If I could ask them one question . . . Come Follow Me, Lesson 18

[annotatedbom]

For Come Follow Me, lesson 18, May 4-10, Mosiah 11-17

If I wanted to encourage thought and try to understand devout believers better, I might ask:

“Doesn’t the Book of Mormon seem trinitarian?”

Click here to see the Things to consider for this lesson.

And, here’s a list of some other problems I see in this week’s reading.

Enjoy!
A-Bom

[deacon blues]

I like the way you drew from "Lectures on Faith" as well as the BOM to show how those verses conflict with current Mormon doctrine. I appreciate your saying this:
"A fight over whether God has a body, is one being or three, etc. seems kind of petty to me. When contrasted with the love, strength, comfort, redemption, and eternal life Mormons and other Christians say God offers, just how important is it to know whether or not Jesus and God the Father are one or separate beings? I mean, my faith, hope, and charity were never affected by the things that differentiate the Mormon godhead from traditional Christian Trinitarianism.
I have defended the Christianity of Mormonism (here), so this post isn’t about that. It’s about an apparent contradiction of Mormonism with itself."

I agree that faith and hope in God don't depend on whether he has a physical body or not. Thanks for this great resource.

[Hagoth]

I suppose an apologist might say this is an example of line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept. Joseph grew up in a trinitarian Christian environment. He didn't ostensibly report two people in the First Vision, and he translated the Book of Mormon with a trinitarian spin because he wasn't expecting a separate Father and Son. He and subsequent redactors of the BoM eventually brought it around to a more correct representation of the Godhead, so no harm no foul. I guess this can be extended to the First Vision, but it requires you to believe that Joseph either wasn't aware there was a second personage there at the time, and then later remembered him, or that he didn't think it was important at first and gradually accepted that he should start talking about seeing two personages, once it finally began to dawn on him that Jesus and the Father were two distinct individuals.

I agree that faith and hope in God don't depend on whether he has a physical body or not.

But this is one of those primary distinctions that Mormons really dig in on. Joseph Smith's First Vision demonstrate that God and Jesus are separate beings and that they have toenails and earlobes, so we're really going to put our foot down on those things.

Have you ever talked religion with a Jehovah's Witness? You can hardly get past the argument about whether Jesus was crucified on a cross or a post. As far as I'm concerned, nothing about the story changes regardless of whether he was hung on a cross, a post, or the Golden Arches but it is really, really important to them because they identify it as a significant differentiator from other Christian faiths.

[Reuben]

I agree that faith and hope in God don't depend on whether he has a physical body or not.

But this is one of those primary distinctions that Mormons really dig in on. Joseph Smith's First Vision demonstrate that God and Jesus are separate beings and that they have toenails and earlobes, so we're really going to put our foot down on those things.

Have you ever talked religion with a Jehovah's Witness? You can hardly get past the argument about whether Jesus was crucified on a cross or a post. As far as I'm concerned, nothing about the story changes regardless of whether he was hung on a cross, a post, or the Golden Arches but it is really, really important to them because they identify it as a significant differentiator from other Christian faiths.

In both religions, it's a point of pride to know things that others don't. It's how they both demonstrate that they uniquely have the truth.

[alas]

I suppose an apologist might say this is an example of line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept. Joseph grew up in a trinitarian Christian environment. He didn't ostensibly report two people in the First Vision, and he translated the Book of Mormon with a trinitarian spin because he wasn't expecting a separate Father and Son. He and subsequent redactors of the BoM eventually brought it around to a more correct representation of the Godhead, so no harm no foul. I guess this can be extended to the First Vision, but it requires you to believe that Joseph either wasn't aware there was a second personage there at the time, and then later remembered him, or that he didn't think it was important at first and gradually accepted that he should start talking about seeing two personages, once it finally began to dawn on him that Jesus and the Father were two distinct individuals.

I agree that faith and hope in God don't depend on whether he has a physical body or not.

But this is one of those primary distinctions that Mormons really dig in on. Joseph Smith's First Vision demonstrate that God and Jesus are separate beings and that they have toenails and earlobes, so we're really going to put our foot down on those things.

Have you ever talked religion with a Jehovah's Witness? You can hardly get past the argument about whether Jesus was crucified on a cross or a post. As far as I'm concerned, nothing about the story changes regardless of whether he was hung on a cross, a post, or the Golden Arches but it is really, really important to them because they identify it as a significant differentiator from other Christian faiths.

Ya know, I just gotta say that I think it *would* make a difference if Christ was crucified on the Golden Arches. That would mean it happened during my life time. Those Golden Arches didn’t exist when I was born, so there would be a recent historical record, and maybe we could check out a few details. But other than the timing of the whole thing, I makes no difference what so ever. In fact, I think they are probably correct, it would have been a post, (I have seen non Christian depictions of crucifixion and a depiction of Peter being crucified upside down and they show it on a post) but doesn’t make me a JW.

[Hagoth]

Ya know, I just gotta say that I think it *would* make a difference if Christ was crucified on the Golden Arches. That would mean it happened during my life time. Those Golden Arches didn’t exist when I was born, so there would be a recent historical record, and maybe we could check out a few details.

I'll have to pull out my McDonaldist apologetics on this one. Just because we haven't found archaeological evidence of the Golden Arches does not prove that they didn't exist in first century Judeah. Some may point to the historical advent of McDonalds in the 20th century as evidence of its non-antiquity, but they entirely fail to recognize that today's McDonalds is merely a latter-day restoration of the original. Considering that the arch is inseparably associated with the Roman architecture, and that the Romans often created colonnades of multiple arches, it should be no surprise that they might have made use of two arches placed alongside each other, and that these could have been decorated in any color, including gold/yellow, and used for any number of applications, including crucifixion. There is also ancient textual evidence to support this restoration. A Latin text dated to the first century CE makes reference to a Roman architect named Grandus Maximus, which modern McDonaldists have translated as Big Mac. Additionally, the 2nd century Gospel According to Saint Ronald tells us that when Pilot offered to release a prisoner there were actually three candidates. Barabbas barely won his freedom over cries of "Release the Hamburglar." The other two were both archified, according to St. Ronald, and one of the last things spoken by Jesus was when he turned to the Hamburglar hanging on the arch beside him and proclaimed, "Today shalt thou be with me in the Playplace."

[moksha]

I'll have to pull out my McDonaldist apologetics on this one.

FAIRMcDonalds would point out that the letters M, C, and L are all used in the Roman counting system. This establishes the claim of the world's one true fries.

[Exiled]

Ya know, I just gotta say that I think it *would* make a difference if Christ was crucified on the Golden Arches. That would mean it happened during my life time. Those Golden Arches didn’t exist when I was born, so there would be a recent historical record, and maybe we could check out a few details.

I'll have to pull out my McDonaldist apologetics on this one. Just because we haven't found archaeological evidence of the Golden Arches does not prove that they didn't exist in first century Judeah. Some may point to the historical advent of McDonalds in the 20th century as evidence of its non-antiquity, but they entirely fail to recognize that today's McDonalds is merely a latter-day restoration of the original. Considering that the arch is inseparably associated with the Roman architecture, and that the Romans often created colonnades of multiple arches, it should be no surprise that they might have made use of two arches placed alongside each other, and that these could have been decorated in any color, including gold/yellow, and used for any number of applications, including crucifixion. There is also ancient textual evidence to support this restoration. A Latin text dated to the first century CE makes reference to a Roman architect named Grandus Maximus, which modern McDonaldists have translated as Big Mac. Additionally, the 2nd century Gospel According to Saint Ronald tells us that when Pilot offered to release a prisoner there were actually three candidates. Barabbas barely won his freedom over cries of "Release the Hamburglar." The other two were both archified, according to St. Ronald, and one of the last things spoken by Jesus was when he turned to the Hamburglar hanging on the arch beside him and proclaimed, "Today shalt thou be with me in the Playplace."

There just might be something to this McDonaldist religion. The last time I was in McDonalds, I had this peaceful feeling come over me as I ate and suddenly was transported, as if it were, in a vision where I saw heavenly hosts prancing and frolicking about while they enjoyed triple thick shakes and golden fries. There was a lot of reverent laughter and mirth and I saw a 300 ft Ronald McDonald who bade me to always trust the golden arches.

[Apologeticsislying]

Ya know, I just gotta say that I think it *would* make a difference if Christ was crucified on the Golden Arches. That would mean it happened during my life time. Those Golden Arches didn’t exist when I was born, so there would be a recent historical record, and maybe we could check out a few details.

I'll have to pull out my McDonaldist apologetics on this one. Just because we haven't found archaeological evidence of the Golden Arches does not prove that they didn't exist in first century Judeah. Some may point to the historical advent of McDonalds in the 20th century as evidence of its non-antiquity, but they entirely fail to recognize that today's McDonalds is merely a latter-day restoration of the original. Considering that the arch is inseparably associated with the Roman architecture, and that the Romans often created colonnades of multiple arches, it should be no surprise that they might have made use of two arches placed alongside each other, and that these could have been decorated in any color, including gold/yellow, and used for any number of applications, including crucifixion. There is also ancient textual evidence to support this restoration. A Latin text dated to the first century CE makes reference to a Roman architect named Grandus Maximus, which modern McDonaldists have translated as Big Mac. Additionally, the 2nd century Gospel According to Saint Ronald tells us that when Pilot offered to release a prisoner there were actually three candidates. Barabbas barely won his freedom over cries of "Release the Hamburglar." The other two were both archified, according to St. Ronald, and one of the last things spoken by Jesus was when he turned to the Hamburglar hanging on the arch beside him and proclaimed, "Today shalt thou be with me in the Playplace."

Made my day!

[Apologeticsislying]

I'll have to pull out my McDonaldist apologetics on this one.

FAIRMcDonalds would point out that the letters M, C, and L are all used in the Roman counting system. This establishes the claim of the world's one true fries.

I LOVE this group......