of the LORD" said something that is false or didn't come true, what would you do with that information?"

Be careful, Jonah fortold of Nineveh's destruction at God's command. It did not happen, but not because he was a false prophet. There are similar events in early church history, but if you insist that it is proof they are false, then you must apply the same standard and call Jonah false.

Gotta go now. I'm taking the kids to see Two Towers this afternoon. I'll get to the rest of your posts later, perhaps before Christmas, perhaps after.

[scripter]

Be careful, Jonah fortold of Nineveh's destruction at God's command. It did not happen, but not because he was a false prophet. There are similar events in early church history, but if you insist that it is proof they are false, then you must apply the same standard and call Jonah false.

That makes no sense. Speaking as a prophet for God, Jonah told the Ninevites in 40 days Ninevah will be overturned as that was God's plan for Ninevah because of its wickedness.

Since the Ninevites believed God, they declared a fast and all put on sackcloth. When the King of Ninevah heard the news he too took off his royal robes, covered himself in sackcloth, decreed a fast, prayer and to turn from their evil ways.

God saw their ways had changed, had compassion on them and didn't bring on the destruction he threatened through Jonah. God changed his mind because the Ninevites turned from their evil. That doesn't make Jonah wrong, not at all, and I'm really surprized to see you make that argument.

Context is everything.

[Grig]

"God changed his mind"

Remember that you said that.

"That doesn't make Jonah wrong, not at all, and I'm really surprized to see you make that argument. Context is everything."

You miss the point. I don't think Jonah was wrong, or a false prophet or anything else. I think we agree on things very well when it comes to Jonah. I'm just saying that you have to use the same standard with JS and BY as with Jonah.

I know full well there were times JS and others spoke on God's behalf promising this or that, and that just like the reaction of the Ninevites changed God's mind about it, so to did the behavior of the early members cause God to change his mind. If you are going to call those instances evidence that they are not prophets, then you must also call Jonah a false propet or employ a double standard.

[Grig]

"Here are direct quotes just from the Mormon website I previously listed..."

I did read the page.

"Founder Joseph Smith said: "We feel confident that the important instructions on principle and doctrine therein contained... "

The quote was by Joseph F. Smith who is not the same person as Joseph Smith. He was a counsellor to Brigham Young and became President of the church some time later. There is also Joseph Feilding Smith who was president too. There was no JoD untill some time after Joseph Smith was murdered.

Anyway, I agree with what he said. It does contain important instructions on principles and doctrines, but that doesn't make it cannon. Many church leaders have published books on doctrinal topics, and although members might have interest in, and benifit from reading them, they are not cannon and only represent the view of the author, not the church.

He also said in the same quote that it is : 'interesting, gratifying and beneficial', he did NOT say it was flawless, cannon, official or anything else like that. Even if he did, his saying so by itself wouldn't make it so, as I said before, there is a process for accepting doctrines etc. and the JoD never went through it.

"The "Journal of Discourses" is a VEHICLE of doctrine, counsel, and instruction to all people ...(Daniel H. Wells. Journal of Discourses. Preface. Vol. 10)"

No different in meaning than the first quote, the contents dwell on discussions ABOUT doctrines, that doesn't make it cannon.

The third quote you cite from that page comes from the author of that web page. It's pretty clear that person considers it to doctrine, but they are wrong and I have emailed them about this.

"but it was considered doctrine at some point and still is by some Mormons. "

As I said before, for something to be church doctrine, it must be accepted as such by unanimous vote by all 3 members of the first presidency and all 12 members fo the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, it just then be sustained by the members of the church. NONE of that was EVER done and it was NEVER part of our cannon. The opinons of any individual member do not change that fact. Why do you cling so hard to the idea that it ever was?

"That doesn't align with Brigham Young's own words regarding the Journal of Discourses: "

BY was not speaking of the JoD in that quote, and you can not reasonably say that there he claims to have reviewed the contents, especialy when he said that less than halfway through the thing. He was saying in the general case, that WHEN he gets to review and approve the record of a sermon, the reviewed and corrected/approved copy is 'as good as scripture'.

The author of that article stating 'Obviously, Brigham Young approved and supported the Journal of Discourses' is a cop out. There is no evidence to support any such claim and the statement is a clear indication of the bias of the writer.

"you seem to think the "anti-Mormon" sites don't carry a shread of truth about the Mormon church,"

Oh, they do have shreds, but from experience they seem to never have any qualms about using the tools of deception. Again I would urge you to read the overview chapters of 'The Truth about the God Makers' so that you can more easily recognize those tools when they are used.

[Grig]

" The Bible teaches that Jehovah and Elohim are the same God"

'Elohim' is PLURAL and means 'gods or God'. Although we use it to refer specificly to God the Father, it is not incorrect to use 'Elohim' to refer to Christ/Jehovah, or both together (just as God can refer to either or both), so the verse you cite does not rule out our position. http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Relationships.shtml#Jehovah

Our belief that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate beings is not based on spliting linquistic hairs like that anyway. We have the witness of latter-day prophets and apostles, as well as a host of biblical verses like John 14:28 that indicate they are two beings, not one.

[Grig]

"I think my one statement above could be read in an unfriendly tone and that definitely was not my intent."

No problem I didn't take it that way.

[scripter]

Sorry for the delay, Christmas and all I've been busy, plus I had to finish my workbench in the garage. Ha, now the wife will never see me between the computer and my newly reconfigured garage. :-) I'm kidding of course, well, maybe. I'm also turning 2B tomorrow. Yes, 2B, that's hexadecimal for some decimal number I'm not mentioning! So I'll be gone a lot before the new year hits.

I did get a chance to see The Two Towers and really liked it. At nearly 3 hours long it's a little difficult to sit thru in one setting plus 20 minutes of trailers. It doesn't really bother me that they diverged from the book in some areas - it's great entertainment.

[scripter]

The Bible teaches that Jehovah and Elohim are the same God

'Elohim' is PLURAL and means 'gods or God'. Although we use it to refer specificly to God the Father, it is not incorrect to use 'Elohim' to refer to Christ/Jehovah, or both together (just as God can refer to either or both), so the verse you cite does not rule out our position.

Yes, Elohim is plural but I have no idea where you're getting this "and means 'gods or God'. It doesn't mean anything - it's a proper name and is what God is.

Through-out Genesis 1 we have "God [Elohim, plural] said [singular]". This indicates that Elohim is a proper name, and its grammatical pluralness has no significance. If someone tells you any different they're not being true to everything we know about the Hebrew language, and that should tell you something.

The Old Testament contains other names for God, such as El-Shaddai, Adonai, Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-rophe, Jehovah-nissi, Jehovah-M'Kaddesh, Jehovah-shalom, Jehovah-tsikdenu, Jehovah-rohi and Jehovah-shammah. Who is this to you?

Among other things, this site says:

One of the more curious evolutions in Mormon theology is that of God. Any active member of the LDS faith will now tell you that Jehovah of the Old Testament was in fact Jesus and the father of this Jehovah-Jesus is God or Elohim. In fact, a recent proclamation confirms this changed belief. Both of these supposed beings have bodies. When this same Mormon begins to read some of the writings of the early church leaders (including the first edition of the Book of Mormon) they are generally surprised to find out that this wasn't always the doctrine of the church.

This isn't the same thing as God changing His mind such as with the Ninevites. This is a key doctrinal issue that was changed and something you wouldn't find at any authorized Mormon site; which is one of the reasons I don't just read authorized Mormon sites to research Mormon doctrine.

The Hebrew syntax issues raised above and the changing attributes of God should make you stop and give a good long hard look at your religion.

There is only one God which we also see here as well.

[Grig]

Happy Birthday!

[Grig]

"It doesn't mean anything - it's a proper name and is what God is."

My name is not 'dad', but my kids use 'dad' with me as if it were my name. It is a title that specifies our relationship, likewise with 'God'. It is used as a name is used to identify our relationship with Him, but it is a title.

Many of the terms used to reffer to Heavenly Father can also be used in reffering to Christ as well. It is by convention that we use Elohim to reffer to Heavenly Father and we recognize that this is not a convention used at all time by every previous writer. Nor was this convention used right from the start among us at all times.

"This indicates that Elohim is a proper name, and its grammatical pluralness has no significance."

Well, that is how some people take it to indicate. We see 'elohim' (a plural form whose singular is ´eloah or ´el and has the meaning of "lofty one" or "exalted one") as a title that can be used to reffer to Heavenly Father or to Christ, or to the Holy Ghost, or all three together.

"In fact, a recent proclamation confirms this changed belief....some of the writings of the early church leaders (including the first edition of the Book of Mormon) they are generally surprised to find out that this wasn't always the doctrine of the church. "

None of the quotes on that page are inconsistant with our teaching that Jesus Christ is the Jehovah of the Old Testement. Simply reffering to Jehovah as Jehovah in one sentance and as Christ in another sentance doesn't indicate that they are separate, the terms are interchanable and the audiences being spoken too in those quotations knew that.

Furthermore, the BoM itself identifies Jesus Christ as Jehovah. Christ says in 3 Nephi 15:5 "Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end."

Just as 'God' or 'Elohim' can properly be used for either Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ, likewise many other titles can also be used for either. Since what one of them would say or do in any situation is exactly the thing the other would say or do in that same situation, there is often little effort made to specificly identify which one is speaking in most cases.

We follow certain conventions currently to avoid confusion, but it's easy to take instances when those conventions were not followed and mis-represnt what was being said. It is not incorrect to reffer to Christ as God, the Eternal Father, or the Everlasting God, as the 1830 BoM does, but doing so can cause confussion since those terms are commonly used by us to reffer to Heavenly Father. For that reason the wording of those verses was altered to make the intended meaning clear. It does not represent a change in doctrine.

"This is a key doctrinal issue that was changed and something you wouldn't find at any authorized Mormon site; "

You won't find it on any authorized Mormon site because it just isn't the truth about us.

In this case the evidence the site presents really doesn't make a case for their position, a degree of ignorance about our teachings is required to make the accusation sound as if it has validity.

Also, evidence to the contrary like 3 Nephi 15:5 (and other BoM verses that establish Christ as Jehovah) and statements from JS and others that clearly say Christ is Jehovah are ignored, and that should tell you something.

Those who are against us are very good at all the tricks of deception, and you should treat what they say with suspicion, not buy into them so quickly just because it 'fits' with your current oppinon about us. I have seen cases where 'quotations' were totaly invented our of thin air, or had their wording altered.

"There is only one God which we also see here as well."

So, we agree that Christ is Jehovah, but then to who was Christ reffering to when he said in John 20:17 " I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." What God, what father, does Jehovah have?

You reconcile those verses one way, we another way. If you want to know how they SHOULD be reconciled, you must go to God and find out from Him.

You might find these links relevant.
http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=91
http://www.mormonfortress.com/break.html
http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=105
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1988.htm/ensign%20august%201988.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

[scripter]

Okay - let's take this one issue at a time.

My name is not 'dad', but my kids use 'dad' with me as if it were my name. It is a title that specifies our relationship, likewise with 'God'. It is used as a name is used to identify our relationship with Him, but it is a title.

That's right. Your name is not dad - it's what you are to your kids and the roll you play in your family. Elohim is what God is, Jehovah is His name. The following names for God are found in the Old Testament. Who is it?

El-Shaddai, Adonai, Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-rophe, Jehovah-nissi, Jehovah-M'Kaddesh, Jehovah-shalom, Jehovah-tsikdenu, Jehovah-rohi, Jehovah-shammah

Many of the terms used to reffer to Heavenly Father can also be used in reffering to Christ as well. It is by convention that we use Elohim to reffer to Heavenly Father and we recognize that this is not a convention used at all time by every previous writer. Nor was this convention used right from the start among us at all times.

And yet you can't see any issues. You're speaking volumes here.

Well, that is how some people take it to indicate.

That is how the Hebrew language works. Elohim is what God is. I hope you can see what your leaders are doing here.

[Grig]

"That's right. Your name is not dad - it's what you are to your kids and the roll you play in your family. Elohim is what God is, Jehovah is His name."

None of this is counter to my position. As I said before, it is not incorrect to reffer to Jehovah (Christ) as Elohim (God). Am I to take the above as meaning that we now agree that Christ is Jehovah, and that 'God' (or 'Elohim') is a title that indicates his status and relationship to us, not a proper name.

"The following names for God are found in the Old Testament. Who is it? "

I'm no expert on Hebrew, but my understanding is that El-Shaddai and Adonai were titles the Jews used in place of Jehovah,

Jehovah-jireh - “The Lord will provide, or will see.” The name given by Abraham to the place where he offered Isaac (Gen. 22: 14).

Jehovah-nissi - "The Lord is my banner." Name given by Moses to the altar erected after the victory at Rephidim (Ex. 17: 15).

JEHOVAH-SHALOM - "The Lord is peace." Name given by Gideon to altar he erected at Ophrah (Judg. 6: 24).

JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH - "The Lord is there." In English, the name of the New Jerusalem in Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek. 48: 35).

I am not familar with the others, but I assume that like Jehovah-nissi etc., they are the names of places or things that contain a refference to the Lord (Jehovah).

I fail to see how any of this is relevant however. Your contention was that church doctrine at one time had Jesus Christ and Jehovah as two separate beings. I showed you that in the BoM itself, that pre-dates the church, it is clearly taught that Jesus is Jehovah, I linked you to articles that show clear statement from church leaders back to the begining of the church that state Jesus is Jehovah, and I dealt with the supposed evidence of some kind of difference between today's doctrine and that of the past. If you have nothing new to offer on this topic, can't you just admit the accusation is false?

If you wish to discuss a new issue, that of the existance of Heavenly Father as a sperate being from Christ, then I would suggest you start getting an idea of our reasons for this at this link: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/oneness.shtml

Or you could start by answering my question about John 20:17

"And yet you can't see any issues. You're speaking volumes here. "

Come on now, this is nothing more than the verbal equivilent to shaking your head and rolling your eyes. If you have a point, make it. We belive that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are two separate beings, and that there is very little about them that diferentiates them from each other.

"That is how the Hebrew language works. Elohim is what God is."

All languages known to man are imperfect. I agree that Elohim is what God is, but I don't agree that the way Elohim is used in the Bible to reffer to Jehovah is in conflict with our doctrine.

It is (was?) your interpetation that 'Elohim' is a proper name and that the fact that it is a plural form has no significance. Were my kids to write about me, some person could just as easily point to their words to argue that my name is 'dad', and the dismissal of the significance of the plural form is something you do to reconcile it with your opinon of the meaning of other parts of the scriptures. The text itself doesn't say Elohim is not a title or explain why the plural was used.

Just to finish with the whole JoD thing, I assume you now agree that the JoD is not cannon?

[scripter]

Unfortunately I have to let this thread go for now due to time constraints. I'm getting too involved in some other issues which are more better uses of my time. Not that helping folks get their theology right isn't a good use of my time, I can see you're going to resort to subjective thinking everytime you're uncomfortable, and there's little I can do about that.

None of this is counter to my position. As I said before, it is not incorrect to reffer to Jehovah (Christ) as Elohim (God). Am I to take the above as meaning that we now agree that Christ is Jehovah, and that 'God' (or 'Elohim') is a title that indicates his status and relationship to us, not a proper name.

I'd ask if you were kidding but I know you're not. Of course we don't agree because the underlying theology is what's important. When you redefine words it may sound like we could agree, but knowing key doctrinal issues have been redefined prevent me from even saying we're close to agreeing.

I'm no expert on Hebrew, but my understanding is that El-Shaddai and Adonai were titles the Jews used in place of Jehovah,

Neither of us are Hebrew experts yet we can read works by prominent Hebrew scholars to learn what the writer meant.

I am not familar with the others, but I assume that like Jehovah-nissi etc., they are the names of places or things that contain a refference to the Lord (Jehovah).

You missed my point or maybe I didn't make it clear enough. I was asking to who each name was referring: Father, Son or Holy Spirit. Anyone who's studied hermeneutics knows you have to let the Bible interpret itself and you have to be consisent in that interpretation; otherwise incorrect theology rears its ugly head and you have millions of deceived folks thinking they have their theology correct.

I fail to see how any of this is relevant however.

That's the problem and I can't keep pulling apart where you go wrong and demonstrating the error of your thinking.

If you have nothing new to offer on this topic, can't you just admit the accusation is false?

The statement is indeed not false. It turns out my theology fits with the entire Bible and I don't have to use subjective logic or twist the culture or mannerisms of the time to fit my theology.

Or you could start by answering my question about John 20:17

I'm sorry to see you're so hung up on this one verse. You have to use the Bible to interpret itself, which means reading John 20:17 in context. (Mormons are just like the Jehovah's Witnesses in their inability to understand the important issue of context.) John 20:17 must be read with Isaiah 43:10-13, Isaiah 46:9-10 and all the other references to God. If you don't let the Bible interpret itself you'll fall for anything. Please think about these things.

All languages known to man are imperfect. I agree that Elohim is what God is, but I don't agree that the way Elohim is used in the Bible to reffer to Jehovah is in conflict with our doctrine.

I know you don't and that's the problem. I suggest you read Systematic Theology by either Hodge, Boyce, Chafer or Berkhof. You can pick up any of the above systematic theology books at ChristianBooks.com. I'm sure there are other good systematic theology books listed, I just don't own and haven't read the others.

Just to finish with the whole JoD thing, I assume you now agree that the JoD is not cannon?

No - we don't agree here either and I'll continue to bring this issue up while some Mormons continue to consider the Journal of Discourses doctrine. Just because you don't doesn't mean it wasn't considered doctrine at some point or by some Mormons today.

I wish you the best, Grig, in your search for The Truth, but you'll have to run from Mormonism as fast as you can to find it.

[Grig]

"Unfortunately I have to let this thread go for now due to time constraints. "

That's fine, I don't mind getting the last word. :)

"I can see you're going to resort to subjective thinking everytime you're uncomfortable, "

You have yet to make me one bit uncomfortable. I have done my best to answer accurately and provide supporting documentation. You have avoided questions I have asked, dissmissed out of hand things I say with no reasoning given, and have spent a great deal of time trying to tell me what my church's doctrine is (even though you confuse Joseph Smith with Joseph F. Smith). You flit from one line of attack to another, refusing to acknoldge even the existance of evidence contrary to your view.

"Of course we don't agree because the underlying theology is what's important."

You were not arguing about 'underlying theology', you were arguing about the wording used in the Hebrew text of the Bible, and I showed how it doesn't conflict with our doctrine (although it does seem to conflict with your mistaken view of our doctrine if I understand your objections correctly).

"but knowing key doctrinal issues have been redefined prevent me from even saying we're close to agreeing. "

You mean like re-defining 'Elohim' to only be singular?

"yet we can read works by prominent Hebrew scholars to learn what the writer meant. "

The only thing any Hebrew scholar can tell me is what that scholars OPINON is of what the writer meant. Biblical scholars once had the earth as the center of the universe, and flat too. I would rather talk to God about it and find out from Him, but if you insist on putting your faith in men, so be it.

"I was asking to who each name was referring: Father, Son or Holy Spirit. "

You did not make that clear. El-Shaddai and Adonai mean 'Lord', when used as a subsitution for Jehovah they refer to Christ, but they can be used to refer to others as well. Likewise all the Jehovah-________ names refer to Christ.

"Anyone who's studied hermeneutics knows you have to let the Bible interpret itself "

Where does the Bible say to let the Bible interpret itself? What is says is: "If any of ye lack wisdom, LET HIM ASK OF GOD" Claiming the Bible is self-interpreting seems absolutly absurd given the thousands of disagreements among christian churches for the past 2000 years. If God intended it to be self-interpreting then He did a VERY poor job of it. Simply declaring it self-interpreting to justify writing off any idea you don't like is burrying your head in the sand.

"I can't keep pulling apart where you go wrong and demonstrating the error of your thinking. "

I'm still waiting for you to even try. Mostly I've been correcting your mistaken ideas about what our doctrine is, but you won't even admit to such simple objective facts as the JoD is not cannon, and Jesus was taught to be Jehovah from the start of the church and before. Of course, having a factual knowledge of what is and is not our doctrine ruins a lot of straw-man arguments.

"The statement is indeed not false."

Let's recap. Your accusation was that at the beginging of the Church our doctrine was that Christ and Jehovah were two different beings, and later this changed. None of the material you quoted actually indicated such a teaching or displayed any inconsistancy with our doctrine that Christ and Jehovah are the same person. Furthermore, I showed one (not the only one mind you) instance in the BoM (writen before the formation of the Church even) that directly contridicted your claim, and linked you to articles that showed other locations in the D&C and other sources that also clearly and specificly contridict your claim. Some of the quotes date back to 1830, the very year the church was organized. Instead of making even a token effort to address these issues, you just refuse to even acknowlege them and declare: "The statement is indeed not false."

That does little to convince me.

"It turns out my theology fits with the entire Bible"

What christian church doesn't claim this?

"I don't have to use subjective logic or twist the culture or mannerisms of the time to fit my theology."

I don't recall discussing culture or mannerisms, only words and their meanings. Since language is imperfect there are and always will be debate over the intended meaning of biblical passages. I doubt that all Hebrew scholars are in total agreement with eachother over every detail themselves (there are LDS Hebrew scholars you know). You've hitched your wagon to some group of them, but that really is just picking the group you would like to be right.

"I'm sorry to see you're so hung up on this one verse."

Oh, there are many, many more verses than just that one that indicate the existance of a Heavenly Father who is a separate being from Christ. I was taking it easy on you just asking about one of them. I really would like to know your answer, but once again you avoid it.

"Mormons are just like the Jehovah's Witnesses in their inability to understand the important issue of context"

It is very arrogant to say that disagreeing with you is evidence of some inability to understand.

"John 20:17 must be read with Isaiah 43:10-13, Isaiah 46:9-10 and all the other references to God. "

Oh I agree, I just don't come to the same conclusion about it as you do. I gave you links before to places where you can get information on how we view things and I guess you just weren't interested in that.

"If you don't let the Bible interpret itself you'll fall for anything. Please think about these things."

You ask me to put my trust in some scholar, or author or in my own thinking. No thanks. I have and will continue to put my trust in God. He does not lack the power, ability, will or love to answer my prayers and guide me.

"and I'll continue to bring this issue up while some Mormons continue to consider the Journal of Discourses doctrine."

In other words, you've made up your mind and so the facts don't count. It is a fact that the JoD is not cannon, and any member who thinks otherwise (a rare breed they are) needs to be told so.

"Just because you don't doesn't mean it wasn't considered doctrine at some point or by some Mormons today."

Of course, my opinon doesn't set what church doctrine is, neither does the opinon of any individual. It is a fact that for something to be cannon there is a process it must go through, it is a fact that the JoD never went through that process. It is a fact that the JoD is not cannon, you can't even call it a church publication.

Sorry to go rough on you like this, but you seem to be in a state where your mind is shut tight against the truth.

[scripter]

I'm making an exception just for you, Grig. And of course the lurkers.

You were not arguing about 'underlying theology', you were arguing about the wording used in the Hebrew text of the Bible

What's truly sad is that's all you see.

The only thing any Hebrew scholar can tell me is what that scholars OPINON is of what the writer meant.

He can tell you what words meant in their context, which, sadly, is something Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses don't understand because they're not taught how. And it's a lot more than just his opinion and it's a lot more than just one scholar. Please don't ignore this.

You did not make that clear. El-Shaddai and Adonai mean 'Lord', when used as a subsitution for Jehovah they refer to Christ, but they can be used to refer to others as well.

Well, we were talking about Jehovah and who that was, and while we can agree it's Jesus, we can't really agree because it's a different Jesus. Yes, it is, and that's the difference between Mormonism and Christianity. While Adonai means Lord (not LORD), El Shaddai does not, not even close. And in that context I asked who that was to you. I'm sure I could have made it more clear but I thought the context was obvious.

Where does the Bible say to let the Bible interpret itself?

And that's where Mormonism fails miserably on hermeneutics, no matter what the subject of study is. You may not understand the logic behind that last sentence but there's nothing I can do about it now.

What is says is: "If any of ye lack wisdom, LET HIM ASK OF GOD"

Argh! There you go again. Where does it say the above? James 1:5! And what is the context? Trials! You can't pull this verse out of the context of trials. (Read the context here but you'll have to scroll down to "The First Example: Lacking Wisdom (1:5-8)") I realize you can't fully understand this or you wouldn't be making such a bogus statement. But then to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, context is, unfortunately as you just demonstrated, an unknown concept.

I don't recall discussing culture or mannerisms, only words and their meanings.

And that's more of the problem. You can't remove the words we were discussing from the culture. Well, Mormons can and as we've seen here, do, but it's improper to do so and results in bad theology.

Your accusation was that at the beginging of the Church our doctrine was that Christ and Jehovah were two different beings, and later this changed.

It wasn't my accusation. I provided links from Mormon sites that disagree with you on this very key issue.

Oh I agree, I just don't come to the same conclusion about it as you do.

Then you don't understand hermeneutics, context and the importance of understanding the culture of the times.

The phrase Context is everything will probably be on my tombstone.

Run, Grig, run as fast as you can from Mormonism. Please.

[restornu]

Then you don't understand *hermeneutics, context and the importance of understanding the culture of the times.

***

1-the importance of understanding the culture of the times.

We reside in a temporal kingdom, and I perfer to Lord to elevate my mind! So I can understand the Lord teachings!

*her·me·neu·tics n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb). The science and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text. –

I perfer to understand scriptures when the Lord talks to me by the SPIRIT of the LAW, instead of the LETTER of the LAW!

[scripter]

I perfer to understand scriptures when the Lord talks to me by the SPIRIT of the LAW, instead of the LETTER of the LAW!

And why do you prefer a subjective method of understanding the Bible and what do you use in support of your thoughts? You can't rip James 1:5 out of its context to support your thoughts here.

Yes, hermeneutics is a method of studying the Bible where the historical, grammatical, interpretive method of understanding what the Bible says and taking into account the historical and cultural meaning of a saying or word and its linguistic significance in order to interpret it correctly.

Objectivity is required or you'll fall for anything.

[restornu]

See post #601

THE SPIRIT OF GOD! click

[restornu]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/810386/posts?page=601#601