From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS (Farkas) bashing/ Paul's vision/ prophets/ equivocating
Date: 17 Nov 1992 20:23:15 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual




Robert, first of all, I want you to know that I appreciated your response. 
However, you are an anti-Mormon, therefore, you are still repeating the same 
old accusations which has been answered over and over again. In general,
your response was well received by me. It looks like that we may have a 
chance for some meaningful discussion, instead of "bashing". 

I believe that you are do not understand what we LDS believe in. 
However, I don't hold this against you, unless, after you have been told, 
you will continue to insist otherwise.

Robert Weiss wrote regarding my defination of what bashing is:

>Frank Farkas wrote about my response concerning bashing versus discussion.

>For the most part I agree with the points that he enumerated that dealt
>with non-productive discussions (i.e., being closed minded, bringing up
>the same old accusations, never retracting, quickly changing the
>subject). Using these tactics can not contribute to a legitimate
>discussion. They in themselves are not bashing, although these tactics may
>be engaged by those who partake in bashing.

Very well put. I do agree what you are saying.

>ff> 4. Attacking beliefs.

>as an example of bashing.

>I would have to say "yes and no" to that. Attacking beliefs may be 
>bashing, if it is done for the sole purpose of attacking beliefs. However, 
>it may not be bashing when the goal and the attitude are both one of 
>contending for the faith to those who are outside the faith that was once
>delivered to the saints. I would term it bashing if it was done with an 
>attitude of disrespect, However, it may not be bashing if the unveiling of 
>one's beliefs are done in a respectful, tactful way.

I agree with most of the things you are saying here. However, I felt that
your response had a slight leaning towards the idea that the end justifies
the means. 

>I usually ignore when someone tries to justify their position with a
>reference to someone else's position. This is an example of the logical
>fallacy known as "tu quoque." It means "You're another." Arguments such as
>these are not really to the point; they do not present good grounds for
>the truth of their conclusions, they seek to win assent to the conclusion
>from one's opponent because of the opponent's circumstances.

I believe that you may have jumped into an unjustified conclusion. It is
understandable to some extent since I never spelled out what I ment by
the referrence to the three versions of Paul's encounter on the Damascus
road. 

The point I am making is not that Paul told three different stories, but 
that he told the same event three different ways, having different 
information in all three cases. 

>I'll elaborate.

>Let's presume that I believe that the Sun is inhabited. Now, I point out
>to you that there are contradictory versions to the First Vision. I point
>out that Lucy moved with the family, and the vision occurred two years
>later, making it 1823; I point out that Smith's first report was that
>there were angels that he met with; that another report states that it was
>the Father and the Son, another report was that the revival started with
>the Methodists, but they reported declines in membership from 1818 to 1821
>in the Ontario circuit. Your response to me is then,....   

Here you get closed to one of my defination regarding bashing. These issues
were already covered. the angels vs. Father/Son was explained. So was the 
issue of the existence of revival in the time frame Joseph Smith had the
first vision. I am not going over grounds which was already covered.

>However, since you bring up the subject Paul's encounter on the road to 
>Damascus, I think that it should be addressed. 

I am not a Greek expert, so I am not going to respond to your long 
explanation about how two of the three stories can in fact be reconciled.
It is a non-issue with me.

My point was, once again, that the same story can be told different ways.

>ff> 5. By judging a person's beliefs by a standard the person never claimed,
>ff>    and should never be applied (i.e. the defination of a prophet).

>I have tried to use the Biblical definition for prophet, and have been 
>castigated for presuming the Biblical definition of a prophet. In reply I
>asked for the LDS definition of what constitutes a false prophet, and my
>question went unanswered.

How about this: 

1. A prophet is a prophet when he speaks under the influence of the 
   Holy Ghost. 

2. A prophet is not a perfect person who doesn't err or sin.

>Holding someone to a Biblical definition is hardly to be construed as
>bashing.

Bashing is when one insist on a defination which the other person doesn't
hold.

>And the only reason I can see to wander from the Biblical
>definition is so one can insert a non-Biblical definition.

I have no arguement with your belief regarding the defination of a prophet.
However, I must state that I don't *believe* that your defination is in fact
Biblical. This was already discussed one two many times.

>ff> There is a major difference between bashing and discussions. For
>ff> example, Anthony Rose made a claim...

>Quoting about Jesus to answer a question about the LDS concept 
>of the Father is meaningless.

Not to me, since I believe that Jesus is God.

>I attempted to bring this back with the question of whether Jesus is the god 
>that we are to worship. I thought that this would point out your 
>equivocation. Yet, you held that we worship the Father and Jesus. It was at
>this time that I left the thread.

>In hindsight, I should have pointed out that this is classical Christian
>theology. Yet the LDS church does not support this view; the view that you
>have promoted; that the LDS worship Jesus. In a talk given in 1982, at a BYU
>devotional, Apostle Bruce McConkie said,

Deleted the quote from Bruce R. McConkie.

>Frank said that the LDS worship Jesus. A Mormon apostle said that the LDS 
>don't, and that his understanding is necessary in order to gain eternal 
>life.

What I said that we worship God the Father as the father of our spirit.
We pray to him in the name of Jesus Christ. I also said that we do worship
Christ as our saviour and as the creator of the world.

I won't comment regarding Bruce R. McConkie's quote since I don't have 
the text of his speach. I went on many wild goose chases when anti-Mormons
qouted things out of context. Almost with no exception I find that the speaker's message was nothing like what they were trying to imply. All 
things said must be understood in context. I can take Bible verses out 
of context and attach meanings to them which is not there at all. Like 
when Jesus says, that unless we hate our fathers, mothers, brother, sister 
and even our own selfs, we can't be his disciples. Looking that verse only 
one can say that the message of Jesus was hate. Do you get my point!  

Now, more then likely that Bruce R. McConkie ment no more or no less then 
what Paul ment when he said, to us there is only one God the Father, and
one Lord Jesus Christ.

Personally I have no problem at all what Bruce R. McConkie said if I
follow his defination regarding the worship of Christ.


But let me quote from the Standard Works of my church, the Book of Mormon, regarding this subject:

2 Nephi 25:29
=============
"And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, 
and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must
bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and 
strenght, and your whole soul; and if you do this ye shall in nowise
be cast out."

3 Nephi 11:17
=============
"Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down
at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him."

3 Nephi 17:10
=============
"And they did all, both they who had been healed and they who were whole, 
bow down at his feet , and did worship him ; and as many as could come for
the multitude did kiss his feet, insomuch that they did bathe his feet 
with their tears."

>I want to put this forward so that when Frank posts about the Father 
>having a body of flesh and blood, that he will not mention verses that 
>relate to Jesus; since the LDS view is that they are so completely 
>different that to wrongly worship Jesus is harm one's eternal life. 
>Therefore, ...

After you have been told many times, you still don't get it at all.
If Bruce R. McConkie said anything contrary to the teachings of the standard
works, guess what happens? McConkie's speach will go into the trash can.
You still don't get it at all! We are not mindless zombies. We enjoy the
gifts of the Holy Ghost. We are told over and over again to seek the
confirmation of the Spirit, that each member of the church is entitled
to receive revelation.

>...I don't think that Frank should confuse the two in his 
>replies on flesh and blood bodies.

I will definately not confuse the Father and the Son! Do you remember? 
It is us who claim that the Father and the Son are two separate personages. 
However, we believe that they are the same "God" because they posses the 
same godly attributes. We are the ones who don't believe in the Trinity 
model. It is the Ortodox Christian teachings which confuse the two in such
way that there are some who separate God the Jesus and Jesus the man, like
he would have a split personality. We don't have any need to do this at all.
Jesus is God who is in the form of man, looking just like us in form, and 
having a physical body just like us. In time we can be like him in other
ways too. It is not that God was made in our image, but that we were
created in God's image. I hope you get what I am saying.

I John 3:2-3
============
"Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we 
shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; 
for we shall see him as he is."

"And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is 
pure."


The reason I am pointing to Chist is that I do believe that he is God
(the Son). Not a different God, or a "little" god, but God in its fulness. 
The fact that he has a body doesn't limit him at all. One of the major
arguement put forth against the Father having a body is that it would be 
a limitation on him, therefore, He couldn't be the "Mighty God". 

Jesus is a perfect model of God, since he is in fact God. He is both man 
and God, and in this there is no conflict or contridiction. Now, if you 
believe that Jesus is really not God, or if he is a "limited" god, then 
your arguement from your point of view, that it is irrelevant that Jesus has 
a body, is indeed correct. Looking at Jesus we see no problem at all with
God the Father having a physical body. It is very logical, and not 
unbiblical (no smoking gun one way or the other). Do you get it now why
I am pointing to Jesus when the issue of God having a body comes up?

With brotherly love,

		Frank




Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc