Replies

"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.

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.