“You should have seen it! It will go down as epic in Church ball.”
“I was THERE and it was pedestrian, man.”
“WHAT?! No way. Everyone had the jaw on the ground!”
“You’re full of exaggerations today.”
“If there’s anything that can’t be exaggerated, it’s what happened on the court.”
“Yeah, right. You can exaggerate all the time about your game. But you can’t exaggerate the nature of God.”
“Whoa, big change of subject. You trying to get heavy on me again?”
“Well your head is big right now, it can fit big ideas, can’t it?”
“Hah. Okay, shoot.”
“Well, to exaggerate is to talk it up bigger than it is, right?”
“Yeah.”
“Well, it’s impossible to do that with God. There isn’t anything even imaginably better.”
“You mean better for us, right?”
“No, I mean for anyone, anywhere.”
“Well then why do we care?”
“Because it’s awesome. Listen, what’s better, to have sinned, or to have never sinned at all?”
“To have never sinned.”
“What’s more moral than never having sinned?”
“I don’t know.”
“Mmm hmm. OK, so what’s better, to know everything or to know only something?”
“To know everything.”
“Can you have a greater knowledge than the knowledge of everything?”
“No.”
“Mmm hmm. Ok, better to have all power, or to have only some power?”
“All.”
“Can you have greater power than all power?”
“No. This is stupid, man.”
“That’s my point. It’s obvious that there’s nothing more moral than never having sinned, that there isn’t a greater knowledge than the knowledge of everything, and that there isn’t a greater power than all power.”
“So?”
“So you can’t exaggerate when there’s nothing left to exaggerate with.”
“And… ?”
“Well, the God of the Bible is called the ‘Most High’. If you said there was a higher God than him, he’d have to be Kinda High, not Most High.”
“Are you bashing my religion, man?”
“Maybe. I mean, I can obviously exaggerate your god.”
“What? How?”
“Well, what if I said that your god never sinned?”
“You’d only be speculating.”
“Mmm hmm. And what if I said your god always knew everything?”
“You’d be wrong. He had to learn to become a god just like all the other gods. But that’s deep man. It doesn’t concern my salvation.”
“And what if I said your god always had all power?”
“You’d be right.”
“Really?”
“Sure.”
“Did he create the planet his spirit-grandfather was born on? Wasn’t he in spirit-baby-diapers or something?”
“Oh gosh, you always bring that up. Here we go into bashing mode again.”
“Dude, you know me, I love you bro.”
“Yeah, but I hate it when you disrespect my religion.”
“Well, at least hear me on this. If you tried to disrespect my God by exaggerating him, you couldn’t. You couldn’t even if you tried. And I mean tried hard. It’s not even possible with my God. He is the Un-exaggeratable Most High.”
“Fancy name.”
“But if someone tried to bash your god, they’d have an easy time, because it’s easy to think of a God greater than yours.”
“Dude…”
“OK, I’ll stop now. But just think about it, OK?”
“Whatever. I guess.”
“Think about it next time you exaggerate your game. I AM watching the same game, you know!
“But not really. You have to be on court to get the full effect.”
“Mmm hmm!”
RickB,
Good for you- you finally commented on the points I brought up. See- it doesn’t hurt. I can disagree with you, but I do appreciate you trying to address my argument.
I recognize your argument, but disagree completely. Who is the greatest running back in NFL history? What does a person base the answer upon? Which college they attended? Which state or city they grew up in? How many kids were in their family? Of course not. Any reasonable person would base their answer on what a particular running back achieved on the field- how many total yards rushed, number of touchdowns, etc.
Such is my contention with God. Our view of God is bigger and greater in many ways that the EV view. You have other criteria that you think are more important. Fine. But I intended to show that the attempt by Aaron and others to diminish the LDS doctrine on God is simply dumb and does not include some pretty important considerations.
And by the way- would you rather drive a Toyota or a Porsche? I think most would choose the latter.
As far as God clearing up all issues and confusion in our religion- when has that ever been the case in the history of God’s dealings with His children? Do you want Him to fly across the sky in a chariot and end all doubt, answer all questions, and personally push every individual into the same tent?
And before I forget, I don’t appreciate being called a liar. Such a claim is not only unwarranted given our exchanges, but it erodes away at the respect I have for you. And it makes you look bad. (I remember somebody saying that I didn’t have the love of Christ, and therefore my arguments could not be right). I recommend not taking these discussions so seriously that you lose your cool. I was not hiding from your dizzying intellect or arguments- I was working. Some of us must do such things.
David- you are arguing that God could not be our literal Father because a literal Father could never send His real children to hell. Can you see the implication of such a position? You are saying that if God really were our literal Father, His love for us would be increased dramatically. To this I say- you are absolutely right. Our doctrine maintains that not only is He greater in power and creative achievements than what EVs appreciate, His ability and desire to love us is greater because He is literally our Father.
And such a massive and infinite love can be seen in the different way we see the atonement. After all, that is His greatest demonstration of His love for us, right? According to our doctrine, Christ endured a great deal more for not only infinitely more individuals, but a great deal more for each individual. We believe He endured the physical, mental, and spiritual consequences of all of our sins. In addition, we believe He experienced and endured every disappointment, depression, physical malady, sadness, and loneliness each of us has ever expressed- not just representative examples of all these things, but He experienced all of them- cumulatively. And it was all down out of love. There can be no greater estimation of that love than what LDS doctrine teaches.
OJ said
Add to that you said
I stand by my position of calling you a liar because you said I finally addressed your issues, we both know thats not true, they were addressed by me and others all through out this topic, I just simply summed up what various people have said and reminded you all of this was addressed before.
So it really is dis-honest of you to say, I/we finally addressed you. That simply is a lie. Then I understand people work, I work, go to college and have a family of 5. I just know from past experience once LDS get exposed for lying or are asked hard questions they tend to disappear for a while, then a few topics later they come back thinking they can move on with out being called to account. Rick b
RickB,
Against my better judgment, I have wasted the time to review this entire thread and each of our posts to each other. I have noted the following:
My original arguments:
1. The LDS God is greater because He has created infinitely more inhabited worlds.
2. The LDS God is greater because He has redeemed infinitely more people.
3. The Atonement of Christ achieved infinitely more according to LDS doctrine than EV doctrine.
4. God is literally our Father, and as such, has much greater Love for us than EV appreciate.
To which your responses have included the following:
1. Just because I believe the above does not make my God the real God
2. If my God is so great, why doesn’t he clear up all the issues in our church
3. The LDS do not show love and are “so far from the love of the Savior it is not even funny.”
4. LDS are only interested in recruits
5. LDS prophets are inconsistent and false in their teachings
6. LDS prophets are inconsistent and false in their teachings
7. Nobody trusts you (Jim Olsen) because Jim Olsen is obviously a liar.
8. Jim Olsen’s lack of love reveals that he follows Satan
9. Jim Olsen’s doctrine is false
10. LDS’ claim that God has created many worlds is false because they have false prophets.
11. Jim Olsen is a liar
12. The Bible says there is no higher God, and the LDS God is one of “a long line of Gods,” therefore our doctrine must be false
13. A God who creates from nothing is better than one who creates from something
14. Jim Olsen is a liar
15. The mormon God is like the god of Baal
I noticed you also accused Ralph of not answering questions and you told him to “grow up.”
So, actually, looking at your responses- I realize that you haven’t actually responded to any of my original arguments.
I do not know your background or level of education and don’t want to pick on you, but I will no longer exchange posts with you if you continue to call me a liar.
OJ, I told you many others besides me have answered you, I did not say, Only I answered you. If you reject what others said and only look to me then thats not my problem.
You said your god is greater than our God, then Grindal said to you,
So like it or not you were given an answer from someone other than me, then Your prophet BY did say Adam is God. But you guys deny that he really taught that as doctrine.
Then Live4Jesus quoted you and replied to you with this
So again you had your question answered and simply do not like the answer.
Cont tommorow
Jim said
“1. The LDS God is greater because He has created infinitely more inhabited worlds.
2. The LDS God is greater because He has redeemed infinitely more people.
3. The Atonement of Christ achieved infinitely more according to LDS doctrine than EV doctrine.
4. God is literally our Father, and as such, has much greater Love for us than EV appreciate.”
What you please care to clear up a couple of questions I have in this?
1. If Jesus is Jehovah, and He’s the one who created this world, then how did the LDS God create this world and infinitely others? Or, in other words, If the LDS God (HF) created this world, how did Jesus do it? And if Jesus did it here (was the “tool” or whatever, that HF used, then doesn’t that mean that all the other worlds have a different “tool”/Savior?
2. The LDS God has redeemed infinitely more people? From what? the penalty of all the sins they successfully, permanently abandoned?
3. Is the Atonement of Christ any different than “redeeming people” to LDS? And again, atoned/redeemed tons of people from their successfully, permanently abandoned sins? How is that greater than saving people from ALL their sins, right in the middle of them, thus freeing them up from their guilt/shame bondage to start over, each time?
4. God as our literal father means that he has more love for us than a God who is not our literal father? Is this a proveable truth? Sounds to me like HF is too dang busy, and since he is located at just one spot in billions of universes, he’s definitely too far away to care.
OJ wrote
Actually, I was defending the Biblical position that God does not change His mind, in contrast to the possibility that God will change His mind. Whether its a real possibility or not (see also ‘posse non peccare’ verses ‘non posse peccare’), the ability of God to change His mind does not undermine the Biblical position. However it poses a profound problem to the LDS view because it is absolutely fundamental that a man does change his mind (repent, believe etc) in order to become God. Further, this “eternally progressing” ‘god’ continues to change and “progress”.
There’s a fundamental law that says you don’t change something without actually changing something.
and
Because I don’t have faith in the covenant per se. My faith rests in the One who has promised to keep it. The covenant is only as good as the One who instigated it.
and
Where is the evidence for this “unification” of God and the “eternal Law”?
All I see in scripture is God acting unilaterally, without reference to any “higher” law. Unlike us, He does not need someone’s permission to act, nor does He need to be directed by any law (e.g. Isaiah 43:11-13). He just does what seems good to Him.
When you get to understand this, you should be quaking in your boots (Psalm 111:10). This life is a scary and precarious place.
Where is your security?
Psalm 18:2 (you should read the whole Psalm in this context)
Jim,
“you are arguing that God could not be our literal Father because a literal Father could never send His real children to hell. Can you see the implication of such a position?”
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that in LDS theology god sends some of his kids to hell
. . . and that does not seem very loving. He is either unwilling or unable (those pesky eternal rules again) to “save” them. Either he lacks in love to spare some of his own kids eternal torment, or he lacks the ability to spare them. Jim, you have not answered how god can send some of his kids to hell.
Either way something is lacking cuz some people (granted few in number) do end up in a classical hell in LDS theology.
I take it buy your silence you concede those other points I made. I will let the unbiased reader decide who’s god is greater based on all points.
You still do not grasp that I (and many others) do not believe that every person ever created is a child of God in any sense of the word. My God does not send his kids to hell – no, rather he glorifies them. His enemies . . . burn forever. No greater love and no greater wrath.
David said ‘No greater love and no greater wrath’ and this is the really sad thing that Mormons don’t get. When they don’t realize how Holy and how Great the one true God of the universe is then they can’t understand how great his righteous wrath is (and how they can’t escape it by being good). Because they look at salvation/worthiness on a point scale (pay tithe get 3 pts, lust after a woman for 30 seconds lose 1 pt) instead of the ‘all or nothing’ that God sees it they will never comprehend his wrath until it’s too late and because of that they’ll never get to fully experience his love. If they could truly grasp how great God is and how inadequate humans are I think they’d fall prostrate on the floor crying out to God and repent of thier self righteousness and self dependence.
See OJ, Others have replied to you, David wrote at length this,
Their is a difference between not liking what is said and not giving an answer to what was said. You were answered by others in detail, if I am wrong, then how am I wrong, I gave evidence please provide your. I can provide more quotes if needed.
Also OJ, You were claiming we do not answer your questions, well David said to you
So OJ, You seem to either avoid questions, or maybe you missed them? Also Your questions were answered [phrase trimmed from comment by moderator] please show me how your questions were not answered, if they were and you simply do not like the answers then thats different, I have told Mormons before I was wrong and I told them I was sorry, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, but do you? Rick b
RickB,
Sorry that I don’t respond within 2 hours of every one of your posts. It is not a matter of me retreating in shame and defeat as you hope. I simply have a busy life.
You have yet to show where any of my specific points have been addressed (setfree at least tried to address a couple of them most recently). Simply saying “no, OJ, your God is not greater because…..X,Y,Z” (which have nothing to do with my points) does not necessarily address my points.
Again- I have not delved into trying to prove either side right or wrong. I have simply taken both theologies at face value and compared the greatness of God based on criteria that we normally use in judging “greatness.” I am finding that you and others are unable to separate such an analysis from the attempt to prove which doctrine is true, which is another consideration altogether.
David – yes, I do “grasp that you and others do not believe that every person ever created is a child of God.” I understand what you are saying, but it does not change my point in the least. You are saying that if we are all really literally God’s children, than God is less loving because He sends some people to hell.
Agency plays a big role in the plan of salvation. We ultimately choose where we go. Yes, Christ is the ultimate judge. But we have agency and can choose our actions, behaviors, and whom we will follow and hence have a huge input on where we go. So it is not a matter of God condemning His children to a burning hell without giving them ample chances and opportunities. God will force no man to heaven. Alternatively, neither will He force any man out of hell. (Isn’t it the EVs who claim LDS go too easy on mankind by believing not enough of them will burn in hell for eternity?). This does nothing to diminish His greatness.
David- (continued)
In my experience, EVs really downplay man’s agency, even suggesting that man has nothing to do with choosing salvation, and that absolutely everything results from God’s choice in the matter. But this leads to serious problems as this inevitably results in the conclusion that God is the author of evil. If we cannot choose to follow Him, and we are His creations, there is no way out of this conclusion. (But I digress into an unrelated topic).
Setfree-
Christ created the heavens and the earth under the direction of the Father. Read the POGP verses I quoted above. One could reasonably say of both Father and Son that “He created the universe”- one directed the other.
Our different view of what is required for salvation doesn’t change the magnitude of mankind’s sins. From Adam to the end of the world, mankind will commit the sins that mankind will commit. You and I believing in different requirements for salvation doesn’t change the number or magnitude of sins from which mankind must be saved. Christ suffered for all of those sins (and a lot more according to LDS) either way. Your point is mute.
As far as God being our literal Father- I was agreeing with David (I think) that such a belief naturally implies a greater capacity to love on His part.
Interestingly you say “Sounds to me like HF is too dang busy, and since he is located at just one spot in billions of universes, he’s definitely too far away to care.”
In other words, God could not possibly care for each one of us in an intimate, personal level if He were responsible for so many. Is this what you are saying? Well- that is my point, we believe He does love each one of us in that Fatherly way. He is actually that amazingly great that He can be that way for all those infinite children. That is my whole point- LDS doctrine esteems Him more highly than any other.
So, Jim, have I got this right?
1. “Lucifer” went around on infinitely other worlds, enticing people to sin against god so they could learn to become gods too
2. Christ’s atonement, here on earth, paid for everyone’s (here and in infinite other worlds) “mistakes” that they made before overcoming all their sins.
3. Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers, sons of HF/Elohim.
4. Elohim is this earth’s HF, the only god “with whom we have to do”.
Are all of those correct so far?
OJ, Like I said I understand working. But I know from past experience also LDS do dodge questions, I would rather annoy you by asking, where are you, than to sit and hope maybe you might feel like reply. Also people did answer you, I showed that, if you do not like the replys or agree with them then thats on you. Rick b
Jim,
You got two ways you can go with this thing. Either you can admit that God created, or narrowed, the available options. Also, he created hell and it is he who casts men there (and keeps them there); many a rogue soul would like to do bad and be bad but not have to pay the consequences – essentially they want another option that god fails to provide.
Or . . .
You can claim that god is bound by eternal principles and essentially does not make the call on this one. There must be a hell and consequences are consequences no matter what – even god cannot pull strings on this one.
Needless to say, the second option makes god weak. He is bound by certain rules and thus he is unable to keep people from hell.
The first option presents god as unloving as he banishes his own children away from his presence for eternity. You can talk about rules and consequences all you want but god is the author of those rules. Hell is not so bad in his mind or else it would not exist at all; hell would not be an option if he absolutely did not want anyone to go there. Either god is the author of the rules and choices, and is thus to a degree responsible for them, or he is not.
In the second option, the “rules” are not an outside third party or power that is not under god’s control – indeed, it is god’s power. Most people, including Mormons, have a passive-aggressive view of God were he does not want hell to happen but it does; if anyone could stop hellfire it would be God but he just dispassionately lets the consequences (that he created) take their course (but does not get the dreaded “blame”). The cop-out of “the rules are the rules” is something one says to employees not one’s children – especially when hell is on the line.