Friday, May 05, 2023

Delusions of Glory

In the Latter-Day Saint/Mormon theology and cosmology there are three degrees of glory (alternatively, kingdoms of glory) which are the ultimate, eternal dwelling place for nearly all who lived on earth after they are resurrected. These are curiously called the Celestial Kingdom, Terrestrial Kingdom, and lastly, the Telestial Kingdom.

This article will focus on the Telestial Kingdom.

According to the official LDS website:
Telestial glory will be reserved for individuals who “received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:82). These individuals will receive their glory after being redeemed from spirit prison, which is sometimes called hell (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:84; Doctrine and Covenants 76:106) A detailed explanation of those who will inherit telestial glory is found in Doctrine and Covenants 76:81–90, 98–106, 109–112.[1]
So the ones inhabiting this realm are of the lowest sort, and include “liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie” according to D&C 76:103 (from Revelation 22:15).

However, as the saying goes: Houston, we have a problem! “Telestial” is a term with no prior usage or etymology. According to one historian, it “reflects the idea of being far off or reaching the end.”[2] This reminds one of the Greek word τέλος, telos, “purpose,” used in the word teleology (“a reason or an explanation for something which serves as a function of its end, its purpose, or its goal”). However, it can also be seen as deriving from τελεστώ, telesto, meaning “success.”[3] This is clearly an inappropriate root word. The point is though, since it lacks a proper etymology, it looks made up.

The ramifications of this realization are troubling. Things that someone makes up for a religion are not from God. Making things up threatens to enter into the realm described in D&C 76:103 (from Revelation 22:15), of being a liar. Thus, the architects and maintainers of the degrees of glory are delusional and are being misleading. They are asking for an absurd amount of faith and trust from their students.

This failure can be likened to an unattended bullet wound in their cosmology.


Footnotes:
[1] Kingdoms of Glory www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/kingdoms-of-glory?lang=eng The first paragraph included a definition from the Wikipedia entry Degrees of glory en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_glory.
[2] Mark Staker. Hearken, O Ye People: the Historical Setting for Joseph Smith‘s Ohio Revelations. Greg Kofford Books, 2009. 327
[3] Telesto (mythology) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telesto_(mythology) This explains: “In Greek mythology, Telesto … was an Oceanid, one of the 3,000 water-nymphs daughters of Titans Oceanus and Tethys. She was the personification of the divine blessing or success.” The later definition stresses how inappropriate and astronomically ironic it is to have that name Telestial for ones who failed.


Labels:

posted by JimSpace at 10:09 AM

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Raising Cain...

...by lowering standards. Epic facepalm.

The Biblical Cain was the first human murderer and was forced into exile from Eden, to wander the earth in the Middle East,[1] eventually founding a city named Enoch. (Genesis 4:8, 11, 12, 16, 17)[2] While there is no direct mention of Cain eventually dying, it is certain that he did from a Biblical point-of-view, for at least three reasons:

  1. There is nothing stating that he was to wander forever.
  2. As a child of Adam, he inherited a death sentence. (Romans 5:12-14)
  3. Lastly, the Noachian Deluge wiped the earth clean of prior wickedness, including Cain’s legacy.

However, as early as 1835 it was reported that one of the first apostles of the Mormon Church came “face to face with Cain” and had an “interview with Cain.”[3] This was David W. Patten (1799-1838) who converted to Mormonism in 1832 and who was appointed as a Mormon apostle in 1835. He was killed in October 1838 as an outlaw during a firefight with the Missouri Volunteer Militia.[4]

David W. Patten, the Mormon apostle who “raised Cain.”

Being described as “one of the most remarkable experiences of his life,” while traveling by mule on a country road near Missouri, he described seeing a tall, naked, dark, hairy humanoid who claimed he “was a wanderer in the earth and traveled to and fro” who most significantly “could not die.” Patten concluded that this was “a very remarkable personage who had represented himself as being Cain,” and told this to other Mormons.[5] However, it could not have been Cain due to the three scriptural issues above, as well as the geographical anomaly of being far from his Middle Eastern associations. He lived and died there. (Claiming at this point that it was Cain’s “ghost” is merely an undocumented assertion crafted for the sole purpose of solving this dilemma.) Therefore, Apostle Patten did the Mormon community a great disservice by claiming to have conversed with Cain, which exposed his shallow grasp of the scriptures. Interestingly, this geographical anomaly was repeated later on May 19, 1838 when Joseph Smith, the Mormon founding prophet, identified a plot of land in Missouri as being “the place where Adam blessed his posterity after being driven from the Garden of Eden,” with the Garden of Eden logically being close by.[6] This claim also did the Mormon community a great and incalculable disservice—producing a crazed fanaticism of then having to maintain that Noah’s ark traveled from this locale all the way across the world to the “mountains of Ararat” in the Middle East. (Genesis 8:4) It is the wrong location for both Eden and Cain’s habitation.

Thus, bolstered by this highly unfortunate misidentification by Joseph Smith, Patten’s claim did not die with him. In fact, it reared its ugly head again in a very unexpected place years later in 1921, across the Pacific Ocean in Hawaii. There, the president of the Hawaii Mission, E. Wesley Smith, reported a frightening encounter with a giant, naked, unkempt ruffian entering his office the night before the dedication of their Mormon temple at Laie. His prominent brother Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith identified his unwelcome visitor as none other than Cain, “whose curse is to roam the earth seeking whom he may destroy.” Cain was thus presented as being “an incarnation of supernatural evil sent by Satan, whose primary role was to undo the work of the [Mormon] Church.”[7] Interestingly, this same “Cain” was also reported to have struck again in the 1920s in Mexico, disturbing “an unnamed [Mormon] apostle.”[8] Such occurrences blissfully detached from one another, hailing from disparate places on earth, can only make the Mormon Cain appear to be a demonic figure who can manifest himself at will anywhere in the world, a satanic “incarnation of supernatural evil.”

Maintaining a folklore psychology such as this, that Cain is alive and travels the world menacing Mormons, is contrary to the spirit of 2 Peter 1:16, 1 Timothy 1:4, 4:7, and 2 Timothy 4:4. As this unscriptural and demonic folklore began with a Mormon apostle, and was supported by the Mormon founder, it should be laid to rest by the highest powers of the Mormon Church. It began with them, and it should end with them. Will it? Frankly, like with other oddities that have accumulated in Mormonism, I highly doubt it will, as that would by extension call into question the accuracy of their founder in his outrageously absurd misidentification of Eden in Missouri. Belief systems that harbor colossal absurdities of astronomical magnitude are simply not worth being associated with.

Raising Cain in the minds of people as a frightening agent lowered the standards a religion professing to be Christian should set for its members. A Christian religion should be directing its members to study the Bible and should lead them to fear God and Christ, not bogeymen.—Proverbs 1:7, 8:13, 9:10, 19:23; Colossians 3:22.[9]

Footnotes:
[1] Eden was in the Middle East as attested by the Bible. Significantly, Mormon scriptures unwittingly both agree with that and contradict that by placing Eden in Missouri, a state in America. This sobering situation is presented here in detail: Mormonism and the Eden Direction Dilemma http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/08/mormonism-and-eden-direction-dilemma.html

[2] Additionally, in order to found a city, one wonders if he eventually settled down and stopped being a wanderer. Now, while Mormons have a lot more to say about the Sethite Enoch than what’s found anywhere else, they seem to have nothing to say about Cain’s city Enoch, as noted here in their online reference: “Enoch.” Bible Dictionary. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/enoch.html?lang=eng&letter=E

[3] Wilson, Lycurgus A. The Life of David W. Patten, the First Apostolic Martyr. The Desseret News. Salt Lake City. 1900. Pp. 6, 45. https://archive.org/details/lifeofdavidwpatt1900wils

[4] Patten, David W. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism. http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Patten,_David_W.

[5] Supra note 3. Pp. 49-51. Compare this wandering description of Cain with Satan in Job 1:7, 2:2 and 1 Peter 5:8.

[6] Adam-ondi-Ahman Temple http://ldschurchtemples.org/adamondiahman/

[7] Bowman, Matthew. A Mormon Bigfoot: David Patten’s Cain and the Conception of Evil in LDS Folklore. Journal of Mormon History. Vol. 33, No. 3 (Fall 2007), p. 69. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mormonhistory/vol33/iss3/

[8] Ibid. Pp. 69-70.

[9] By way of contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses are commendably counselled this way:
[B]y circulating stories about the exploits of the demons, one promotes the interests of Satan. … Such ones may sincerely believe that they saw and heard certain things and may relate their experiences as truth. In time, their stories become exaggerated by constant retelling. If a Christian were to spread such stories, he would, in effect, be doing the bidding of the Devil—“the father of the lie.” He would be spreading Satan’s propaganda.—John 8:44; 2 Timothy 2:16. … [I]f a Christian had some real encounters with wicked spirits in the past, he would refrain from repeatedly entertaining fellow believers with stories about such things. … [W]e are to focus our attention on Christ, not Satan. It is noteworthy that while on earth, Jesus did not entertain his disciples with stories about wicked spirits, although he could have said much about what Satan could or could not do. Rather, Jesus focused on the Kingdom message. Therefore, in imitation of Jesus and the apostles, we want to center our conversations on “the magnificent things of God.”—Acts 2:11; Luke 8:1; Romans 1:11, 12.
(“Keep Yourselves in God’s Love” (2008, 2014): Oppose the Devil and His Crafty Acts, When Stories About Demons Abound
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102008075#h=28-30)
So when Mormons spread their stories about encountering a demonic Cain, they are “doing the bidding of the Devil,” “spreading Satan’s propaganda,” and not imitating Jesus Christ.


Additional resources:

Nothing to fear here. Dead is dead.

Gravestone is computer generated.

Labels:

posted by JimSpace at 2:14 PM

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Mormons seeing the man behind the curtain


Professor Dale Tuggy has presented a two-part podcast on Mormonism entitled "Mormons seeing the man behind the curtain," part 1 being here and part 2 being here.

After giving a fascinating review of everything Mormon, from its history to some of its most current issues, he applies the same dilemma facing Mormonism to the Evangelical Christian community.

These are very enjoyable to listen to, especially if you've ever been interested in Mormonism and its attendant issues.


Related blog entry:
See also:

Labels: ,

posted by JimSpace at 10:37 PM

Monday, August 31, 2015

10 Things You Don't Know About: The Mormons

This is a very fascinating video from the History Channel's series: "10 Things You Don't Know About."

Click below to watch the video from the History Channel website


Related blog entries:

Labels:

posted by JimSpace at 9:43 AM

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Jesus’ Kind Counsel

Unkind, burning words of offence.
James 3:6

In Matthew chapter 5 Jesus provided much valuable counsel on practical living. This blog post though will focus on verse 22 and will point out some unique textual challenges contained in it:

Matthew 5:22 in the NET Bible:

But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults [27] a brother will be brought before the council, [29] and whoever says ‘Fool’ [30] will be sent to fiery hell. [32]
Footnotes:
[27] tn Grk “whoever says to his brother ‘Raca,’” an Aramaic word of contempt or abuse meaning “fool” or “empty head.”
More primitive translations like the KJV retain the calque Raca in the text untranslated, leaving the English reader high and dry as to its meaning.
[29] tn Grk “the Sanhedrin.”
[30] tn The meaning of the term μωρός (mwros) is somewhat disputed. Most take it to mean, following the Syriac versions, “you fool,” although some have argued that it represents a transliteration into Greek of the Hebrew term מוֹרֵה (moreh) “rebel” (Deut 21:18, 20; cf. BDAG 663 s.v. μωρός c).
BDAG refers to sources that say “it has been held to be a transliteration of מוֹרֵה rebel (Dt 21:18, 20)”.

So perhaps we have two transliterated legal terms in this verse, Raca and Moreh, the latter being Hellenized to moros. However Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew has “fool.”
[32] tn Grk “the Gehenna of fire.”
sn The word translated hell is “Gehenna” (γέεννα, geenna), a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew words ge hinnom (“Valley of Hinnom”). This was the valley along the south side of Jerusalem. In OT times it was used for human sacrifices to the pagan god Molech (cf. Jer 7:31; 19:5-6; 32:35), and it came to be used as a place where human excrement and rubbish were disposed of and burned. In the intertestamental period, it came to be used symbolically as the place of divine punishment (cf. 1 En. 27:2, 90:26; 4 Ezra 7:36).
(1 En. is 1 Enoch or the Book of Enoch, an important literary work of Second Temple Judaism. 4 Ezra however is a post-Temple production.)

Note how the NET Bible here admits that Gehenna, which was translated as “hell,” is symbolic of “the place of divine punishment” as Second Temple Jews understood. Since the translation of “hell” though conjures up a literal place of torment, it can be seen as a contradictory, cognitively dissonant (mis)translation. Additionally, this footnote on Gehenna is repeated for James 3:6 where Gehenna is found, but where the NET Bible has it translated again as “hell.” Again, Jesus’ Second Temple Jewish audience would not have thought of “Hellfire” but would have thought symbolically of the place of divine punishment of annihilation. Fire burns rubbish up, it does not sustain it.

Matthew 5:22 in the RNWT with Reference Bible footnotes:

However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; and whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt [1] will be accountable to the Supreme Court; [2] whereas whoever says, ‘You despicable fool!’ will be liable to the fiery Gehenna. [3]
Footnotes:
[1] “An unspeakable word of contempt.” Gr., Rha·ka′; J17 [Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Franz Delitzsch, London, 1981 ed], Re·qaʼ′, an Aram. word of contempt.
[2] Or, “the Sanhedrin.”
[3] … (Heb.), גיהנם (geh·hin·nom′, “valley of Hinnom”). The place for burning refuse outside of Jerusalem.
Additionally, compare these notes with the RNWT Study Bible notes:
continues wrathful: Jesus associates such a wrong attitude with hatred that can lead to actual murder. (1Jo 3:15) Ultimately, God may judge the person as being a murderer.

an unspeakable word of contempt: This expression renders the Greek word rha·kaʹ (possibly derived from Hebrew or Aramaic), meaning “empty” or “empty-headed.” Someone addressing a fellow worshipper with such a derogatory term would not only be nurturing hatred in his heart but also be giving vent to it by contemptible speech.

the Supreme Court: The full Sanhedrin—the judicial body in Jerusalem made up of the high priest and 70 elders and scribes. The Jews considered its rulings to be final.—See Glossary, “Sanhedrin.” [The Jewish high court in Jerusalem. In Jesus’ day, it was made up of 71 members, including the high priest and others who had held the office of high priest, members of the high priestly families, elders, tribal and family heads, and scribes.—Mr 15:1; Ac 5:34; 23:1, 6.]

You despicable fool: The Greek word for this expression sounded like a Hebrew term meaning “rebellious” or “mutinous.” It designates a person as morally worthless and an apostate. To address a fellow man in this way was tantamount to saying that he should receive a punishment fit for a rebel against God, that is, everlasting destruction.

Gehenna: This term comes from the Hebrew words geh hin·nomʹ, meaning “valley of Hinnom,” which lay to the W and S of ancient Jerusalem. By Jesus’ day, the valley had become a place for burning refuse, so the word “Gehenna” was a fitting symbol of complete destruction.
Thus we can see how these notes compare and harmonize with the NET Bible notes.

Matthew 5:22 in The Hebraic-Roots Version Scriptures:

But I tell you, that whoever shall be enraged against his brother, he will be condemned to the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, You are nothing: [387] he will be condemned to the council of the synagogue. And whoever says to him, You impious one: he will be condemned to the fire of Gey Hinnom.
Footnote:
[387] Following the Hebrew of Munster and the Aramaic (Old Syriac and Peshitta), which have RQA “nothing”. The Greek translator simply transliterated the word RQA “raka” into the Greek. The DuTillet Hebrew reads: RAyH “evil one.”
So in this translation Raca is translated as “nothing.” This certainly is an unkind, contemptuous and incendiary rebuke! Lastly, this translation, like the RNWT, left גיהנם untranslated.

In conclusion, we see that Raca should be consigned to footnotes and not stand in the main text lacking an explanation. However, a Mormon passage in the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 12:22, reads very similar to Matthew 5:22 in the 1611 KJV, which both use “Raca.” This clearly constitutes yet another bullet hole through the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church. For instead of enlightening its readers, it used the anachronistic Aramaic legal term that the characters in the Book of Mormon story would be unfamiliar with.[1] Therefore the Book of Mormon cannot be a product of modern divine revelation. A similar bullet hole through the LDS Church is its use of “Lucifer” for Satan in its extrabiblical scriptures.[2]

Lastly, Matthew 5:22 is not talking about eternal torture in Hellfire, but is symbolic for eternal destruction. Indeed, we can be thankful that God is not so unkind and unjust to torture someone forever over such an offence clearly not meriting a punishment of eternal torture. Instead, Jesus’ counsel was kind and driven by righteous indignation over unjust evil.

Soothing kindness
Proverbs 15:23

Footnotes:
[1] The characters in 3 Nephi are supposed to be descendants of Hebrew-speaking Jews who escaped the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. They would not be familiar with the Aramaic legal term of Jesus’ time. The same reasoning holds true with other characters in the Book of Mormon story.

[2] See: Is Satan Lucifer? jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-satan-lucifer.html

Labels: ,

posted by JimSpace at 12:42 PM

Friday, June 13, 2014

Comparing Saving Schemes


“What must I do to get saved?”


So asked a doomed jailer to the Apostle Paul. (Acts 16:30) Paul’s response was swift and clear:

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will get saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31)

This response though has been convoluted over the centuries with people proclaiming different Jesuses to believe in. Which Jesus will save you? For instance, over time there have appeared three different Jesuses: the one preached by Paul, one preached by Trinitarianism, and another as proclaimed by Mormonism.

At this point, please consider two words and their meanings: hamartiology and soteriology. “Hamartiology” is the theological term for the study of the doctrine of sin. It derives from the Greek words hamartia, “missing the mark” or “sin,” and logia, “discourse.” Conversely, “soteriology” is the theological term for the study of the doctrine of salvation. It derives from the Greek soterion, “salvation.”

Now a presentation of Biblical (and by extension, Pauline) hamartiology is in order. Succinctly, it is the following: Adam was created as a sinless, perfect soul in the Garden of Eden that he was given. (Genesis 2:7, 8) He transgressed when he ignored divine warnings and joined his wife in stealing a symbol of divine sovereignty, the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad. Consequently, they lost access to the “Tree of Life,” a physical representation of eternal life. By losing eternal life, they died and spread death to their offspring. (Genesis 2:16, 17; 3, 5:5; Romans 5:12, 14) In accords with King David’s words at Psalm 51:5, the passing on of sin from Adam to succeeding generations is a result of the recognized law of heredity. (Job 25:4; Romans 3:23) According to divine justice as expressed in the Law of Moses, soul was to be given for soul. (Exodus 21:23; Leviticus 24:18) Since Adam was created as a sinless soul, another sinless soul had to be given in exchange as a ransom: this ransomer would have to correspond to Adam by being a sinless man. Therefore, the Apostle Paul at 1 Timothy 2:6 used the word literally meaning “corresponding ransom,” antilutron. The ransomer would have to voluntarily surrender what Adam lost by his disobedience in Eden, perfect human life. Nothing more, nothing less is required to avoid upsetting the soteriological balance. Thus, it was Jesus as the second and last Adam who emptied himself of divine glory (Philippians 2:7) to become what Adam lost: a sinless, perfect human life. (1 Corinthians 15:45) This, his sinless perfect human life, he voluntarily surrendered and sacrificed. Thus Biblical hamartiology is seen to be lucid and free of contradiction.


So how does the Mormon and Trinitarian Jesus stack up to the Biblical Jesus? Is one of them identical to the Biblical Jesus? Below is a table comparing all three:

Biblical (Pauline) Hamartiology
Mormon Hamartiology[1]
Trinitarian Hamartiology
Both Adam and Jesus were perfect, sinless humans.
Adam was nonmortal with spirit not blood and unable to reproduce.
Jesus was mortal with blood
and able to reproduce.
Adam was a perfect human.
Jesus was a divine person with his human nature in hypostatic union with his divine nature.
Soteriological scales are balanced.
Soteriological scales are unbalanced.
Soteriological scales are unbalanced.

As seen in the Mormon soteriological scheme, Adam is actually superior to Jesus: thus there is no salvation in this version of him.

Contrarily, Trinitarianism does the opposite, making Jesus superior to Adam. Thus the results are the same: the soteriological scales are unbalanced and deliver no salvation.

Interestingly, Paul also issued warnings that different Jesuses would be promulgated.[2] An example of this is seen at Ephesians 4:14 which states that “we are no longer to be children, tossed back and forth by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching by the trickery of people who craftily carry out their deceitful schemes.” (NET Bible) This has a footnote that says in part:
The point is that the author is concerned about Christians growing into maturity. He is fearful that certain kinds of very cunning people, who are skilled at deceitful scheming, should come in and teach false doctrines which would in turn stunt the growth of the believers.
This cunning, deceitful scheming then was fulfilled first with Trinitarianism and then later with Mormonism, stunting the spiritual and intellectual growth of their adherents and blocking the way to the Biblical Jesus by replacing him with counterfeits.

Fortunately, the true Jesus is still accessible. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in him and explain why in very clear and lucid terms from the Bible.


Footnote:
[1] A Review of the Mormon Canon, Part IV: Mormon hamartiology: a “different gospel”? www.jimspace.000space.com/more-mon/A_Review_of_the_Mormon_Canon.pdf

[2] Paul was also concerned about his fellow Christians being deceived by “arguments that sound reasonable [πιθανολογία, pithanologia].” (Colossians 2:4) Here a NET Bible footnote insightfully points out “that even though the arguments seem to make sense (sound reasonable), they are in the end false. Paul is not here arguing against the study of philosophy or serious thinking per se, but is arguing against the uncritical adoption of a philosophy that is at odds with a proper view of Christ and the ethics of the Christian life.” (italics added)

 Additional reading:
  • Adam and Jesus on scales image from You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (1982) page 63. Now out-of-print.

Labels: , , ,

posted by JimSpace at 12:28 PM

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

Apo-lava-getics


Definition: The systematic defense of a position (apologetics) that produces more heat than light, along with obfuscating steam and/or smoke.

See also:
Defending Trinitarianism jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/01/defending-trinitarianism.html

Labels: , , ,

posted by JimSpace at 12:38 PM

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Mormonism and the Eden Direction Dilemma


Stand in the place where you live, now face north
Think about direction wonder why you haven't before
Now stand in the place where you work, now face west
(R.E.M. - Stand lyrics)

Where was the Garden of Eden? Genesis 2:8 says Eden was "toward the east." Moses wrote that in the Middle East, so it was east of his position. However, the founding prophet of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, said Eden was in Missouri, a state in the United States of America. America is west. Wrong direction.

If you are confused, check with the sun
Carry a compass to help you along
Your feet are going to be on the ground
Your head is there to move you around

Was Joseph Smith familiar with Genesis 2:8 though before he chose a location to the west? Yes, and he even preserved it in the Mormon scriptures Moses 3:8 and Abraham 5:8, as well as in the JST (Joseph Smith Translation) version of Genesis 2:8 (2:10). Thus Joseph Smith agreed with Genesis 2:8 that Eden was east, yet then chose a location to the west.

This direction dilemma was presented to Mormons on a discussion forum,[1] and their reactions were most noteworthy and revealing, as they dug-in their heels.

If wishes were trees, the trees would be falling
Listen to reason, the reason is calling
Your feet are going to be on the ground
Your head is there to move you around

To my surprise, one reaction was that direction is relative and thus America could be east too. However, upon consulting a globe an honest person will quickly find that America is to the west of the Middle East. Saying it is to the east is unnatural as the western direction is shorter than the eastern direction. This is also true with north and south. Standing where Moses was, Eden was closer to the east than any other compass direction. Thus, this consideration is geographical, and clearly not ethnocentric as one Mormon claimed in shear desperation.

Surprisingly, some Mormons have sought to alleviate this problem by claiming the continents were a united supercontinent, Pangaea:
However, if this were true, then the west-east problem is only exasperated as America would be closer to the west and farther from the east. Another mentioned the Bible character Peleg, claiming this had something to do with the breakup of Pangaea during the Noachian Deluge. However the Bible states "in his days the earth was divided." (Genesis 10:25; 1 Chronicles 1:19) Thus it is clear to Bible readers that it is not referring to the continental breakup of Pangaea, and certainly not to the Deluge either. Instead, it may be referring to the lingual division at the Tower of Babel.[2] (Genesis 11:1-9)

It is also interesting that a Mormon claimed that the garden of Eden was global. This is in contrast to both the Bible and Mormon scriptures (Moses 3:8, Abraham 5:8, JST Genesis 2:10) that say it was planted to the east and not globally—that it was a garden IN Eden, not global. It is also a direct contradiction of their prophet Joseph Smith who taught that the garden of Eden was in Missouri, not global. How ironic that some Mormons will so quickly abandon both Mormon scriptures and their own founding prophet in order to defend Mormonism! What a circuitous endeavor.

Remarkably, another Mormon said: "I really don't think it's all that big a deal." However, according to the Mormon scripture D&C 116:1, the Ancient of Days will meet them in Eden. Mormons have been directed to go to the wrong location. The wrong direction is 'a big deal' to sincere seekers of truth.

So stand

Since there is an Eden direction dilemma with Mormonism, how serious is it? Stated directly, contradictory directions are devastating. As the old adage goes, the Devil is in the details. If the Devil dwells in the details of directions, then it is time to discard the directions. Thus, the one responsible for this conundrum must be discarded, leaving us back at square-one with the Bible.


Footnotes:
[1] On the Yahoo! Answers forum: Mormons: Eden direction dilemma? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApTNnulR7MhcwFLwI6WbvNbsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130823081345AAGf8TA

[2] The NET Bible footnote for Genesis 10:25 says:
The expression "the earth was divided" may refer to dividing the land with canals, but more likely it anticipates the division of languages at Babel (Gen 11). The verb פָּלָג (palag, "separate, divide") is used in Ps 55:9 for a division of languages.
The notion that the Deluge was responsible for dividing Pangaea derives from Young-Earth Creationism, and is anachronistic as Pangaea split up long before the Deluge.


Related blog entries:

R.E.M. - Stand video: http://youtu.be/AKKqLl_ZEEY

Labels: ,

posted by JimSpace at 12:29 PM

Monday, September 12, 2011

Fig Leaves in Genesis

The fig is native to SW Asia, Israel, Syria, and Egypt. Its leaves are large, measuring as much as 20 cm (8 in.) or more in width.[1] It is first mentioned in Genesis 3:7, where the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, “sewed fig leaves together and made loin coverings.” This may simply mean that they fastened the large fig leaves together, using twigs of the fig tree to do so.[2] This action may imply some familiarity with sewing fig leaves on Adam's part. He may have had some experience doing this while he was a single man building a shelter for himself in the Garden of Eden. This therefore helps us understand that he was in the garden for some time exceeding what young-earth creationism claims.

Interestingly, fig leaves in Eden also presents a problem for Mormonism. The Mormon scripture of Moses 4:13 reads the same as Genesis 3:7, about sewing fig leaves together. However, Mormonism also teaches that Eden was “located on what is now the North American continent,”[3] near what it calls “Adam-ondi-Ahman,” located by its founding prophet Joseph Smith in northwestern Missouri.[4] However, at least three things contradict Joseph Smith's identification:
  1. There is no evidence, fossil or otherwise, of fig trees existing anywhere in Missouri in antediluvian times, or even in ancient times.
  2. Genesis 2:8 says Eden was “toward the east.” Moses wrote that in the Middle East, so it was east of his position. America is west. Wrong direction.[5]
  3. If Noah's ark was constructed in or near Missouri, then how did it float half-way around the globe to the “mountains of Ararat”? (Genesis 8:4)[6] There is nothing in the account indicating that it floated that great distance. This is a fatal flaw on Joseph Smith's part.
But the traditional location of Eden in the Middle East eliminates all three of these obstacles as fig trees exist there and so do the mountains of Ararat.

Footnotes:
[1] "Fig." Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 1.

[2] "Sewing." Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2.

[3] "Eden, Garden of." [Mormon] Bible Dictionary. http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/eden-garden-of?lang=eng&letter=e

[4] Doctrine and Covenants 116:1, dated May 19, 1838. "10. The Valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman." Church History Photos. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/history-photos/photo-10?lang=eng

[5] See the parallel Mormon scriptures Moses 3:8 and Abraham 5:8, as well as the JST (Joseph Smith Translation) version of Genesis 2:8 (2:10). Joseph Smith agreed with Genesis 2:8 that it was east, yet then chose a location to the west.

[6] In the JST Genesis 8:4 is found in 8:49, where it reads that the ark landed “upon the mountain of Ararat.” However, the Bible is not that specific, and must be considered as more reasonable than specifying Mount Ararat, even though it has long been considered to be the location of where the ark rested. (I will close this footnote by confessing that I used to believe that the ark landed on Mount Ararat, but after researching this matter objectively, I no longer do. Thus, I see this specific identification in the JST to be another flaw in the Mormon paradigm.) See: Mount Ararat Landing? http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2015/12/mount-ararat-landing.html

See also:
Mormonism and the Eden Direction Dilemma http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/08/mormonism-and-eden-direction-dilemma.html

Labels: ,

posted by JimSpace at 12:12 PM

Thursday, March 03, 2011

Only One Could be the Christ


The Messiah! Who would he be and when would he come? He, as a single person, would have dual functions as king and high priest, and only one person in the universe could fulfill that remarkable role. The first mention of a messiah or savior for the human race goes back to the first book of the Bible, Genesis, at 3:15. And he arrived at just the right time in human history:
“God had maneuvered the nations in preparation for Messiah’s appearance, and the circumstances were ideal for spreading the news of that event far and wide. The fifth world power, Greece, had provided a common language, a universal means of communication among the nations. Rome, the sixth world power, had welded its subject nations into one world empire and had provided roads to make all parts of the empire accessible. Many Jews had been scattered throughout this empire, so that others had learned of the Jews’ expectation of a coming Messiah. And now, more than 4,000 years after the Edenic promise [at Genesis 3:15], the Messiah had appeared! The long-awaited promised Seed had come!”[1]
It is extremely important to realize that “God did not send some angel to rescue mankind. He made the supreme sacrifice of sending his only-begotten Son, “the one he was specially fond of.”—Proverbs 8:30; John 3:16.”[2] This is true because:

“Only Jehovah’s firstborn Son could measure up to the special needs of the situation involving sinful mankind. He is such an image of his heavenly Father in showing affection for members of the divinely produced family that he is without equal among the sons of God. Since all other intelligent creatures were brought into existence by means of him, his affection for them would certainly be abundant.”[3]
And:
“It was on a mission of salvation that Jehovah lovingly sent his only-begotten Son. God did not send his Son here in order to judge the world. If God’s Son had been sent on such a judicial mission, the outlook for all mankind would have been hopeless. The sentence of adverse judgment that would have been pronounced by Jesus Christ upon the human family would have been condemnation to death. (Romans 5:12) Thus, by this unique expression of divine love, God counterbalanced the death sentence that sheer justice would have required.”[4]
By way of contrast, the LDS Church’s study manual, Gospel Principles, in chapter 3 presents Jesus and the pre-rebel Satan as equals who both made offers to be the Christ, or Messiah. Using the Mormon scriptures of the books of Abraham and Moses, it says:

We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abraham 3:27). Jesus Christ, who was called Jehovah, said, “Here am I, send me” (Abraham 3:27; see also Moses 4:1–4).
...
Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). Satan wanted to force us all to do his will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose.[5]
Thus, it is clearly seen that Gospel Principles and the Mormon scriptures of Abraham and Moses presents them (Jesus and the person who later became Satan) both as having equal opportunity to become the Messiah. However, the angels were not in the same legal position to offer a ransom for Adam as Jesus was. Adam was God’s first intelligent physical production, his first physical son. And in accords with soteriological mechanics, the Messiah would have to offer what Adam lost. While any spiritual creation could have fulfilled the basic requirements of such, none could have fully corresponded to Adam as a firstborn son. And none would have known Jehovah God better than his firstborn son. Thus, only Jesus as God’s firstborn son could have fully satisfied the role of Messiah![6] (Refer to image below.)


From You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (1982) page 63.

Think too of Jesus’ return to heaven before God. Then and there it was that “God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:9-11) Immagine if a subordinate angel was the Messiah, he would be exaulted as Jesus is now!

Thus, when all these factors are taken into account, it becomes clear that only one person could have been the Messiah. And he was Jesus.

Additional Reading:
Who Is Jesus Christ?
Footnotes:
[1] “Matthew.” All Scripture Inspired of God and Beneficial.

[2] The Watchtower. 1991 2/15 p. 14 par. 15 “A Corresponding Ransom for All.”

[3] The Watchtower. 1992 1/15 p. 10 par. 6 “Everlasting Happiness Awaits Godly Givers.”

[4] ibid. p. 11 par. 8

[5] http://lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-3-jesus-christ-our-chosen-leader-and-savior?lang=eng
To learn how Lucifer was not Satan’s original name, and the credibility crisis this creates for Mormonism, please read my blog entry “Is Satan Lucifer?” (http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-satan-lucifer.html) Additionally, Jesus represents Jehovah his father, but is not the same person as Jehovah. In the Hebrew Bible, Jehovah is elohim, thus “Elohim” is not a separate person from Jehovah contrary to Mormon doctrine. It is also important to realize that God did not create Satan, rather he created the angel who later rebelled and became Satan, which in Hebrew means “Resister.”

[6] See my blog entry “Do You Reject Trinitarianism?,” number 1.
(http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html)


 Related blog posts:

Labels: , ,

posted by JimSpace at 5:05 PM

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Mormonism

Definition: A Restorationist movement lead by claimed prophets, starting with Joseph Smith (1805-1844), with distinctive beliefs and a unique scriptural canon in addition to the Bible: The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST).

Are their any problems with Mormonism?
Consider the following:
(1) Mormonism makes salvation impossible for this reason: It has a ‘no blood before Adam’s Fall’ doctrine, including no offspring or death in the pre-Fall Animal Kingdom.[1] Additionally, the Fall is described as a blessing in the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 2:22-5. (See problem 2 below.) The problem is that it presents blood as a product of Adam’s transgression, yet Jesus had blood (Book of Mormon, Mosiah 3:11),[2] but he was free of the affects of Adam’s transgression. (Luke 1:35; Hebrews 4:15) Therefore, what we have here may be called a soteriological contradiction, for Jesus was holy and sinless—he did not have any products of Adam’s transgression, but Mormonism gives him just that, blood from Adam’s transgression.

(2) 2 Nephi 2:22, 23 contradicts Genesis 1:28 which states this regarding Adam and Eve (NW): “Further, God blessed them [Adam and Eve], and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it.’” (NET Bible renders this “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it!’” RS, Yg, NASB, NIV, as well as others, read similarly.) Thus Adam and Eve were told to have children, yet 2 Nephi 2:23 says “they would have had no children.” Exacerbating this is that Genesis 1:28 is found in the JST (see 1:30) as well as in another Mormon version of Genesis 1:28 found in Moses 2:28 in the Pearl of Great Price, which therefore also contradicts 2 Nephi 2:22, 23. This contradiction is a fatal flaw in Mormon scripture that alienates it from God. (Refer to Table 1 below.)

Table 1
Click to enlarge

Furthermore, 2 Nephi 2:22, 23 and 25 places Adam’s fall in a favorable, even liberating light, as verse 25 adds that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” This contradicts Romans 5:8, 10-12, 15-19 where Adam’s fall is described in negative, debilitating terms, even called a “trespass,” or “offense,” and “disobedience,” leading to “condemnation.” This contradiction with Romans chapter 5 is another fatal flaw in Mormon scripture that alienates it from God.

(3) There is also the problem of the source language of the Book of Mormon, called “reformed Egyptian,” which is described as more compact than Hebrew in the Book of Mormon at Mormon 9:32-33. However, this is impossible. The book By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, by Charles M. Larson (Grand Rapids, 1992), says: “Ancient Egyptian writing is composed of both phonograms (‘sound-signs’) and ideagrams (signs that convey their meaning pictorially). In this language a word was usually expressed by using one or more phonograms, followed by an ideagram. In this arrangement the ideagram is called a determinative, because it ‘determines’ the meaning of the foregoing sound-signs and defines their meaning in a general way. ... While some Egyptian words need no determinative, many have more than one; some words even require as many as three determinatives to express a single thought. Egyptian writing was thus cumbersome to use, and lacked any true depth of abstraction. ... Eventually its vast inferiority to other forms of writing, such as Greek or Hebrew, led to its disuse and ultimate disappearance. But no one realized any of this in Joseph Smith's time.”—Pp. 88, 89.

Thus, the weight of the evidence indicates that the Hebrew-speaking Israelites would not switch to Egyptian Hieroglyphics and reform that to be more compact than Hebrew which was a superior language and already more compact than Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

(4) Mormonism also retains the Latin name Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12 KJ) for Satan in its scriptures (see 2 Nephi 24:12, Doctrine and Covenants 76:26 and the JST at Isaiah 14:12). However, Bible scholarship post-dating Mormonism has shown that Lucifer is not Satan. Rather, Lucifer is merely the translation of the Hebrew word heh·lel′, “shining one,” which is not a name or a title but a term describing the boastful position taken by Babylon’s dynasty of kings of the line of Nebuchadnezzar. Yet, Mormonism cannot remove this error without serious consequences to its credibility, as divine revelation would not perpetuate error and confusion.

When Someone Says—
‘I’m a Mormon (or Latter-day Saint)’
You might reply: ‘I remember your “Truth Restored” ad campaign a few years ago. Clearly you value the truth about God, right? So do I. In this regard, notice what Jesus said in John 17:17. (Read it.) So we can trust God’s Word; is that how you feel?’ Then perhaps add: ‘I agree with you that there was a Great Apostasy from the truth, and consequently a need for a restoration. Also, I agree that the cross is inappropriate as a Christian symbol. But I do believe that Jesus was free of Adamic contamination to be the Ransomer. Do you believe that Adam was created without blood and that blood is a product of his transgression?’ (Note, do not use the word "sin" here, as they do not believe it was a sin but something Adam had to do.) ‘Yet Jesus shed his blood for us?’ (Allow for response.) ‘Would you agree that Jesus our Savior was free of the affects of Adam's transgression?’ (Read Luke 1:35 and Heb. 4:15.) Then why would Jesus have blood if it is the product of Adam’s transgression?’ (Turn to page 29 under the heading “If Someone Says” under “Adam and Eve” in the book Reasoning From the Scriptures, or to chapter five of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? on page 47, and use this as a basis for discussion, highlighting Jesus’ role as Ransomer. Both books are published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.)

Or you could say: ‘Do you look at Adam and Eve with great appreciation for what they did in the garden of Eden? (Allow for response. Then read Romans 5:18, 19.) How does this scripture describe what Adam did? Why do you think Paul used words like “condemnation” and “disobedience” if we are to appreciate what Adam did?’

Another possibility: ‘I appreciate the high value you place on knowing the truth, as your “Truth Restored” ad campaign demonstrated. Do you think that restoring truth would perpetuate error and confusion? (Allow for response.) That would destroy all credibility of restoring truth, right? Then why is it that Mormon scripture preserves the Latin name Lucifer for Satan when Bible scholarship post-dating Mormonism has shown that Lucifer is not Satan, but is merely the Latin translation of the Hebrew word heh·lel′, and is the Babylonian king?’ (Turn to page 361 under “Satan the Devil” in Reasoning From the Scriptures, or to chapter ten of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? on page 96, and use this as a basis for discussion.)

Footnotes:
[1] “Fall of Adam.” LDS Church’s Bible Dictionary. http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/f/2 [Note: the latest edition of the LDS Church’s Bible Dictionary under the corresponding entry "Fall of Adam and Eve" has omitted reference to blood forming in the bodies of the primeval 'transgressors' Adam and Eve. This was doubtlessly done to soften the definition and make it more ‘milk-like,’ with the ‘meatier’ no-blood-before-the-Fall doctrine being presented later.] This ‘no blood before Adam’s Fall’ doctrine is also taught in the LDS Church’s Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, “Chapter 8 – The Fall,” which quotes Mormon President Joseph Fielding Smith (http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-8-the-fall?lang=eng):
“When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77).
It is also taught in the LDS Church’s Ensign magazine in the following articles by Mormon Apostle Russell M. Nelson: “Constancy amid Change,” November 1993 issue, page 33 and “The Atonement,” November 1996 issue, page 33.

[2] “Christ.” LDS Church’s Bible Dictionary. (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/christ?lang=eng) In order for Jesus to be the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), he would have to be what Adam lost and voluntarily sacrifice that to be the ransom. Mormonism makes that impossible.

(This was written by me attempting to mimic the general style of the book Reasoning From the Scriptures.)


Related blog entries:
Links to other blog entries:
Links:

Further reading:
The Religion of “More”
http://www.jimspace.000space.com/more-mon.htm



If you enjoyed this, please consider donating:

Labels:

posted by JimSpace at 12:09 PM

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Regarding Angelic Direction

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in angelic direction in their ministry per Revelation 14:6, 7, and have stories to back it up. It looks like Mormons do too, only it seems to focus more on the spirit guiding them to searching individuals.[1] Obviously, angels and the holy spirit cannot be guiding searching individuals both to two radically different belief systems.[2] Instead, perhaps we could visualize two agents observing searching individuals. God and Satan. God and his son Jesus send forth their angels to guide their evangelizers, and Satan sends forth his demons to guide his evangelizers. (2 Corinthians 11:14-15) This is very sobering. Are we in a race to reach searching people before Satan's evangelizers do?
Eye art by M. C. Escher

Footnotes:
[1] Based on an inquiry to Mormons on Yahoo! Answers: "Mormons, do you believe your missionaries have angelic direction?"

[2] Mormonism unwittingly denies Christ's ransom, as it inevitably holds, by logical deduction, that his blood is the product of Adam's transgression in Eden. Therefore, angels and the holy spirit cannot be guiding searching individuals to this anathematic religion.

Labels: ,

posted by JimSpace at 12:30 PM

Is Satan Lucifer?

From True Peace and Security (1986) page 51

How can this be, since Lucifer is Latin? This linguistic paradox comes from the King James Version (KJV) and the Douay-Rheims translation (DR) of Isaiah 14:12, which reads:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (KJV)
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations? (DR)
Lucifer is the translation of the Hebrew word helel, "shining one." Helel refers to the "boastful position taken by Babylon's dynasty of kings of the line of Nebuchadnezzar [the Neo-Babylonian dynasty]. (Isa 14:4-21)"[1] Isaiah 14:4 confirms this, introducing this section as a "taunt" against "the king of Babylon," meaning that verse 12 in this "taunt" refers to "the king of Babylon," not Satan. Even the DR above acknowledges this in a footnote, which reads:
"O Lucifer"... O day star. All this, according to the letter, is spoken of the king of Babylon. It may also be applied, in a spiritual sense, to Lucifer the prince of devils, who was created a bright angel, but fell by pride and rebellion against God.
(It seems it would have been more logical to not use "Lucifer" as the name for the "prince of devils," but to use the more common name Satan, as the footnote identifies Lucifer as the historical king of Babylon and as a "day star," not a name.)

A number of Bible translations now though translate the Hebrew word more literally, breaking from the KJV. For instance:

New World Translation (NWT):
How you have fallen from heaven, O shining one, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the earth, You who vanquished nations!

New English Translation (NET):
Look how you have fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, O conqueror of the nations!
The footnote for "shining one, son of the dawn" reads in part: "This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler."

New International Version (NIV):
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

New American Standard Bible (NASB):
How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!

There are a few other Bible translations that do the same in accords with progressive Bible scholarship and more-focused reading comprehension. The name Lucifer must die, and these more accurate translations have helped the cause of truth in this regard.

Likewise, any religion that stubbornly maintains the name Lucifer for Satan is not helping the cause of truth in this regard. For instance, groups that maintain fossilized doctrines like the Bible Students are guilty of this indiscretion.[2]

Additionally, it should be noted that "this error is compounded in Mormon theology, with Lucifer appearing as a character in the endowment ceremony in the Mormon temple."[3] Indeed, it should also be noted that the LDS or Mormon scriptures have "Lucifer," once in the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 24:12, which derives from Isaiah 14:12 KJV: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" (The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible reads the same.) The last occurrence is in the Doctrine and Covenants 76:26: "And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning." Lastly, the LDS Church version of the KJV has this footnote for Isaiah 14:12 regarding "Lucifer": "HEB morning star, son of dawn. The ruler of the wicked world (Babylon) is spoken of as Lucifer, the ruler of all wickedness." Then it has a "Topical Guide" reference to "Devil."[4] So this is not just a translation issue with the LDS, it is fossilized in their scriptures as divine revelation that Satan has a Latin name Lucifer.[5] The justification for this connection seen in the footnote fails to take into account that Isaiah 14:4-21 refers to "Babylon's dynasty of kings" 'which is clearly depicted as human rulers.' This is not referring to a spiritual Babylon, but to the literal, historical Babylon. A true latter-day revelation from God would not continue a translation mistake and breath life into centuries-old confusion. As Jesus said about God's word: "your word is truth." (John 17:17; Psalm 119:160) It does not preserve mistaken notions. This is more serious than the LDS realize, for it is a devestating problem for Mormonism. How can it not be? Instead of "Truth Restored" as they declare, this amounts to "Error Sustained." What a sad, pathetic situation this truly is, for it cannot be corrected without serious ramifications.

Satan surrounds himself in a web of lies.

Can it be said though that Isaiah 14:12 has a spiritual application to Satan? Yes. "Since Babylon was a tool of Satan, its 'king' reflected Satan's own ambitious desire."[1] The subject of Isaiah 14:12 reflected Satan's ambitious desire, but was not Satan. The subject of Isaiah 14:12 is the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. It's that simple.

Footnotes:
[1] Insight on the Scriptures-2, "Satan" p. 868. It must be noted that even though names of spirit beings predate human language, that the essence of these names was cast into Hebrew for the benefit of the Hebrew-speaking recipients of divine revelation. Latin as a language is geographically far-removed from these recipients and therefore is irrelevant for the use of names in the Hebrew Bible.

[2] The "Bible Students" religion splintered off of the original Bible Students in 1917 (renamed Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931 and who discarded "Lucifer" mid-20th century)[*], and have maintained the belief about Lucifer being Satan, as have other splinter groups from Jehovah's Witnesses who split-off before Lucifer was discarded. Thus, this issue has become sort of a litmus test for sincere Bible scholarship. Failing in this regard by stubbornly maintaining the erroneous "Lucifer=Satan" doctrine can only result in alienation from God for maintaining a stagnant paradigm or mindset. God cannot bless stubborn stagnation.
[*] Their doctrinal journal, The Watchtower of October 15, 1949 page 313 "The Taunt-Song Against Satan The Devil" first discussed its origin, then the Questions From Readers series in the March 1, 1957 page 159 and January 15, 1965 page 63 issues laid it to rest.

[3] Mormon Think. "Joseph's Translation of the Bible: The name Lucifer." http://www.mormonthink.com/jst.htm
See also: Packham, Richard. "Notes on linguistics problems in Mormonism." http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#LUCIFER

[4] http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/14/12c

[5] Ironically, the author of the Book of Mormon said there was no Latin in the original manuscripts he allegedly translated from, but "reformed Egyptian." While "Lucifer" could have been written in this alleged "reformed Egyptian," it is impossible that this later Latin translation of helel would have been known by the scribes in the Book of Mormon story.—Smith, Joseph. "Times and Seasons." "Correspondence," Vol. 4, No. 13 [May 15, 1843]: 194. Refer to this scanned page for verification:

(A less-comprehensive version of this was posted on Yahoo! Answers on Tuesday, October 26, 2010, but it was deemed too abusive "per" the terms of use and deleted the same day. Who took exception to this? Was it Mormons? I don't know. I just wanted some feedback on this issue. Other more offensive questions survive there just fine.)

Related blog entry:
The Dirge Against the King of Tyre jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-dirge-against-king-of-tyre.html




If you enjoyed this, please consider donating:

Labels: ,

posted by JimSpace at 12:00 PM

Friday, October 15, 2010

The Laws of Physics, Scripture, and Things that are Impossible for God.


“All things are possible with God” said Jesus. (Mark 10:27; Matthew 19:26) At the same time, it is “impossible for God to lie.” (Hebrews 6:18; see also Romans 3:4) Clearly then, Jesus meant this hyperbolically. For instance, not only is it impossible for God to lie, and by extension create lies and deceptions, it is also impossible for him to create a god that is more almighty than he is. That is absurd and laughable, yet it illustrates that Jesus’ declaration has reasonable limits to its application. Considering how he used a certain phrase and his descriptions of nature will demonstrate this.

The phrase “flesh and blood” is found three times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The first use of it is by Jesus in Matthew 16:17, where he said: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.” By this contrast, we learn that “flesh and blood” refers to human nature, which is not found in heaven. If his Father, God, was flesh and blood as well, that would make his contrast quite defective. This observation would refute the Mormon position that God has a physical body and spirit blood, for such a doctrine would dilute the force of Jesus’ contrast and consequently make him a very poor teacher.

The other two occurrences of this phrase are used by Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:50 and in Galatians 1:16. Both are used in the same sense, referring to human nature. Notice how this is applied in 1 Corinthians 15:50: “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” Regarding this contrast and the meaning of the phrase “flesh and blood,” Adam Clarke’s Commentary states:

This is a Hebrew periphrasis for man, and man in his present state of infirmity and decay. Man, in his present state, cannot inherit the kingdom of God; his nature is not suited to that place; he could not, in his present weak state, endure an exceeding great and eternal weight of glory. Therefore, it is necessary that he should die, or be changed; that he should have a celestial body suited to the celestial state. The apostle is certainly not speaking of flesh and blood in a moral sense, to signify corruption of mind and heart; but in a natural sense; as such, flesh and blood cannot inherit glory, for the reasons already assigned. (italics original)
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=015

This agrees well with another description of Jesus, found in John 8:21, 23: “I am going away. … Where I am going YOU cannot come. YOU are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. YOU are from this world; I am not from this world.” Or, as the Bible in Basic English renders the last part: “You are of the earth; I am from heaven: you are of this world; I am not of this world.” Thus, Jesus here was declaring the same principle Paul later declared in 1 Corinthians 15:50, human nature is restricted to the earthly realm. Consequently, when he said “I,” he was referring to his being, his soul, not his physical body.[1] After his resurrection when he appeared with a human body, he was now being controlled by his spirit being, his physical body being a manifestation for teaching. This is seen in the account where he appeared suddenly in a room without entering through a door, which was locked. (John 20:19) During his ascension when “a cloud caught him up from their vision” (Acts 1:9), his physical body was then discarded, like he had done before entering the room.[2]

Regarding Jesus’ human body, Jesus himself explained to his disciples what would happen to it. This account is recorded at Matthew 16:21-23 and at Mark 8:31-33. Without going into detail as to what he said exactly, both versions of this event merely say that Jesus would die and then be raised three days later. Matthew’s version though quotes Peter rebuking Jesus, saying in verse 22: “Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this [destiny] at all.” With that, both versions have Jesus responding with a swift, stinging counter-rebuke, “Get behind me, Satan, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.” (Mark 8:33) Now, did Jesus believe that his human, physical body would be retained after his ascension? Since Jesus said his physical body belonged to the lower earthly realm, he must have known such a thing is impossible. (See also Psalm 115:16, which Jesus must have read, that declares that human nature can only live on earth, not in the spirit realm.) This agrees with Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:50, and Adam Clarke’s comment that ‘human nature is not suited to that place.’ God cannot create contradictions and lies. He cannot create square circles or freezing infernos. He cannot make a physical body inhabit the spirit realm. This axiomatic observation refutes the Trinitarian Hypostatic Union and the Catholic Assumption of Mary[3] doctrines. Regarding the former, a very embarrassing and negative situation exists. Trinitarianism is like Peter rebuking Jesus, “Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this destiny at all: you will retain your handsome physical body and it will not be forever mangled or executed!” Jesus’ counter-rebuke would be the same: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.” (Matthew 16:23) This rebuke from Jesus to Trintarianism is unavoidable.

Thus, in review, we can clearly see that both Mormon and Trinitarian theology, along with the Catholic doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, runs counter to the Laws of Physics that Scripture agrees with. These (the Laws of Physics and Scripture) are two witnesses that rise and refute those doctrines. A third witness is Jesus, who reveals them to be stumbling blocks and thoughts of men alienated from God.—2 Corinthians 13:1.

Footnotes:
[1] In the Bible, the soul is the person, as Adam was a soul and did not have a soul. (Genesis 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:45) Since Jesus however was from heaven and after his resurrection existed as a spirit creature, his soul is more expanded than with ours in that his life or being was not restricted to physical human life. Simply stated, our body is our soul because this is our life.

[2] To assert that Jesus retained his physical human body would be to contradict his earlier teaching in John 8:21, 23. It would also introduce an absurdity and an abstraction, like a two-dimensional being ascending to three-dimensional space and retaining his two-dimensional body. It is absurd and impossible.

[3] This doctrine teaches that after Mary “completed the course of her earthly life, [she] was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” (Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII Defining the Dogma of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus. November 1, 1950. Paragraph 44. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html) Again, this is analogous to a two-dimensional being ascending to three-dimensional space and retaining his two-dimensional body. It is absurd and impossible.


See also:

Labels: , , ,

posted by JimSpace at 10:08 AM