Do you agree with Moroni 8:18?

[OtherCheek]

That is a gutless accusation of dishonesty, OC, that I thought was BENEATH you.

I'm just telling you that I did a search, and the word "Sunstone" never showed up on page two. And now it does. Curious that you are a moderator too.

Can you say "Conflict of Interest"??

[Cow Poke]

I'm just telling you that I did a search, and the word "Sunstone" never showed up on page two. And now it does. Curious that you are a moderator too.

Can you say "Conflict of Interest"?

I cannot edit a post without a notice appearing at the bottom noting the last time the post was edited, OC, even as a moderator.
That post wasn't even edited the SAME DAY, let alone later on.

I think you're just an incredibly sore loser, and a false accuser.

[OtherCheek]

Even beyond that, another issue here is OC's persistent obsession with 'official-ness' over and against truth. It may well be that a scholarly article does not represent any sort of official view of the Church. But that has no bearing on whether or not what the article says is in fact correct.

Where / when did I ever say that the article was not correct? Please quote me as making such a statement, JB.

My early usage of Article of Faith 9 in this thread should tell you something, if you are to be honest with yourself, that is. Why do YOU think I quoted Article of Faith 9? What point do YOU think I was making by quoting it?

one might wonder whether there is any statement of distinctively LDS belief, aside from vague endorsements of historical figures as prophets, that could not be similarly scuttled into irrelevance by new 'revelations'.

Sure. The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price and the Articles of Faith (including #9). Those are binding on the Church and always have been.

We also believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

[OtherCheek]

I cannot edit a post without a notice appearing at the bottom noting the last time the post was edited, OC, even as a moderator.
That post wasn't even edited the SAME DAY, let alone later on.

I think you're just an incredibly sore loser, and a false accuser.

Well, I'm perfectly fine with both of us seeing a replay of the movie when it comes out, in the hereafter. I'm just telling you that I did do a search and it wasn't on page 2, but now it is.

[Cow Poke]

Well, I'm perfectly fine with both of us seeing a replay of the movie when it comes out, in the hereafter. I'm just telling you that I did do a search and it wasn't on page 2, but now it is.

You screwed up, pure and simple. And you can't accept that, so you have to blame it on somebody else.

ETA: I generally add "ETA" when I "edit to add" something, OC.... so, let's assume I DID edit the article "after the fact"... that would mean my mod friends would know I was CHEATING, wouldn't it? So, you'd have to believe that they were complicit in this, too.
And just for the record -- I did NOT edit in any way, shape or form, the post in question.

Now, can we get back to the article, please?

[OtherCheek]

You screwed up, pure and simple. And you can't accept that, so you have to blame it on somebody else.

I'm comfortable letting God be the judge of that. And you ain't Him.

Now, can you reply to the article, or are you going to continue your false accusations and temper tantrums?

Already did so. Go back and review the thread, paying particular attention to Article of Faith 9.

Also take a look at post 25.

[Cow Poke]

I'm comfortable letting God be the judge of that. And you ain't Him.

If I WERE Him, I would have created people with a mouth on top of their head so they could put their lunch in their hat and eat it on the way to school, and I would have put an eye on the end of the index finger so you could look under the bed for monsters without getting down on the floor....

Be VERY glad I ain't Him.

Already did so. Go back and review the thread, paying particular attention to Article of Faith 9.

So, after ALL THIS TIME, and ALL your kabuki dancing, and demands to see the article... that's IT?!?!?!?!?!

Ty Rockwell --- is that YOU?

So WHAT was the purpose of all your false allegations if all you were going to do is "I already answered"??????
WOW

You really ARE in it for a shallow contest of words, aren't you?

[Cow Poke]

Under the section "some Consequences of Our Time"....

Thomas G Alexander, Professor of History, BYU

As O. Kendall White has pointed out, Mormon neoorthodoxy
has not gone as far as the Protestant movement
in defining a sovereign God and a depraved man
entirely dependent upon grace for salvation. As should
be apparent, statements by Joseph Smith, the progressive
theologians, and the First Presidency have specifically
rejected doctrines such as the absolute sovereignty
of God and irresistible grace. In the absence of an authoritative
statement by the First Presidency, however, it
is still possible to return to the early 1830s and find a basically
sensual and devilish man. Because of the reconstruction
of the Mormon doctrine of God, however, what
we get today is a rather unsteady neo-orthodoxy lacking
the vigor and certitude of its Protestant counterpart,
since the progressives amputated two of its legs and seriously
weakened the third.

© source where applicable

OC... easy questions...
Do you deny that Alexander is (or was, at the time of this publication) a prominent Mormon in good standing with the Church?
Do you deny that Sunstone is "pro Mormon", with the usual caveat of plausible deniability?
Do you deny that this is more than just an "opinion" -- that it was a well researched scholarly paper?

[OtherCheek]

that's IT?!?!?!?!?!

That's it. I have no problem with Article of Faith 9, which basically says that the Prophets have the right to learn more and teach today than they knew or taught yesterday. That we aren't bound by TRADITION!!!!!!!!!!!!

olc.jpg

You made the assertion that early LDS views of God were similar to Protestant ideas. I said "so what". I also pointed out a bunch of scriptures from the BoM that were very UN-Protestant.

Fact is, there are similarities as well as differences that have always existed. After all, persecution from many Protestants didn't just begin after 1835.

Next topic please.

[Cow Poke]

Next topic please.

Yes, I can easily understand why you'd want to skate past this one...
how bout Post 53, please.

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

This is an official response from a moderator not involved in this thread

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Hmmm. Do moderators have the power to edit threads a day after they have been posted?

Yes we do... but it leaves a rather conspicuous "edited by" at the top. Even your own edit window does that.

Thread tampering?

There would be evidence of that had it been done. So, unless you retract this clearly demonstratable false accusation, I will personally give you an infraction for a baseless accusation of gross moral terpitude against a moderator.

I wouldn't put it past you, CP.

You are acting like a piece of crap here OC. Speaks volumes for your "witness".

You probably think that Sunstone is run by the LDS Church too. "lol: Incredible.

Sure. Because CP is incapable of googling Sunstone Magazine and seeing the disclaimer:

© 2011 Sunstone Education Foundation, a Utah non-profit corporation
343 North Third West ~ Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 ~ ph 801-355-5926
Sunstone has no official ties to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Cow Poke]

My charge, OC, is that the God of Mormonism started out as an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God, until 1835, when, apparently, He got demoted. You're OK with that?

(bolding mine)

Alexander's paper to the Mormon History Association, 1980

The Book of Mormon tended to define God as an absolute
personage of spirit who, clothed in flesh, revealed
himself in Jesus Christ (Abinidi’s sermon to King Noah in
Mosiah chapters 13-14 is a good example). The first issue
of the Evening and Morning Star published a similar description
of God, the "Articles and Covenants of the
Church of Christ," which was the Church’s first statement
of faith and practice. With some additions, the "Articles"
became section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
The "Articles," which according to correspondence in
the Star was used with the Book of Mormon in proselytizing,
indicated that "there is a God in heaven who
is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the
same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth
and all things which are in them." The Messenger and Advocate
published numbers 5 and 6 of the Lectures on
Faith, which defined the "Father" as "the only supreme
governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness
and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent,
and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of
life." In a letter published in the Messenger and Advocate,
Warren A. Cowdery argued that "we have proven to the
satisfaction of every intelligent being, that there is a great
first cause, prime mover, self-existent, independent and
all wise being whom we call God... immutable in his
purposes and unchangable in his nature."6

© source where applicable

Note the part about "unchangable in his nature", as well as the "omnipotent, omnipresent,
and omniscient" references. Also, note the apparent reference to the orthodox position that "God became a man" - Jesus was God incarnate.

Does that not constitute a notable change in the NATURE of the Mormon God, from what is taught today?

.

[OtherCheek]

Under the section "some Consequences of Our Time"....

Thomas G Alexander, Professor of History, BYU

As O. Kendall White has pointed out, Mormon neoorthodoxy
has not gone as far as the Protestant movement
in defining a sovereign God and a depraved man
entirely dependent upon grace for salvation. As should
be apparent, statements by Joseph Smith, the progressive
theologians, and the First Presidency have specifically
rejected doctrines such as the absolute sovereignty
of God and irresistible grace. In the absence of an authoritative
statement by the First Presidency, however, it
is still possible to return to the early 1830s and find a basically
sensual and devilish man. Because of the reconstruction
of the Mormon doctrine of God, however, what
we get today is a rather unsteady neo-orthodoxy lacking
the vigor and certitude of its Protestant counterpart,
since the progressives amputated two of its legs and seriously
weakened the third.

© source where applicable

His opinion. Possibly aligned 100% with the truth, and possibly not. So what?

I would probably disagree with his use of the word "reconstruction" however.

OC... easy questions...
Do you deny that Alexander is (or was, at the time of this publication) a prominent Mormon in good standing with the Church?

He sounds like a pretty decent guy from his profile.
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Thomas_G._Alexander

You and JB both somehow think that I disagreed or had some issue with this guy. Where did I ever say or write that? I do, however maintain that he writes his opinions and they are not binding on the Church. And I also maintain my earlier statements that the Mormon History Association is independent of the Church. I even quoted you their mission statement. Do you deny that they are independent of the LDS Church?

Do you deny that Sunstone is "pro Mormon", with the usual caveat of plausible deniability?

I think Sunstone is "pro intellectual". That often puts some of their authors at odds with actual Church doctrine. I also maintain that Sunstone Magazine is not run by the Church.

Do you deny that this is more than just an "opinion" -- that it was a well researched scholarly paper?

Do you deny that the expression of a person's "opinion" can be well researched and scholarly? I'm telling you that T.G. Alexander is not part of the priesthood leadership channel of the Church. He is a member, seems to be an upstanding member, with good credentials and a learned man and all, but this does not put him into the priesthood leadership channel for establishing Church doctrines and beliefs. It just puts him in the channel for expressing his well-researched opinions, which anyone has the right to do.

Again, I have no great problem with the quotes you provided. He has his opinions, and they are not binding on the Church. I have no problem either with early Church teachings being more comparable with Trinitarianism or Protestantism than they are today. I have no problem with the idea of knowing more today than I did yesterday. And I have no problem with the idea of prophets knowing more today than they did yesterday, and I have no problem with the Church teaching more today than they did yesterday.

I'm just glad that the hardened traditions of the past have been clarified and corrected where needed.

[OtherCheek]

[notice=Bill the Cat]
There would be evidence of that had it been done. So, unless you retract this clearly demonstratable false accusation, I will personally give you an infraction for a baseless accusation of gross moral terpitude against a moderator.

I love it if you did. It would be a real feather in my cap. In fact, ban me if you like. And it would leave CP without anyone to talk to in the Mormon Forum since everyone else has pretty much vacated it already.

You are acting like a piece of crap here OC. Speaks volumes for your "witness".

Again, I'm perfectly comfortable with the movie when it comes out, in the hereafter. If my "search" did not work on page 2, but worked on page 3, then I'll deal with it there and then and apologize. In the mean time, I'm just telling you that a search on page 2 for the word "Sunstone" had no results. And now it does.

Sure. Because CP is incapable of googling Sunstone Magazine and seeing the disclaimer:

© 2011 Sunstone Education Foundation, a Utah non-profit corporation
343 North Third West ~ Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 ~ ph 801-355-5926
Sunstone has no official ties to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Well, CP is still trying to argue that Sunstone is somehow officially tied to the Church. Explain that one.

[OtherCheek]

My charge, OC, is that the God of Mormonism started out as an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God, until 1835, when, apparently, He got demoted. You're OK with that?

And I say hogwash. God is still omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Even in 2011. It's just that you seem to be of the opinion that omnipotent means "absolute sovereign over our free will". And you somehow think that omnipresent must mean that God must be downgraded to only a spirit essence. And that omniscient must mean that God isn't part of the actual universe.

(bolding mine)

Alexander's paper to the Mormon History Association, 1980

The Book of Mormon tended to define God as an absolute
personage of spirit who, clothed in flesh, revealed
himself in Jesus Christ (Abinidi’s sermon to King Noah in
Mosiah chapters 13-14 is a good example). The first issue
of the Evening and Morning Star published a similar description
of God, the "Articles and Covenants of the
Church of Christ," which was the Church’s first statement
of faith and practice. With some additions, the "Articles"
became section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
The "Articles," which according to correspondence in
the Star was used with the Book of Mormon in proselytizing,
indicated that "there is a God in heaven who
is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the
same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth
and all things which are in them." The Messenger and Advocate
published numbers 5 and 6 of the Lectures on
Faith, which defined the "Father" as "the only supreme
governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness
and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent,
and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of
life." In a letter published in the Messenger and Advocate,
Warren A. Cowdery argued that "we have proven to the
satisfaction of every intelligent being, that there is a great
first cause, prime mover, self-existent, independent and
all wise being whom we call God... immutable in his
purposes and unchangable in his nature."6

© source where applicable

Sure, I don't think the Book of Mormon fully explains the ontological nature of God's being. So what? We know more today than we did yesterday. That is a major tenet of our religion.

Note the part about "unchangable in his nature", as well as the "omnipotent, omnipresent,
and omniscient" references. Also, note the apparent reference to the orthodox position that "God became a man" - Jesus was God incarnate.

And post #25 is all about what it means that God is unchangeable in his nature. Did you read it yet?

Does that not constitute a notable change in the NATURE of the Mormon God, from what is taught today?

No. God is still a perfect being. Immutable in his purposes and unchangeable in his nature. Iow, Not subject to capriciousness such as Protestant ideas seem to hold--especially Calvinism.