Town Hall's Black Hole

In a recent post you said, "At MINIMUM, Mitty BELIEVES in EXTRA-CANONICAL REVELATION--whole point to the Book of Mormon--I REJECT that!"

It makes me wonder; have you even read the Book of Mormon?

BM: So Jesus went to paradise too?

GB: Yep, you got it pops.

BM: "With me", his words, ya know?

GB: Yep, you got it pops.

BM: How about "went and made proclamation to the Sprits now in prison."

GB: Yep, you got it pops.

BM: Is that Hell, or Ghenna, or Sheol or Pardise?

GB: The spirit world of the dead is divided into paradise and prison (or hell). At death there is a mini judgment to decide where you go.

BM: Is "paradise" the same or different from "Abraham's bossom?

GB: It is the same, for that was where Abraham was until the resurrection of Jesus Christ (you know, the first one to be resurrected).

BM: Are both different from heaven?

GB: Yes, Heaven can only be attained in the resurrected state.

BM: Remember the OTHER guy was in "torment of fire" more like "where the fire is never out" of Jesus' teaching not the grey place of departed Spirits of the Hebrew Sheol.

GB: Sheol is used to describe both the world of the dead and prison (or hell).

BM: How about "where I am there you will be also."

GB: Notice "will be" is a future occurance.

BM: How about "I AM the God of Abraham--God of The LIVING!"

GB: the context of this verse is the topic of the resurrection. Here Jesus is teaching the Sadducees (who didn't believe in the resurrection) that indeed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would be resurrected (after Jesus Christ of course).

BM "Are they not all ministering Spirits sent out to render aid"

GB: The context of this verse is the function of angels and is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

BM: ..."their angels constantly behold the face of my Father IN HEAVEN is it?"

GB: This is also discussing angels which is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but it is interesting that God the Father does have a face.

BM: "There is neither marrying nor giving in Marriage but all are like the ANGELS in HEAVEN!"

GB: The context is indeed the resurrection. No marriage ceremonies will be performed on or for resurrected beings.

BM: If Paradise ain't heaven can I settle for paradise?

GB: This means that you would have to reject the gift of resurrection, NOT possible NOR desirable.

BM: What's the Virgin Quotient there?

GB: ZIP, ZERO, NADDA! WALANG! There are many there but you don't get any of them. (But neither does anybody else).

Cheers!!!

"by BG
The concept that the most Core and Fundamental of One's Moral, Ethical and Sociological Beliefs and Philosophy of Life should have NO bearing on Politics simply enlarges my idea of the Possible,
BG."


Mitt Romney stated that he believed in God and constantly talked about the values of faith in God.

The problem is when the fundies got bent out of shape and said, values be damned, he aint one of us and he sure as hell aint Christian, and demanded that he discuss Mormon doctrine.



To me, Mitt Romney showed character and restraint, because if those fundies tried to tell me that I wasnt Christian enough to serve America and was therefore not American enough I's tell them where to stick their cross.

The fact that they are threating McCain if he picks a Mormon, but at the same time claiming that God is too smart to get involeved in politcs as Huck said during the debate when Cooper asked him what God thinks of the death penalty is retarded and not in accordance with Christ's teachings of earthly kingdoms or earthly politics.

For heavens sake, God forbid an American desires to serve America.

Like I said, discussing Angel Moroni or Transubstantiation on the political trail is only geared for generating stories and have no business in politics.

The slug whose name you can't remember is Gary Hart, Democrat senator from Colorado. The site of the crime was a boat dubbed, appropriately, The Monkey Business.

Hope that helps

Thanks for the comments BG, KC. See my original essay on why I don't usually enable comments. I’m usually WAY late in getting back.

THANKS KC, yup, he’s the one!

BG, In order:
Tues: I reject the PRINCIPLE of Extra-Canonical Scripture, Gun. I’ve spent about as much time on the Book of Mormon as The Gospel of Thomas. Neither has much interest to me. I just don’t by the idea of a 19th Century American Westerner (“Mid” was “WEST” then) more worthy of revelation than The Patristic Fathers, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Wesley.
That will always be our parting point and an unbridgeable one. You buy the idea, I dont.

see next
mick

Weds: Give ya this though, Gun, you are a good “defender of the faith.” Note I say “heterodox” NOT apostate or heretical. Your answers to my questions are cogent. I still don’t by the idea of compartmentalization inherent in the set up, I buy the C.S. Lewis idea of God in the Eternal “now” and see it as “death unto life”, “in the body” or “out of it.” In this I avoid the “contortions” of trying to make every reference to an after existence fit one location or another.
If it works for you, good on ya, just doesn’t work for me.

And your point about Mitt’s Morality is WELL made–it’s part of what makes him an attractive candidate, that and his apparent positions on Abortion, Homosexual Marriage and the like. This in addition to his excellent Economic Creds. And yeah, I can see your take on his restraint, and even DIG, being a Theistic Anarchist myself, the desire to tell “The Powers and The Mob” to SHOVE it. Nonetheless, what I needed for MY comfort level, and that’s all it’s ever been about, Level of Trust Comfort, for Mitt (and I’ll still take him over Mac the Knife AND Huckyou the Reconquista Symp) was something along the lines of “Well I do believe in the Revelation to Joseph Smith, which many people might think strange, but what I like about it is that it leads me directly to an emphasis on the Family etc etc etc. Likewise, and I know the idea of X might sound strange, but I see it in terms of the Importance of Y, which all Americans agree with.” See the diff? I know he’s no theologian, but a TRANSPARENT attempt to say WHY the DIFFERENT takes of Mormonism MADE him a Man AMERICA COULD Trust would have won my acceptance.
Call me guilty of breaking my own rule of never accepting Style over Substance, but to me, YOU have done a better job of defending him then he did marketing himself.

see third
mick

Gun, got to say, YOUR honesty has won Mitt some CRED in my book. Maybe he was more Transparent then I gave him cred it for. I still like Hunter and Bobby Jindal, but I'm willing to consider Mitt more now in 012.
Congrats.
Remember though, Mac the Knife's Veep Pick means essentially nothing for my vote. I regard defeating McAin't MORE important than defeating Hussein. I'm still voting "None of the Above" or maybe Alan Keyes. See the other essays.

The Big Mick

bm: I reject the PRINCIPLE of Extra-Canonical Scripture.

GB: Who gets to decide what is and is not scripture? And where did they get their authority to do so?

Is the Nicene Creed "Extra-Canonical"?

bm: I’ve spent about as much time on the Book of Mormon as The Gospel of Thomas.

GB: So the answer is, NO! You haven't read it. It is interesting to me that you are so adamant about rejecting something that you know absolutely NOTHING about.

bm: I just don’t by the idea of a 19th Century American Westerner (“Mid” was “WEST” then) more worthy of revelation than The Patristic Fathers, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Wesley.

GB: WHY? Do we not need God as much now as ever?

Has Upstate New York ever been considered "the west"?

Did God reveal that there was to be no more revelation? If so, where is said revelation recorded?

Did Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Wesley CLAIM to receive revelation? If so where is it and why is it not canonized?

Who do you mean when you say "The Patristic Fathers"?

Hunter was my first choice. When it became apparent that he was not getting any traction, I moved my support to the person that was the most conservative that actually had a chance to win. That I believed was Romney.

Several years ago I drove 50 miles to hear Keyes speak (in Provo Utah). I joined in the standing O he received. He is a great orator of conservative principles.

It is to bad he didn't join the race earlier this time. He would have moved the dialog toward conservatism.

I understand why conservatives don't want to support Mac, because he isn't one. I have no illusion that he is one.

I will support him ONLY if he picks a rock solid conservative VP, otherwise no cigar!

I'm buying into the idea that the Canon of Scripture is closed. If you want to make the case I am granting a group of people in the authority to decide that, yeah I am. I'm comfortable with that. Let's see First Nicea was what, 325? By the end of the 4th Century (300's for those who might have to think about it) under Augustine a solid consensus has been long in place. I regard the CREED from first Nicea as ORTHODOX but not SCRIPTURE. In my model, REVELATION is not de facto OR de jure Scripture. I do not regard Revelation has having ceased, I do regard the SCRPTURAL Canon as closed. As I understand it, this sorta splits the difference between the CJCLDS position and the classic "closed" position. My point about Aquinas et al was that intuitively I got as MUCH reason to think them tuned in to God as I do Smith. No they DIDN'T claim SCRIPTURAL revelation, which is sorta the point--THEY support the Orthodox Canon--to grant SMITH MORE Authority means he needs to bring MORE bona fides to the table. Historically of course, he does not. I admit, the "Patristic Father's is a redundancy when I mean the "Ante-Nicene" "Fathers" or "Patristics" i.e. Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Origen etc.

I admit I'm sketchy on Smith's details--I was recalling events from his stay in Ohio and Missoui. Again, intuitively I trust Polycarp who can say "John discipled me" Irenaeus who can say "I sat under Polycarp" then a 19th Century American. Your climb is WAY uphill on that one.

The Big Mick

BM: I'm buying into the idea that the Canon of Scripture is closed.

GB: Does the "Canon of Scripture" declare itself closed? Did voice of God declare it closed? Did a prophet of God declare it closed? (See Amos 3:7)

BM: If you want to make the case I am granting a group of people in the authority to decide that, yeah I am.

GB: You are assuming that they had authority to make such a declaration. If they had the authority to make that declaration why didn't they add their declaration to the canon of scripture thus officially closing it?

BM: Let's see First Nicea was what, 325? By the end of the 4th Century (300's for those who might have to think about it) under Augustine a solid consensus has been long in place.

GB: I don't think that there has been a consensus since the days of the Apostles. And arguably there was even consensus then. Most of the epistles of the Apostles were written to combat apostasy and heresy.

BM: I regard the CREED from first Nicea as ORTHODOX but not SCRIPTURE.

GB: I regard the Creeds as an abomination and a clear indication of the total loss of Apostolic authority.

BM: In my model, REVELATION is not de facto OR de jure Scripture. I do not regard Revelation has having ceased, I do regard the SCRPTURAL Canon as closed. As I understand it, this sorta splits the difference between the CJCLDS position and the classic "closed" position.

GB: I believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and I believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

BM: My point about Aquinas et al was that intuitively I got as MUCH reason to think them tuned in to God as I do Smith. No they DIDN'T claim SCRIPTURAL revelation, which is sorta the point--THEY support the Orthodox Canon-- . . .

GB: And I would disagree with you. Not only do I support the Bible, I think that by virtue of the fact that Joseph Smith:

1) Claimed claimed the same Apostolic authority that was had by the ancient Apostles.

2) Claimed direct revelation from God.

3) Not only declared the Canon open but increased it by about 50%.

4) Died as a martyr to seal his testimony with his blood. (As was common for the ancient Apostles).

Should be reason enough for you to at least investigate with an open mind.

BM: . . . to grant SMITH MORE Authority means he needs to bring MORE bona fides to the table.

GB: Which he does!

BM: Historically of course, he does not.

GB: I disagree.

BM: Again, intuitively I trust Polycarp who can say "John discipled me" Irenaeus who can say "I sat under Polycarp" then a 19th Century American. Your climb is WAY uphill on that one.

GB: Do you have specific examples of conflicts between their teachings and those of Joseph Smith?

"GB: Does the "Canon of Scripture" declare itself closed? Did voice of God declare it closed? Did a prophet of God declare it closed? (See Amos 3:7)"

* The book of Revelation was written prior to some of the other biblical books, and prior the Bible being assembled into a collection of texts. Therefore, this verse can only apply to the Book of Revelation, and not the Bible as a whole (some of which was unwritten and none of which was yet assembled together into 'the Bible').

While the traditional date of the book of Revelation is A.D. 95 or 96 (primarily based on a statement by Irenaeus), most scholars now date it as early as A.D. 68 or 69. The Gospel of John is generally dated A.D. 95-100. (For more information on the dating of Revelation, see Thomas B. Slater's Biblica article).

* The New Testament is made up of first the four Gospels and then second the epistles of the apostles. Since the book of Revelation is neither a gospel nor an epistle, it was placed at the end of the canon in its own category.

Therefore, John cannot have intended the last few sentences of Revelation to apply to the entire Bible, since he was not writing a 'final chapter' for the New Testament and since the Bible would not be completed and canonized for some centuries later.

* Other scriptures (such as Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, and Proverbs 30:6) likewise forbid additions; were the critics' arguments to be self-consistent, they would have to then discard everything in the New Testament and much of the Old, since these verses predate "other scripture" added by God through later prophets.

* Further evidence that Rev. 22:19 is not referring to the entire bible when it reads "words of the book of this prophecy" is found if one reads Rev. 1:3,11:

Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand...Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

It is self evident that the book referred to at the very beginning of Revelation is the same book being referred to at the very end of Revelation. Everything that John saw and heard in between these two statements are the contents of that book.

* Even if the passage in Revelation meant that no man could add to scripture; it does not forbid that God may, through a prophet, add to the Word of God. If this were not possible, then the Bible could never have come into existence.

Noted Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman wrote:

The very real danger that [New Testament] texts could be modified at will, by scribes who did not approve of their wording, is evident in other ways as well. We need always to remember that the copyists of the early Christian writings were reproducing their texts in a world in which there were not only no printing presses or publishing houses but also no such thing as copyright law. How could authors guarantee that their texts were not modified once put into circulation? The short answer is that they could not. That explains why authors would sometimes call curses down on any copyists who modified their texts without permission. We find this kind of imprecation already in one early Christian writing that made it into the New Testament, the book of Revelation, whose author, near the end of his text, utters a dire warning [quotes Revelation 22:18–19].

This is not a threat that the reader has to accept or believe everything written in this book of prophecy, as it is sometimes interpreted; rather, it is a typical threat to copyists of the book, that they are not to add to or remove any of its words. Similar imprecations can be found scattered throughout the range of early Christian writings. (Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperSanFrancisco, [2005]2007), 54–55. ISBN 0060859512. ISBN 0060738170.)

gunlock

Yeah, we disagree. It works for you, not for me.
Call it intuitive if you want.

And yeah, you can exegete Rev. 22:18-19 all ya want, it still doesn't answer the question if GOD intended it as a closure. At some point you have to buy into the idea of a break in Apostolic authority from around 100 till the 19th Century. That idea simply doesn't work for me. I'm going to chose 2nd Century Apostle trained guys (when there are still people ALIVE who could say "Hey, I HEARD Peter and he didn't SAY that"!)and the guys they trained over a 19th Century American every time. Your argument that he does not differ from them gets you nowhere on my logic. If he doesn't disagree there is no value in chosing him. If he does disagree, and at bottom that is what Extra Canonical Revelation DOES--I mean Polycarp and Irenaeus aren't going to buy into the idea that Authentic Apostolic teaching is withdrawn and/or perverted begining with them, are they--the only value in choosing Smith is to accept, a priori and on his testamony his claim to Canonical Revelation.

That doesn't and will never work for me.

The Big Mick

M: And yeah, you can exegete Rev. 22:18-19 all ya want, it still doesn't answer the question if GOD intended it as a closure.

GB: That is a VERY BIG "IF".

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

M: At some point you have to buy into the idea of a break in Apostolic authority from around 100 till the 19th Century.

GB: Exactly correct.

M: That idea simply doesn't work for me.

GB: I believe it is your right to believe what you want.

M: I'm going to chose 2nd Century Apostle trained guys (when there are still people ALIVE who could say "Hey, I HEARD Peter and he didn't SAY that"!)and the guys they trained over a 19th Century American every time.

GB: And the more I get to know about what the second century guys taught the more I see that it is more in agreement with our doctrine than with the current "orthodox" doctrine.

M: Your argument that he does not differ from them gets you nowhere on my logic.

GB: That seems to conflict with your previous statement.

M: If he doesn't disagree there is no value in chosing him.

GB: Why not?

M: If he does disagree, and at bottom that is what Extra Canonical Revelation DOES--I mean Polycarp and Irenaeus aren't going to buy into the idea that Authentic Apostolic teaching is withdrawn and/or perverted begining with them, are they

GB: Of course not. Even those that were trying to pervert the doctrine while the apostles were yet alive, claimed, for various reasons, that they knew better than the apostles.

M: --the only value in choosing Smith is to accept, a priori and on his testamony his claim to Canonical Revelation.

GB: Actually, a more important reason is the apostolic authority that was taken from the earth with the disappearance of the apostles. God restored it to the earth through the prophet Joseph Smith.

M: That doesn't and will never work for me.

GB: As I said before, I believe it is your right to believe what you want. I still think you are a Christian.

As Mormons, we claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Cheers!!!

Gov. Sarah Palin has been selected by McCain as his VP running mate. Details at my site.