From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormonism
Date: 9 Jan 93 17:04:03 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Reference: <1993Jan9.080752.62568@cc.usu.edu>

From:	IN%"agr00@sim.mfg.amdahl.com"  9-JAN-1993 14:04:17.29

> In response to you....
> 
> (BTW, in the future, from now on if it takes me a couple a days
> to answer  your letters, it is because my work schedule is now
> Sat, Sun, and Wed.  So, not only am I not here 2 less days than
> before, but my mail is stacked as a  result, and I also have work
> to do.  ;-)  So please be patient!)

Understood.  I was wondering if you were ignoring my posts or not
because you were responding to Gordon and Kermit, but I hadn't
seen a response.  That is why I started email in addition -- to
be sure that you were seeing my posts.  I'd prefer that you post
to talk.religion.misc rather than replying to my email.  If you
have seen my posts I will stop sending them to you as email also.

>>>> So you can capture the essence of Mormon teaching about Jesus
>>>> in "lds=brother of Lucifer".  You are truly a case, Tony.
>>>
>>> Mormonism teaches that Jesus is a created being and the
>>> brother of us all, including Lucifer (Satan).  That is itself
>>> says enough. The Bible teaches that Jesus created everything,
>>> seen and unseen, visible and invisible. The Creator of ALL
>>> matter, where ALL means what it says. You cannot be brother of
>>> something you created.
>> 
>> So, then you claim the bible promotes creation ex nihilio?
>
> Don't know what you mean by this.  Please elaborate!

"ex nihilio" is Latin for "from nothing" or out of nothingness. 
It is to call into existence without drawing from other
materials.

My understanding is the the Hebrew word translated as create in
Genesis 1:1 cannot be uses to mean this kind of creative
activity, but instead refers to organizing existing materials
into something new.

>> The correct LDS concept goes something like this:
>> 
>> In the beginning we were all just intelligences.
>> God the Father created spiritual bodies for our intelligences.
>> Jesus Christ was the first to receive one of these spiritual bodies.
>> Under the direction of God the Father, Jesus Christ created
>>   (organized) physical matter into the universe we now know.
>> This means that in a certain sense, Jesus Christ is the "father"
>>   of our physical bodies.
>> Thus we have a father of our spirits (God the Father),
>>   and a father of our bodies (Jesus Christ).
>> Thus, we are co-eternal with God in that our intelligence has
>>   always existed, and we are also created beings in that we came
>>   into existence as spirit beings and later physical beings.
>
> Thanks for this information. It is helpful. I guess my response
> would be: When someone says, "we have always existed", they are
> not talking about "we" as in the presense sense.  Right?  

Q:  Have we always existed?
A1: Yes, as intelligences.
A2: No, God formed spirits for out intelligences to reside in.
A3: No, Jesus formed the physical world in which we live, and
    thus the stuff of which our physical bodies are made of.

So you see, the answer depends upon the context of the question.

> You see (and I don't mean this in an offensive manner), I run
> into this a lot with Mormons.  They semantic you to death.  They
> will give you a word, and then two definitions, and then use them
> interchangeable to support their idea that has no logical
> footing.  

Yes, the problem, even in LDS canon is that the terms "spirit",
"soul", and "intelligence" are sometime used interchangeably, and
this can be confusing.

For me, intelligence, a spirit body, and a physical body, all
united into one being constitute a soul.  Others may phrase or
even think of it differently, but thinking about it in this
manner makes the most sense to me, right now.

> I guess to escape this dilemna I should say "existed
> physically", or "existed spritually". 

Well, some might not even understand that.  I can see how some
might say that intelligence is a substance and therefore physical
-- thus we have physical existance and we still aren't refering
to out current mortal existance.

> I know that they are different in Mormonism, and I think in my
> discussion on trm it was clear which "existing" I was talking
> about, and now I am discussing this instead of the issue I was
> discussing.  Very cleaver  guys!

Now *I'm* not sure what to which "existing" you were referring to
in the first place.  If it's important, elaborate, otherwise I'll
just let it go.

>>>>> Well, which is it, are you "co-eternal with God"?  Have you
>>>>> existed as long as God has?  Or were you created as Spirit
>>>>> children?
>> 
>> Yes to all of the above.
>
> But if you give the word "exist" only one of the definitions, you
> cannot  say that!  This is my point.  

Let me rephrase then:

Q: Were you created as spirit children?
A: Yes, our intelligences were put into spirit bodies by God the
   Father.

Q: Are you co-eternal with God?
A: Yes, our intelligence has existed as long has God has.
   
> You say, "yes to both of them", but it isn't really "yes" to them
> both, because you have two different situations. Confusing isn't
> it?

Yes.  It all depends on what you think the other person really is
trying to ask.

>>>> Creation in Mormon theology is more like organize.
>>>> Creation ex nihilo is denied.
>>>
>>> I agree that in Mormonism that Creation is "organization".
>>> That is true and a completely different discussion.  Espcially
>>> when the Hebrew word for Create in Genesis means to make
>>> "something from nothing" (No Willard, I am not a Hebrew scholar
>>> and ain't claiming to be.  I am simply quoting many scholars in
>>> this statement.
>> 
>> Are *they* Hebrew scholars or just bible scholars?
>
> Hebrew scolars.  The only people I have ever heard of defining
> this as "organize" have been Mormons or Mormon sympathics.  Can
> you give me  references to anyone that translates it that way
> that isn't one of the two above?  I think the reason you cannot
> is because, the way it was  explained to me, "it does terrible
> damage to the language".  

I'm sorry, but for this I'm going to need some hard references. 
Your claim is contradictoray to what I know about the verse.
In the mean time, I'll try to dig up some hard references of my
own.

> I suppose that the reason it cannot be support as you guys
> interprete it is because the Hebrews _have/had_ a word for
> "organize" (in the  since that would support your position), but
> it wasn't used in _any_ of the text. If "organize" would have
> been what the writer wanted to express, he would have used the
> Hebrew word with that definition.  But he didn't, he used the
> word that means to "Create something out of nothing".

Again, I need some hard references for this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu