Comments for Lehi's Library

Comment on Peterson/Hamblin Debate With James White by Jonni

Jonni — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:16:09 +0000

Nice post! love your blog

Comment on An Important Reminder About Maya Archaeology by Mike Bennion

Mike Bennion — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:08:36 +0000

Check out this link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091030/sc_nm/us_guatemala_archaeology

Divers Probe Mayan ruins submerged in Guatemala lake.

Article says ruins may have been submerged by a volcano or earthquake about 250 AD.

Possible 3rd Nephi 8 corellation.

Comment on About by James

James — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:43:55 +0000

Thanks Mike! How did you run into my blog?

Comment on About by Mike Bennion

Mike Bennion — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:23:56 +0000

Are you aware of the site
http://www.scriptures.byu.edu

Go check it out!

Comment on About by Mike Bennion

Mike Bennion — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:11:57 +0000

Great Site James!

Comment on LDS Christology & Trinitarian Christology: A Comparison by Pat

Pat — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:05:34 +0000

This is a truly excellently thought out post, and even though I’m horribly late to the party (and possibly crashing it), I would like to offer a Trinitarian response ( and I’m not here to bash any beliefs). What has been grasped here concerning the real difficulty of the Incarnation is wonderful, and I wish that more Trinitarians would be confronted by this argument and meditate on its implications and quit being so theologically complacent.
Today, we are all to quick to fail to make the vital distinction between truth and reality. Modernity has left us with a confidence in truth and reason that has been both our blessing and our bane. If something is true, it is an accurate representation of reality, but not the reality itself. Furthermore, we often think of the accuracy of the representation as though it were solely contingent upon itself, yet a representation has not represented anything until it has been interpreted and understood by someone, and even then, the understanding itself is still a representation, distinct from the original reality on which it is based. thus we have to concede that truth cannot escape a subjective nature. Reality, on the other hand, is objective, and though any attempt to describe reality in truths will be subjective, it does not prevent truths from being accurate in various degrees, that is, effective at representing particular facets of reality. Basically I can describe the apple tree in my backyard with effective accuracy, but I cannot describe it perfectly because it is too complex, and your understanding of my tree may be very good, but it won’t be as good as my understanding of it because you have never seen it, but no matter how truthfully I represent it, or how accurately you understand it, you will never be able to eat an apple from your understanding of my tree.
Trinitarian Christianity is more about eating the apple than perfectly understanding the tree. The modern mind is likely to interpret “the Word” in John 1 as the eternal truth of God, but a more sound reading that is truer to the original Greek use of “logos” would be the eternal reality of God that orders the cosmos. Thus, the reality of God becomes flesh. Rather than God’s ultimate act of self disclosure coming in the form of an idea, philosophy, doctrine, science, or some mere representation of the divine reality, God actually indwells his own created image. That God enters into creation so profoundly and seamlessly, that that the Church continually receives the real body and blood of this impossible union as a sacrament, and that through Christ humans can partake in his divine nature and enter into the love and community that exists within the Triune God is absolutely absurd. This absurdity was not lost on nor avoided by the Church Fathers. We read their theological formulations through a modern lens and their logical inconsistencies lay naked and obvious before us as we simply assume that their dogmas were intended to be thorough systematic explanations of truth. The Church Father’s were not primarily philosophers or scholars, but members of the clergy or monastic orders, and then philosophers and scholars. They were concerned with how to talk about the indescribable work of God not in a way that did justice in representing the reality of God, but in a way that was worshipful and effective at directing believers toward a humble encounter with the mystery that is the saving work of Christ.
Much of what I have put forth would scandalize many Trinitarian Christians, especially Evangelicals, but Evangelicals would probably have scandalized the Church Father’s as well. Most lay Trinitarians, and even much of the clergy, sadly, have swallowed the creeds through the lens of modernity and lost sight of the mystery and aesthetic of the zen-like riddle that defined proper worship in what was originally an ancient near-Eastern religion. Again, you are absolutely right to point out that there is a tremendous logical inconsistency in Trinitarian Christological formulations- keep arguing that because it is a point that Trinitarians need to hear, but Evangelicalism has become in many ways a theological straw man of Christianity. I don’t want to take anything away from their religious experience, but their apologetics are utterly pathetic and not at all satisfying to the skeptic 99% of the time.

Comment on Elder Holland: Conference Address Video by Lance

Lance — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:35:57 +0000

I have often thought the same way… knowing that their were many after their lives, particularly Joseph’s, knowing that certainly he was going to die soon (or even in old age), how could he lie or make up the Book of Mormon knowing that eternal damnation was the only reward that he would receive for misleading all the LDS Saints then, now and until the end of time…

Elder Holland says it better than I could ever depict or ponder it. Even said, I am certain that it was our Lord, Jesus Christ, only using Elder Holland as a vessel to deliver the truth of this message (Jesus is the Truth!)

Amen…

Comment on LDS Christology & Trinitarian Christology: A Comparison by Willis Whitlock

Willis Whitlock — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:48:57 +0000

I’m late to the party, but wanted to comment.

ShemaYisrael seems to be making a common mistake in the reading of the first chapter of the Gospel of John.

The Word, in that chapter, is Jesus Christ. The Eternal Word or the Word, both are titles of Jesus Christ.

Plug in Jesus Christ for “Word” in that chapter, and it makes logical sense. To explain the Eternal Word as something other than Jesus Christ breaks down and means nothing.

Comment on Part 2: Larry Hurtado and 2nd Temple Jewish Monotheism by Rameumptom

Rameumptom — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:52:27 +0000

Great posts, James. Clearly there were many divine beings with God’s attributes. Rev 19 tells of John worshiping the angel, representing Christ, and was rebuked for doing so. This fits in perfectly with the concept that there are many divine beings, but only one worthy of worship.

In such a definition, LDS are equally as monotheistic as other Christians.

Comment on Part 2: Larry Hurtado and 2nd Temple Jewish Monotheism by Define Monotheism - Page 3 - LDS Mormon Forums

Define Monotheism - Page 3 - LDS Mormon Forums — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:51:00 +0000

[...] another addition to his blog, James quotes extensively from another Hurtado book. One quote is this: [...]