Regular audio starts at minute 4.
For a written synopsis of the thirteen reasons visit GodNeverSinned.com
Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
LDS doctrine does not allow for God to have ever been a sinner. Not all members of the church understand the doctrine equally.
The Barna research group have shown through statistically valid surveys that a surprisingly high percentage of U.S. evangelical Christians and protestant Christians believe Jesus sinned. Can I then go out and proclaim that evangelical Christians belief Jesus was a sinner? Why not?
Was Jesus like man? Does “being like man” require Jesus to be a sinner? If not, why then does “being like man” require God to have been a sinner?
Joseph Smith stated clearly in his King Follett discourse 3 things (this discourse is where this doctrine originated in the church):
1. God the Father lived on an earth, “just like Jesus Christ.”
2. God the Father had the power in His earthly life to lay down His life and take it up again. It was upon this model that the life of Jesus was fulfilled.
3. Jesus created His kingdom the same way God the Father had created His kingdom.
Most LDS are not familiar with this discourse (and I presume most critics of the church are not either).
God once lived on an earth as a mortal, the same way Jesus was once on earth as a mortal.
Neither of them sinned. There is no room in our doctrine for the possibility of God having been a sinner.
The existence of members of the church who may believe that God could have been a sinner is just like the existence of 47% of U.S. evangelical Christians who believe Jesus was a sinner.
I give you guys the benefit of the doubt and don’t publicaly proclaim you believe Jesus was a sinner. Why do you guys ignore these statements from the Follett discourse and the research regarding the beliefs among your own people?
As exmormon I agree with FoF. I was taught the Father never sinned; I was taught he was the Christ of His world. I think I even read that from Joseph Fielding Smith too.
However, FoF, if you watched the video (maybe you did) you would notice that doesn’t solve Mormon doctrinal problems. the Father being another Christ comes with its own set of issues. Plus, just because it was never taught the Father sinned doesn’t mean it’s not a widely held LDS belief. It’s a belief that must be addressed. I would say Evangalists tht believe Christ was a sinner need a talking to as well. This is about correcting false beliefs. God being a sinner and God being an exalted man are both incorrect beliefs. I don’t care if its Doctrine or not, it a widely held belief/ heresy that needs fixing. LDS Church should probably address it if so many members believe it.
Jaxi,
I appreciate the honesty. It is refreshing.
There is no foundation for or reliable estimating the number of LDS that believe God sinned. I have watched these videos from Aaron in the past. An experienced researcher who conducts surveys would dismiss these surveys as junk for several reasons. They are not standardized, they have obviously leading questions, and there is no statistical evaluation of these interviews. In other words, there is no reason to conclude anything but that these interviews represent nothing but a skewed sample of opinions. There is no reason to believe they are truly representative of LDS beliefs.
On the other hand, Barna research group is a very respected and scientific agency which conducts statistically valid surveys. And these survey show very clearly that nearly half of non-LDS Christians believe Christ sinned. It seems weird to me for a Christian to be making such a public criticism of the church when the valid research shows something within his own community that needs addressing.
I think that spend time and focus on peripheral or “deep doctrinal” issues distracts from the basic doctrines of faith in Christ, repentance, obedience, mercy, etc. And nobody really knows much about these doctrines- as President Hinckley stated. So I just don’t think this is ever going to be a big topic from the church. It is up to each individual to study the gospel and learn the truth relating to the deeper concepts.
You mention the idea of God being an exalted man as false. I would suggest that Christ is an exalted man. That in no way means He ever sinned. It means He belongs to the species of mankind. And He has a resurrected, perfect body. That being said, He is very different than us because He is perfect, He has all power, knowledge, and virtue. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. So, I do not think it is anything debasing to say God is an Exalted Man. It is not really different than saying He is our Eternal Father.
@faithoffathers,
Whoa! Did I hear you right in this statement that you said:
“That being said, He is very different than us because He is perfect, He has all power, knowledge, and virtue. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.” Your speaking about Jesus Christ here right?
Did you just say that Jesus Christ is the same person God the Father? Im not trying to change the subject or start a debate on why I disagree with that Trinitarian point of view, but if your coming from an LDS standpoint that statement in incorrect. They are not the same person. Jesus Christ is not Heavenly Father. If I read your statement wrong than Im sorry for calling you out on it but it sounded to me like that is what you were saying.
cattyjane,
Yes- I was talking about Jesus Christ, not God the Father. I was responding to Jaxi’s claim that the doctrine that God is an exalted man is false and needs to be countered. I was pointing out to Jaxi that it is curious that the concept should not be that crazy. After all, would not people consider Christ an exalted being, an exalted man? By that, I mean a person who lived on a mortal planet and was ultimately exalted, receiving a perfected physical body.
In other words, it should not seem too weird or even debasing to say that the Father is like the Son in the sense that He is an exalted Man.
That was the point of my statement. Jesus and The Father are not the same being.
@faithoffathers,
I know where you are getting the exaltation of Jesus from and that is Acts 2:33 “Therefore having to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.” And Im glad we can agree that Jesus and the Father are not the same. However, I did watch the entire video on this topic and there is a lot of scripture that really backs up the Father not being a man and not having a creator. I honestly didn’t realize there was that much out there on that topic. I honestly could care less what all of the people he interviewed had to say because there are thousands of opinions out there but I understood what his purpose was to do that.
I just think that the Bible, especially the OT, has a lot more authority than JS writings or any of the LDS church writings. The OT has been protected by the Jewish people for over 3,000 years. The NT I would stand with you on that it could have been distorted and mistranslated over the years and I have a real issue with the apostle Pauls’ doctrine but I cant say that about the OT. I have been doing some research on how the Jewish people have preserved the Torah throughout the years. It is absolutely astonishing how the Torah came so close to being destroyed but God always had a way of preserving it. Did you know that it is a commandment for every Jew to write a Torah or have one written for him? (Im sure you did. Everyone on this blog knows a lot more than I do about the bible stuff.) They are not even allowed to write portions of them separately. There cannot be any errors at all not even spelling errors. If there is an error than it does not fill the commandment Deut. 31:19. Also the Kings were required to write a copy of the Torah and always have it on them Deut. 17:18-19. Every Torah is expected to be letter perfect and is always copied from another scroll. The scribe is also expected to repeat every word out loud before he writes it down in order to insure that he is accurate. If a scroll is not accurate it has to be destroyed within 30 days. After all of the attempts over the years that have been made to destroy the Torah and eliminate the Jewish heritage, by all rights none of it should exist today. But I know that God has had his hand in protecting the Holy Scriptures of the OT and his people. God spoke the Torah with his mouth to Moses. It IS the literal word of God.
If the OT is accurate than what the scriptures say about the Father must be true. I cannot deny the accuracy of the OT scripture. If the old testament says he always has been God than I have to say I believe that.
Look up some information about how the Torah came near to destruction and where copies were hidden undefiled. It really is amazing! I think so anyway but I am just starting to learn about this stuff.
You need to read the rest of what Jo taught, which clarifies it and which you are ignoring. I’m not surprised at this because this is a common tactic of those who live in the Mormon Bubble of Denial and Make it up as you go along.
And that power was given to EVERYONE ELSE as per Jo Smith:
& the Scripture Say those who will obey the commandments shall be heirs of god & Joint heirs with of Jesus Christ we then also took bodies to lay them down, to take them up again ~Jo Smith, June 16, 1844, months AFTER the King Follett Discourse.
This is exactly what Jo meant. Of course I’ve repeated this three times now and still can’t penetrate the bubble of denial you live in.
Jo ONLY says that Jesus “saw his father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling”, which every Mormon godling must do, not that he was some kind of “sinless Savior”. Once again, FOF is just making stuff up. I’ve given all of the relevant quotes that show this, yet FOF continues to mislead and declare things that are not there. But anyone who can read and comprehend will know this, and that FOF is deliberately misleading.
I did. More than once but it seems that you can’t comprehend anything outside of your Mormon Bubble of Denial.
No it is your PERSONAL but wrong belief that won’t allow “that possibility”. Jo Smith taught something entirely different.
Because your claim that “God never sinned” is in the King Follett Discourse and that the Father did EXACTLY what Jesus did is not either. Jo made it perfectly clear what he meant in OTHER discourses, but you ignore those. Just because you WANT it to be there doesn’t mean that it IS there. And your statement,
Is EXACTLY what Jo taught. Nothing about the Father being a Sinless “Savior” though. Sorry, but it’s just not there.
Do you think it is possible for a person to “lay down his or her life and take it up again?” Who else but Christ has done that? Nobody.
Yes there is. Jo Smith said so. The SAME QUOTE I’ve made FOUR TIMES NOW:
& the Scripture Say those who will obey the commandments shall be heirs of god & Joint heirs with of Jesus Christ ***WE*** then also took bodies to lay them down, to take them up again
WE then also took bodies to lay them down, to take them up again
WE then also took bodies to lay them down, to take them up again
WE then also took bodies to lay them down, to take them up again
WE then also took bodies to lay them down, to take them up again
WE then also took bodies to lay them down, to take them up again
WE then also took bodies to lay them down, to take them up again
Get it yet? Does your bubble need some windex?
Brigham Young actually taught more on this concept than Jo Smith did. And he called it scripture. Here is what he said at a General Conference on October 8, 1854:
Wilford Woodruff wrote about this sermon,
LOL. Really? “The Barna Group, Ltd. (which includes its research division, The Barna Research Group) is a private, non-partisan, for-profit organization…”
As for their report:
They DIDN’T ask if they had made a personal commitment to Jesus, or believed if they die they will go to heaven and confessed Jesus as their Savior. They just asked if they were “Christian”. ANYONE can say they are Christian. Are you saying that any Mormons who might have been surveyed would have said “No, I’m not a Christian”? This is your absolute evidence? Give me a break.
cattyjane,
<"Did you just say that Jesus Christ is the same person God the Father? Im not trying to change the subject or start a debate on why I disagree with that Trinitarian point of view"
I'm not going to get into a trinity discussion with you, but Trinitarians don't believe Jesus and the Father are the same person. I don't want to get off topic but if you are going to talk about what people believe about the trinity, please be accurate. I almost didnt give Chrisitanity a chance when I left Mormonism because I was taught the Trinity wrong by people that don't understand it. People that believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person believe in "oneness" theology. There is a huge difference.
Jaxi,
Im not trying to divert either or chase people around on different topics but yes thats exactly what I was taught from the baptist church when I was little. I was taught the trinity was the three in one. Three parts in one person. And really three in one makes absolutely no sense to me but im not asking you to explain it, im just telling you what I was taught as a kid. If I was wrong than it might be good for you to clarify the accurate definition of the trinity so I dont mislead anyone. Sorry if I did.
FoF, Grindael is pointing out to you what I mentioned in another thread. The quotes from the KF Discourse say nothing about what God or Jesus did while they were here. There is nothing to prove conclusively, as you say it does, that Christ (or God the father for that matter) never sinned. There is nothing in that text to prove it. Grindael’s addition of the other quotes showing that we all can lay ourselves down and raise ourselves up again is powerful, though, because we all sin, do we not?
Catty, the traditional Christian theology in terms of the trinity is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all make up one God. They are all separate but still make up one body. They are separate parts to the one God. A description I like is that the trinity describes the “tri-personality” of God, but even this is not completely accurate. It can be a very difficult concept, no doubt.
Here’s an article that may help describe it: http://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-god
@CattyJane
I’ve posted a preliminary response to the video, and I will followup with a full response to the JFJ video.
Mormons teach that Jesus and heavenly father are not the same, but BOM disagrees:
“And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!” 1 Nephi 11:21″…And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world…” 1 Nephi 11:32
“…that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world…” I Nephi 13:40
These are quoted from the 1830 version of the BOM. The original BOM seems to support tenets of the Trinity. The Trinity is one God, three different persons, all equal, all God, yet they are distinct.
Catty,
I am so impressed by your research on the OT. Good for you. For me it’s such a challenge.
I would tell you to help you with trusting the NT to find the book “Jesus And The Eyewitnesses” by Richard Baukham. Also see this talk, http://www.veritas.org/Talks.aspx#!/v/332 .
You would probably enjoy the Veritas Forum. Veritas.org
Also, Have you read C.S. Lewis “Mere Christianity” yet? If not, get on it!
@CattyJane
Another question for you is whether there’s any proof that the NT has been corrupted. If there has, then there must be evidence since it has been copied over different languages to different countries. If there’s no evidence that our current Greek and Hebrew come from corrupt manuscripts, then it must mean that there is no corruption. What applies to the OT, also applies to the NT.
“These are quoted from the 1830 version of the BOM. The original BOM seems to support tenets of the Trinity. The Trinity is one God, three different persons, all equal, all God, yet they are distinct.”
Yep, the 1830 BoM (along with the OM & PM) teaches a heretical modalistic view of the Trinity. Oh, the ever changing theology of Mormonism!
@MistakenTestimony
You are correct, the original BOM supports tenets of the Trinity, but regrettably these tenets are modalistic, and not correct.
True trinitarianism is not modalistic. Good call.
Grindael,
Yes- we will all be resurrected. And as Joseph explained, it is through the atonement of Christ that we will be so resurrected.
Note the important difference which you seem to ignore. In the King Follett discourse, Joseph says that both the Father and Son have “power of themselves to lay down their lives and take them up again.” That is very different than us. We do not have “power of ourselves” to do such a thing. It is only because of Christ’s atonement and that free gift which He gave to us. And Joseph clearly taught that it was in consequence of the atonement of Christ that we have such power. Christ had the power within Himself to do it. We do not.
That is an important difference, and I think you know that.
Christ and the Father “had power in themselve to take up their lives.” Nobody else does.
You quoting Brigham Young on the matter does change anything. Why was it that nobody had been resurrected prior to Christ? Very clearly, the reason is that Christ possessed certain power and authority over death. He was the “first fruits of them that slept.” I think it is ridiculous to try to present our doctrine as maintaining that Christ had no different power over death than the rest of us do.
I again quote Joseph Smith, “What did Jesus say? Jesus said, “As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power.” To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious–in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.”
Who else has “[laid] down his life” as Jesus did? Nobody. Joseph clearly says that Jesus laid down His life “as [the] Father did.”
It could not be clearer. “As the Father has power in Himself, even so hath the Son power.” The equality and similarity in mortal lives and power and sacrifice is obvious. You are obviously trying to parse this out and blur Joseph’s words with the opinion of Brigham Young.
Again, “God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” Their lives were the same. Jesus’ life was patterned after the Father’s life.
Over and over Joseph says that “Jesus did what the Father had done.”
Do you know how many times the Book of Mormon states that Christ had power of death and brought to pass the resurrection of the dead? Too many to count. Here is an example:
“But behold, the bands of death shall be broken, and the Son reigneth, and hath power over the dead; therefore, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead.” Mosiah 15:20
Are you really trying to argue that we believe Christ had no more authority and power over death than the rest of us? What an absolutely ridiculous thing to claim considering our canon, the collective statements from our prophets, our curriculum, and our clear teaching and doctrine on the atonement of Christ and the resurrection.
You are relying on opinions of Brigham Young that are not accepted by the church. We most clearly do not believe that Adam was Heavenly Father. We most clearly do not believe that Adam was a resurrected being before the fall. These are aberent teachings that you know we do not accept. But you are relying upon a narrow interpretation of even those words from Brigham Young to make your argument. And this is very weak. Even Brigham Young stated that what he was saying was his opinion, or “guess,” “I will tell you what I think about it, and as the Southerners say I reckon, and as the Yankees say I guess.” He also said, “I want to throw out a few hints upon the resurrection as it seems to come within the circuit of my ideas whether it ought to come within the circuit of my remarks or not.”
This was Brigham Young’s opinion, nothing more. You are picking an obscure opinion from President Young instead of the overwhelming and consistent teaching from our church on the matter. Jesus Christ had power over death- He had “power to lay down His life and take it up again.”
Our doctrine does not allow God to have ever been a sinner.
FoF said:
“It could not be clearer. ‘As the Father has power in Himself, even so hath the Son power.’ ”
You have an assumption in this, but this assumption is not stated. Power in oneself must mean something. But even so, the statement, on its face, says nothing about sin. If you wish to expound on what the assumption is, please do so. Without it, there is nothing that talks about sin here, and your argument is flat.
@Brewed,
Thanks! Its been really interesting stuff! No I havent read the CS Lewis book yet. I skimmed through it at the book store but couldnt really get into it. Ill chk out that link.
@RikkiJ,
I discovered that the actual language of Jesus and the disciples was Hebrew and Aramaic, not greek. That changes the way the NT was translated. Including the final words of Christ on the cross. I sent you an email with more detail on that.
Grindael,
I find it humorous that you are attempting to dismiss the validity of the Barna Research Group findings, but accept the validity of Aaron S.’s “research” in questioning Latter-day Saints.
This shows your extreme bias. But even if we accept your protest for the sake of argument, there was still a significant percentage of Christians who you would consider “born again” who agreed that Jesus was a sinner.
Do you think Aaron’s interviews with Latter-day Saints are more valid in representing our beliefs than Barna’s is of Christians?
MJP,
Why was Christ able to overcome sin and death? Well, for one, He was the Son of God and had that power “within Himself.” The other reason is that He lived a sinless life, and was therefore qualified and a “lamb without blemish” to be that sacrifice for sin and death.
What do you think it means that “Jesus did what His Father had done?” What does it mean “to have power within” one’s self to lay down his life and take it up again? Do you think that is something that is consistent with being a sinner?
It is quite a thing to claim I am making unsupported assumptions when you and the other critics are making huge assumptions about God’s earthly life being one of a sinner. There is absolutely not reason to assume such a thing. Quite the opposite assumption has much more support when you consider Joseph Smith’s words.
But your doctrine, FOF, Does allow for God to have once been a man. Feeble, weak, like us before becoming God.
The church has no “official stance”on wether or not God was ever a man. Like it or not many Mormons think that because he was man like us he could have sinned like us. The church does not discuss this matter or attempt to clarify. Infact they try to say it is of little importance and that instead we should focus on other aspects of faith that “have more value”.
I think there is a reason the Church avoids discussing God’s possible manhood and systemically minimizes the significance of this teaching.
Because it is blasphemy. God is crystal clear about who He is and who He has always been. There is no way to misinterpret the fact that He was and is and is to come. That He is eternal. That He is God and there is no one like Him. That He alone is God. That there are no other god’s. That he was THE FIRST and will be the LAST. He couldn’t possibly have ever been a human because someone/thing would have had to create Him. He was not created. He has always been. The fact that the church can’t even come into agreement with that simple truth is outrageous.
If we truly want to worship and adore and respect Him we must understand what declares to us about His nature.
It is important to fear God. To know His power and authority. He is IT. He is I AM. He was never a lowly human, He is God. I can’t even believe anyone could ever conjure up anything to the contrary.
By the way Jesus didn’t have any of the power of God within himself. In Philippians 2:5,6,7,8 it says
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Until He was exalted it would appear He had given up all His “Godly power” and was truly human.
FoF,
You provided two justifications, one being holding “the power”. But what exactly is that power? I am still left wondering what that power has to do with sin? The KF Discourse does not expand, and neither have you.
But your second justification goes onto a second assumption, and nothing from the KF Discourse is helpful to this second justification. You said, “The other reason is that He lived a sinless life, and was therefore qualified and a “lamb without blemish” to be that sacrifice for sin and death.”
But how do you know he was sinless? My understanding of Mormon doctrine is that you do believe in progression such that you yourself can become a god, just like Jesus, and just like the Father. Is that an incorrect statement? If it is, then yes, it is entirely possible that Jesus and the Father both sinned, because you have sinned, haven’t you? And if it is true that progression happens, but that Jesus and the Father never sinned, then you have no chance to reach godhood in the same way they did, unless you allow for the concept of some lesser form of godhood, but that’s getting a bit far fetched, don’t you think?
If it is not a correct statement, that you can become a god, too, then why hasn’t the church come out and revealed that there is no progression. Seems an easy enough thing to do. But the historical leaders said a lot about it, haven’t they? At least enough that its hard to ignore.
Here’s what I found on the topic of progression: “Mormons consider eternal life to be a condition of progression and development as we learn to become more and more like our Father in Heaven” (from http://mormontopics.org/eng/heaven).
I found another source, which dances around the question, but does that you will become a god after you have learned enough in your afterlife. The article at http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2008/09/what-do-mormons-believe-becoming-gods-and-ruling-planets/comment-page-1/ discusses this, but never answers it, choosing instead to focus on Christ’s role in the atonement.
On thing it did say was this, “He has prepared a way that you and I might become perfect. What is the problem with believing that?” I find this quote quite telling. By golly, having a loving god who is going to make us all perfect someday is not a problem!!!
Unfortunately to that sentiment, God is also just and cannot tolerate sin. Christ died to protect us from our sin, not to make us perfect. And yes, there are loads of problems with the sentiment of becoming gods.
Not even FAIR thinks the LDS Church has an “official” position on this matter:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Was_God_once_a_sinner
So what we have is various Mormons who spent copious amounts of time on blog threads who disagree with longstanding Mormon apologetic organizations and BYU professors and Mormon scholars over whether the LDS Church has an official position on whether Heavenly Father was once perhaps a horrific sinner.
I’m going to need something more than that to assuage my concerns.
I am wondering why the King Follette discourse is believed and counted as doctrine while the Adam /God doctrine is thrown under the bus as just Brigham Young’s opinion. After all, neither are in the standard works and they are both published in the Journal of Discourses. What makes one more believable than the other to a Mormon? Why is one unbiblical, wacky teaching more accepted than the other? We are told by Mormons all the time that the JoD doesn’t count, yet they defend the King Collette Discourse to the bitter end. Am I missing something?
Aaron,
Tell me the truth. Do you think the statements I have quoted several times from the King Follett discourse suggests anything about the nature of God’s earthly life? Does not that discourse suggest that God the Father had been a Savior, “just like Jesus Christ?”
The argument is not whether people are familiar with that discourse. The issue is the actual doctrine and its basis. If people’s perception is really the issue, then I think some attention to teaching non-LDS Christians that Jesus was not a sinner is probably a better use of time given the number of non-LDS Christians with that belief.
The whole point (which you missed) was that no one can ever really know, because of the criteria of the poll. They ONLY asked if they were “Christians”. It was less than 2000 people out of 300 MILLION. Do the math. I’m not being “biased”, I’m being realistic, something obviously foreign to you. I think Aaron’s interviews are interesting and informative, that is all. Funny how you don’t think his are valid, but you think that the other is. In comparison, the sampling rate would be about the same because there are 14 million Mormons, so he would only have to interview about what, 30 people to get the same sampling ratio. See the problem yet? But we know that Aaron interviewed actual Mormons, the Barna Group interviewed only self described Christians which could be anything. I’m not buying your straw man, or any of your other arguments. You simply can’t comprehend what is right there in front of your face.
LOL. The argument is that you THINK no one is “familiar” with that discourse. We certainly ARE NOT familiar with YOUR VERSION of it. If you think it’s a better use of time to pursue self-proclaimed Christians who think Jesus was a sinner, than go right ahead. Here folks, we have the tactic of one losing his argument, try to divert to something else. Anyone who thinks Jesus was a sinner is really not a Christian. But Brigham Young and Jo Smith WERE Mormon “prophets”, where this teaching that God could have been a sinner came from. There is simply no comparison except for the desperate.
@CattyJane
I’ve responded to your details about the ‘Aramaic’ content of the gospels in an email. Hope that helps.
RikkiJ,
Thanks! I will check it out.
1. D&C 89 encourages the drinking of beer.
2. D&C 89 is official Mormon doctrine.
3. Therefore official Mormon doctrine encourages the drinking of beer.
Just sayin’.
I said this above, “Christ died to protect us from our sin, not to make us perfect.” This is true, but not entirely clear. Christ died to cover us from the stain of our sin when our time comes to reconcile before God. Under Christ, our sins are no longer there, and we are clean enough to enter heaven. It is in this way we are protected.
As to not making us perfect, he only makes us perfect such that our sins are covered. We are not created to endure long periods of development and getting better. The idea of perfection is not entirely clear in the Christian faith. Most people I know think it is impossible to be perfect, though we should try. Wesley wrote a treatise a long time ago on the subject, which is a fascinating read. But the message, I think, is that the journey to be perfect is better than getting to the destination. Our focus should always be on him, not our own perfection.
It is our trust in Jesus that provides our perfection, and it is not something of our own doing. I don’t desire to be perfect. I strive after God. And if that ultimately makes me perfect, great. If not, then I trust Jesus to ensure I am forever with God.
grindael wrote:
“Here folks, we have the tactic of one losing his argument, try to divert to something else.”
Yup just about time for the persecution card followed by the I bear my testimony proclamation.
Mormons have a very bad hand to play so after some back and forth comes some bogus conclusions regarding a Barna poll.
I could conduct a poll of self-identified Christians to come to all sorts of bizarre conclusions. It’s really not that hard.
The idea that Mormons think that their HF was a sinner isn’t all that unusual given Mormon doctrine especially of that grand wizard of a prophet Brigham Young.
Aaron,
Is that really your justification for the campaign to implicate LDS doctrine as teaching that God was once a sinner?
I think it is interesting that you claim to be campaigning against the idea that God was ever a sinner, yet ignore the obvious suggestion by Joseph Smith that God indeed was never a sinner, but was a Savior on another earth. If it is really your desire to convince Latter-day Saints that God was never a sinner, if that is ultimately the most important thing as you stated in the video, why do you not engage the statements from Joseph Smith in the King Follett discourse that support your position and my position that God was never a sinner? It seems such a curious thing. It makes me question many things.
And Doctrine and Covenants 89 clearly states that barley is good in Pero……Kidding.
Grindael- your dismissal of the Barna data reveals a lot. It is what it is. It is the best data available showing the prevalence of the belief that Jesus was a sinner. It is scientifically valid, and shows a significant percentage of Christians maintain this belief. You can try to rationalize this in your mind, but your statements simply make you look very biased and not objective.
And falcon- it is a surprise that you feel the belief among Christian that Jesus was a sinner is a diversion from the topic at hand. The topic is whether LDS doctrine allows for God to be a sinner. And this argument is coming from an evangelical Christian who levels this criticism at Latter-day Saints. You really don’t think the existence of an extremely similar belief among people from this critic’s own community is relevant? That is amazing to me.
And I am not “losing the argument.” No critics has been able to explain how the idea of God having been a sinner can be reconciled with the following three statements from Joseph Smith:
1. God the Father lived on an earth, just like Jesus Christ did.
2. The Father had “power within himself to lay down His life and take it up again.” Jesus did what the Father had done in laying down His life and taking it up again.
3. The Son worked out His kingdom the very same way the Father worked out His. He patterned His life after the life of the Father.
Grindael is trying to argue that our ability to rise from the grave through the atonement of Christ is not different than Christ’s own resurrection. And this is based upon multiple fallacies. Christ had that power “within Himself.” I don’t really have to explain how He did that or explain precisely what that power was as some have insisted. All I know is that He had that power “within Himself.” We do not have that power within ourselves. It is only through the “shedding of Christ’s blood” that we are resurrected.
But there is more that is not being considered. Think about the typology and symbolism in the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham represented God, Isaac represented Christ. In the LDS canon, Abraham had himself been placed upon a sacrificial alter. This reinforces what I am claiming and deepens the meaning of the story of Abraham.
Thanks.
“[O]pinion is divided as to how closely the Son’s career paralleled that of his Father… These and the Prophet’s earlier remarks are believed by some to infer that our God and his father once sacrificed their lives in a manner similar to the atonement of Jesus Christ. It is argued that the Prophet’s words suggest that these gods did not simply live and die as all men do, they ‘laid down’ and ‘took up’ their lives in the context of sacrifice… This extrapolated doctrine rests upon a somewhat inadequate, if not shaky, foundation. Indeed, it is highly doubtful. The basic process of laying down and taking up one’s life is similar for all even though it is not identical for all” (BYU professor Rodney Turner, “The Doctrine of the Firstborn and Only Begotten,” in The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God [Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989], 91-117).
FoF, why wasn’t Rodney Turner fired for writing this?
Also, why are you busy quarreling with us and not writing to FAIR concerning their wiki article on this topic? Surely you can infer that they are aware of the diversity of Mormon opinions on this topic too? If you’re not willing to listen to other Mormon apologists, why should I think you’re even willing to listen to me?
I am less and less willing to spar with those few Mormons who spend all their time arguing on blog threads for minority positions as though they are absolute, official, institutional, mainstream positions of Mormonism.
If you really cared, you’d be calling your fellow Mormons (such as those that I interviewed) to repentance. But you’re more concerned with arguing with us.
Aaron,
People are allowed to have opinions. It is a healthy thing. And I don’t begrudge Turner or think he should be fired. But I think he is completely wrong.
But that is different than those critics of the church who try to propagandize this issue or make the church look bad by selectively repeated statements from some of our leaders and neglecting others. It is the use of this issue that bothers me. Don’t get me wrong, it also bothers me that there are some members of the church who think this way. I think it is lazy intellectually and spiritually. But we are all at different places in our understanding and perspectives.
I have never denied that there are members who think God was once a sinner. My argument is that our theology, based on the statements of Joseph Smith on this topic as well as the symbol of Abraham, does not allow that. I have not represented mine as the only legitimate view. But I think it is correct. And it is manipulative to ignore the things I am presenting in your argument against the church and its members. In watching your videos, it really seems like you want Latter-day Saints to believe God was a sinner. And that seems wrong to me when you consider your own feelings and stated motives about the Holiness of God.
And what adds to my frustration is the fact that critics ignore or deny the belief among Christians that Christ was a sinner. I seem to remember something about removing the beam in one’s own eye before pointing out the mote in another’s. It just comes across as insincere politicking to get ahead, religiously.
I think that you do as much as anybody, in or out of the church, to promote the idea that God was a sinner among members of the church. But your suggestion of writing FAIR is worth considering.
Another thing- I have asked you many times to engage the information I have posted here. Why have you never answered directly my questions or responded to my points?
I will answer the latter part of that with the Book of Mormon, which proves you dead wrong. Yes, all will be resurrected, that is his point, even the Father and Jesus. (Or did you forget that this “eternal plan of salvation” has been going on for … eternity?) Jo specifically answers what “works” Jesus did and that was “taking a body” and “working out his salvation”. In fact if you look at the actual notes for the discourse it is clear what Jo was saying,
Willard Richards wrote,
That means what it says and how do we all learn to “make yourselves God[s]”? In the same way Jesus did by doing what his Father did, be born, die and resurrected, then go from one small degree to another, etc., etc.
Wilford Woodruff wrote,
See the Father do what? Work out a kingdom. Again, that is what Jo meant by doing what the Father did.
Thomas Bullock,
“to inherit the same power” same as those who are gone before … and what is that… “I do the things I saw my Father do… I saw my Father work out his kingdom & I must do the same.”
William Clayton,
Jo here, specifically answers what “works” Jesus did and that was “taking a body” and “working out his kingdom with fear and trembling. Problem with your “version” is that the Son did not have “power within himself to resurrect himself”. Not according to the Bible or the Book of Mormon, or Brigham Young. The Father had the power and that is where Jesus got it from. The other problem here, is that you don’t understand Jo Smith. You have not taken into account all of his teachings on this. In the very last discourse that he gave on June 16, 1844 he said,
Again, “those are the works” … “HE TOOK HIMSELF A BODY AND THEN LAID DOWN HIS LIFE THAT HE MIGHT TAKE IT UP AGAIN” and the Scriptures say those who will obey the commandments shall be heirs of god …. “WE THEN ALSO TOOK BODIES TO LAY THEM DOWN, TO TAKE THEM UP AGAIN.” How many times are you going to ignore this? It is obvious that Jo was speaking only of taking on mortal life and being resurrected and that we have that same “power” by becoming kings and priests. On the 5th of January 1841 Jo said,
This means that he was born. Nothing else. Just like all of the Father’s other Spirit Children.
On the 11th of June, 1843 Jo made himself perfectly clear what he meant by “power in himself”:
Once again, we see Jo’s clear meaning here, that God had “power in himself” to be born and die. To take a body. There is nothing more to it than that. Even Van Hale, who wrote an Essay on the “Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse” sees it clearly – (not your way):
You say,
Brigham Young answered your objections in this way, I again quote Joseph Smith, “What did Jesus say? Jesus said, “As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power.” To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious–in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again.”
No one was resurrected prior to Christ because he had to be SACRIFICED first. Duh. It was not because he “possessed certain power and authority over death.” According to Mormonism he had to fulfill his mission FIRST. Let’s include THE REST of what Brigham Young said about resurrection, which was “I do not doubt the power of Christ; but did he prove that (p. 17) in his resurrection? No. But it is proved that an angel came and rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulcher, and did resurrect the body of the son of God.” Young says that he did this on authority of the Father, by way of the priesthood because he had the keys to do so.
Yes, HE DIED and then was resurrected like Jesus. I’ve proved this over and over again, but you are too ignorant to comprehend it.
Wow. I love how Mormons crow about having living “prophets” then they don’t believe a word they say or have confidence in their ability to have revelations. That is so awesome! Keep em coming FOF. Their lives were the same in that they both were mortal, died and were resurrected. THAT IS ALL. There is nothing more, and your repeating this over and over again doesn’t make it true.
Yes, he said over and over again that he got a body. Just like all of us. And like us, he could have been a sinner.
Yes, but that doesn’t say that Jesus resurrected himself. Here is another from the BOM that clarifies what you quoted:
By your logic Mormon only gave “opinion” too:
By the power of who? THE FATHER. Are you getting this? By the POWER OF THE FATHER HE (JESUS) HATH RISEN! Jesus DEATH (sacrifice) brings to pass the resurrection of the dead, because God raises up Jesus and then he has power over the dead. This is all very simple, but twisted by Modern Mormons into something not taught in Jo’s day, that Jesus resurrected himself. He didn’t. Mormon says so. Or is he just another aberrant “prophet” that spouts only “opinion”? It is modern Mormon “prophets” opinion which contradicts their own scripture if they are saying that Jesus resurrected himself.
No, I’m arguing that YOU don’t know what you are talking about. Those are YOUR WORDS, not mine. I’m only quoting your “prophets” and your “scripture”. And it is abundantly clear that while on earth, Jesus got the power from the Father. He raised Lazarus by way of the Father. God the Father resurrected Christ.
In the Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A, pg. 77; “Our Need for General Authorities” it says–
Are you sure you are a Mormon? You can’t seem to get anything right. Have you read the Book of Mormon all the way through? You clearly misinterpret your own scriptures. Or what is all over the Bible:
This can’t be more clear. Go ahead, show me how I’m wrong.
So, your “prophet” Brigham Young was spewing out “aberrant teachings”? I already know he is a false prophet. Thank you for confirming that. YOU don’t believe in Adam-god, but Brigham did and said it was a “revelation”. I’ll take his word over yours or any later “prophets” because of all the reasons I’ve already given above. As for Adam…
President Joseph Fielding Smith, in his book: Man, His Origin and Destiny, pp. 276-277 commented that life was transplanted here from another earth. “. . . does it not appear to you that it is a foolish and ridiculous notion that when God created this earth he had to begin with a speck of protoplasm, and take millions of years, if not billions, to bring conditions to pass by which his sons and daughters might obtain bodies made in his image? Why not the shorter route and transplant them from another earth as we are taught in the scriptures?”
In Doctrines of Salvation, Vol 1:139-140, President Smith again comments about how life was transplanted from another earth. “I tell you, life did not commence upon this earth spontaneously. Its origin was not here. Life existed long before our solar system was called into being. The fact is, there never was a time when man—made in the image of God, male and female–did not exist…
The Lord has given us the information regarding his creations, and now he has made many earths, for there never was a beginning, never was a time when man did not exist somewhere in the universe, and when the time came for this earth to be peopled, the Lord, our God, transplanted upon it from some other earth, the life which is found here.”
And,
You say,
Narrow interpretation? Nah, he said: “I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor his calling and priesthood, and obeyed his master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived, and died upon an earth, and then were resurrected again to immortality and eternal life.” There was no “I reckon” in front of that declaration. And about that discourse…
Nice try trying to cherry pick, but you have to read the whole discourse. First Young said he was going to teach SCRIPTURE. And what else did Young ‘reckon’? He reckoned this also:
These four points, which Young also said ‘he reckoned’ about, are well taught and part of revealed doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, and contained in Mormon Scripture. So obviously “reckon” doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Point 1: All things were first made spiritual preparatory to being made temporally. Taught by Smith and written in a letter by him in 1842, and canonized in section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants:
“Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as are the records on the earth in relation to your dead, which are truly made out, so also are the records in heaven. This, therefore, is the sealing and binding power, and, in one sense of the word, the keys of the kingdom, which consist in the key of knowledge.” Young here uses the word ‘reckon’ in front of this teaching, which is confirmed in scripture. Was he ‘guessing’ this too?
Point 2: The Father has been through this. Read Smith’s King Follett Discourse, which is recognized as a DOCTRINE of the Church. Was Young ‘guessing’ this too?
Point 3. Then, the Children of Adam married each other. Right out of Genesis. Was Young ‘guessing’ here too?
Point 4. The doctrine of the pre-existence, and how men come here to take bodies to get ‘exaltation’. Was Young ‘guessing’ this important doctrine also? No. It was established. So why did he use that exact expression? It was the way he spoke. What Brown seems to have forgotten, is this is an unpublished discourse, unedited by Young. He may have also been softening his rhetoric in the light of the controversial “revelations” in this discourse.
Young did say that these matters he was relating were not immediately necessary for the Saints to worry about in that setting. There were gentiles there. There were unbelievers there. But Young also emphasized that it was ‘eternal life’ to KNOW WHO GOD WAS. That is necessary, according to the scriptures themselves and proclaimed by Smith in his Follett Sermon.
This sermon was couched in this kind of language because Young was being cautious with doctrine he thought ‘too precious’ to be “cast before swine.” It was his way of speaking. In one instance, Young remarked:
He was hoping that those who could not handle Adam-god would forget it. Fat chance. This concept of Young’s that some ‘were not worthy’ of some doctrines is crucial in understanding Adam-god. Nevertheless, this doctrine was accepted and affirmed by all the authorities of the Church except Amasa Lyman who didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ anyway and the Mormon “gift of discernment” didn’t work to keep him from making fools out of them all.
I’m not “relying on a narrow interpretation” concerning Christ being resurrected by someone else. Young taught this over and over. In fact, Elden Watson has a whole page about it here, and shows where this agrees with the Bible. Modern Mormons have it exactly backwards.
Keep repeating it over and over until YOU believe it, but that doesn’t make it true. Brigham Young taught it as SCRIPTURE and REVELATION. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him. Either he was a prophet or he wasn’t, and it looks like you are calling him a false prophet.
Blah, blah, blah. Even FAIR won’t use your silly argument. I’ve shown that you are wrong. Totally and completely wrong. But perhaps this might help:
First, Hyrum tells a blatant LIE about polygamy. (No surprise there, this is a Mormon constant) Then he says that the “mysteries” (the things that Jo & Brigham revealed) – for neither you nor the people are capacitated to understand any such principles-less so to teach them.
I guess that applies to you FOF. I “reckon” you need to be quiet and do what your “prophets” tell you to, because you are not “capacitated to understand them, less so to teach them” as you have shown so very well to all of us here.
As for me, I can do whatever I want, I no longer follow false prophets that teach God might be a sinner.
P.S. Sorry for the length of this posting folks, but I’m growing tired of repeating myself. Of course, I already know that FOF will reject this all out of hand, so this is for the lurkers and for those that need the information to counter the arguments of others that live in the Mormon Bubble.
Grindael,
Long posts do not mean you understand what you are quoting. And it is clear that you don’t understand those quotations. Almost all of them support what I am saying.
Sure- the power ultimately came from the Father. But Christ had that power given to Him, and He possessed the power to break the bands of death. Yes, at some point, all of us will be resurrected by the power of the resurrection. But that power comes from the resurrection of Christ. You are for some reason trying to claim that all of us have the power over death and to be resurrected. Sorry, but your argument is simply crazy and doesn’t work. We are “joint heirs with Christ.” Without Him, we would never be resurrected. He was different. He had power given to Him personally to take up His body again after death. None of us have that power. I am puzzled that you are mixing the two concepts up.
Not one other person has had that power.
Reposting quotations from Joseph Smith stating that God lived on earth, laid down His life, and took it up again over and over does not dilute the concept that God did something of Himself, just like Jesus.
I am not sure it is all that productive to exchange back and forth with you. No offense. You misunderstood Elizabeth Smarts words enormously. And you are not understanding pretty clear statements from Joseph Smith in this thread.
This right there shows that you didn’t read what I said. I said it came from the FATHER, as the Book of Mormon states (which proves you dead wrong):
And of course, because you can’t comprehend what I’m saying, or back up ANYTHING you say, we get:
NONE of them support what you are saying. You said Christ resurrected himself. The Book of Mormon says the opposite. You are doing the typical Mormon shuffle. Once you are given all the information that shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, it’s “I am not sure it is all that productive to exchange back and forth with you.” This is because you can’t refute anything I said. You give a one sentence refutation, instead of going quote by quote to SHOW how you are right about what you say. This is typical of those backed into a corner with nothing left but to exit the conversation and say it’s “non-productive”. LOL, I get that everyday from you Mormons. No offense, but you are just like the rest of them. Can’t face the truth, and can’t defend anything you say with a reasoned logical argument.
And I didn’t misunderstand Ms. Smart, you did. You put words in her mouth that weren’t there. Good luck trying to convince the lurkers of anything. Why are you here anyway? Why don’t you go talk to FAIR. Maybe that is a better audience for you. But they, like me will soon learn that you know very little about Mormonism. Sad but true by your own words… (or lack of them).
Thanks for the memories…. 🙂 As I said before (prophetically it seems)
Folks,
This is the kind of thing that goes on all the time with Mormons who come here to try and dictate what they think Mormon doctrine is all about. From time to time we get them, these purveyors of what they think is “right” and “correct” for the misinformed Christians that they keep telling us “don’t know what we are talking about.”
Here is a great example. We have FaithofFathers coming to this blog and telling me that I’m flat out wrong about resurrection within the frame work of Mormon doctrine. He first said,
Then he said,
Christ and the Father “had power in themselve[s] to take up their lives.” Nobody else does.
After showing him that this is not true, that Jesus did not have “power in himself” to resurrect himself, FOF says this,
Huh? How could it “ultimately come from the Father” if Christ AND the Father “had power in themselves to take up their lives”?
You see how this works? Then FOF elaborates for us, throwing all his old statements out the window and says,
Power “within” oneself, and Power “given” to someone are two completely different things. This just doesn’t jibe. Of course, this is a natural thing for the Mormon to do. Watch the backpedaling continue folks, this is good!
You see how he says “all of us”. And where did the power of the resurrection come from? THE FATHER. Then he says this:
No, it comes AFTER Jesus sacrifice of blood. That enabled the Father to resurrect the Savior. Notice now, what I said many posts ago,
You see how FOF now agrees with me, but says that I am saying something completely different from what I actually said:
The problem here, is that I never said we had it before Christ’s atonement. Again, read what I quoted,
And,
FOF is just plain wrong folks. Wrong about everything, but still acts like he is right. Take for example, this speech by Spencer Kimball found on lds.org:
Jesus folks, did not get this power until after he died. He was resurrected by the instrumentation of the Father, per the Book of Mormon. Then, the “saints” just like Jo and Spencer said, will “go forth and resurrect the Saints”. Kimball then quotes Brigham Young again,
Kimball then says,
Yet, FOF says,
Thing is folks, I wasn’t. FOF thought I was. But as you can see from my comments, I never said that at all. I said that Jo Smith said that we had the same power as God the Father, to “lay down our lives and take them up again”. Just like Joseph F. Smith and Spencer Kimball taught. Like I said,
This is exactly what Jo Smith meant. He is the one who is giving crazy arguments that Jesus had power “within himself” to resurrect himself. That my friends, was his whole logic behind his interpretation of “power to lay down our lives and take them up again”. Problem is, Jo wasn’t talking about it in the manner that FOF tried to put on him. That is why Jo said, (for the SEVENTH TIME):
And yet, FOF STILL clings to the same false notion while contradicting himself at the same time:
But Jesus did not “do something of himself” in terms of taking his life up again. He did it “of the Father”. That is exactly what FOF says,
So then how could Jesus “do something of Himself” in the manner in which FOF is saying? Still, FOF is holding on to his crazy argument even though he refuted it himself!
And he is calling me crazy? Are you kidding?
Thanks Grindael.
FoF , you try to make a case of why people should’nt think Heavenly Father (HF) might have sinned during His journey as a man, by appealing to the King Follett Discourse. But then you are
bent on dismissing Brigham Young’s discourses when he taught about Adam being “our Father”
above . It seems this is a case of you declaring what you deem as a correct interpretation of the
scriptures/doctrine from some of your leaders when and where you want to .
Now in one of your comments to Grindael you mentioned Abraham . Since I kind of believe
that one place those Mormons who believe that HF could have or did sin got their belief from
was Mormon apostle Snow’s “Couplet ” . It’s interesting to note Snow added info about his
couplet by fashioning a poem with it . Notice where he inserted his couplet :
” Has thou not been unwisely bold ,
Man’s destiny to thus unfold?
To raise, promote such high desire
Such vast ambition thus inspire?
Still ,tis no phantom that we trace
Man’s utlimatum in life’s race ;
This royal path has long been trod
By righteous men , each now a God ;
As Abraham, Issac, Jacob , too
First babes , then men —to gods they grew;
As man now is , our God once was ‘
As now God is , so man may be ,
Which doth unfold man’s destiny ……
And he who has this hope within ,
Will purify himself from sin ….”
[ Church manual , ” search These Commandments , p157 ]
It’s not a stretch to see how a Mormon male would believe he is on the same path as his own
Father in heaven trod before him and that he will reach the same status , power and glory ,
with a kingdom to rule over having peopled it , and even other other worlds , with his progeny
and rule as a Heavenly Father himself. From sinful Mormon male to an Almighty God the
Father . Now you accused Grindael of not understanding the words of Elizabeth Smart . Yet in
a past thread you tried to convince us that your understanding of Matt 18:20 was correct even
though many of your own leaders have taught a different understanding .
It’s hard to take you authoritatively on much of what you say .
FOF,
And again the great summary statement that clarifies the mind-set of the Mormon, especially those who attempt to come here and debate Mormonism.
“………you can’t refute anything I said. You give a one sentence refutation, instead of going quote by quote to SHOW how you are right about what you say. This is typical of those backed into a corner with nothing left but to exit the conversation and say it’s “non-productive”. LOL, I get that everyday from you Mormons. No offense, but you are just like the rest of them. Can’t face the truth, and can’t defend anything you say with a reasoned logical argument.”
grindael basically buried you in information and all you can do is sort of whine about the length and say something akin to “Just because you have a lot of compelling information to prove your point doesn’t mean it’s right.”
I see you running up the white flag here because you can’t contend adequately with what’s being presented.
We have an unusual number of former Mormons posting on MC these days. I hope you enter their numbers at some point by putting away your false prophets and dealing with reality.
I learned a long time ago that there is a subset of critics who will never truly engage information and data. I really don’t mind that this is the case with grindael, falcon, a many others here.
If there happen to be lurkers who can apply logic and English comprehension in an objective manner, I believe they fully get what I am saying and what I have posted. I think Aaron gets it as well. His reasons for not engaging are simply different.
In order to accept grindael’s argument, you must also accept the idea that Christ really had no different power over death than the rest of us do. The dozens of verses in our canon and countless statements from our leaders clearly stating that Christ overcame death for the rest of us apparently do not register in your brains. I think that, more than anything, this reveals something about you very clearly.
According to grindael, we believe Christ really didn’t overcome death. And the rest of you swallow that without blinking an eye.
And falcon- refusing to repeat a conversation over and over and over isn’t “running up a white flag.” It is insanity to repeat the attempt to walk a person through something they refuse to acknowledge or accept.
FOF writes:
“I learned a long time ago that there is a subset of critics who will never truly engage information and data. I really don’t mind that this is the case with grindael, falcon, a many others here.”
AHHHH What?
Aren’t you really describing yourself? You after all have to defend a religion that’s based on some of the most wacko teachings, beliefs and doctrines ever conjured-up. Logic and Mormonism aren’t even vaguely related. It’s based on endless speculation of some religious amateurs who basically spun a web and then caught themselves in it.
You’ve got to face reality FOF. You’re having your lunch handed to you here. What keeps you going is an emotional attachment to a myth for which there is no basis in reality but it makes you feel good.
So FOF why are you here? The lurkers are here because they’re starting to figure out that Mormonism is false. You’re not doing much to turn them around.
Let me see if I have got this right. God gathers his spirit children around and tells them about the plan of salvation. They are going to get physical bodies to hold their spirits. They are not going to remember what’s been said here or who they selected to help them return to Gods’ presence a redeemer. What a great loyalty test. Not all will be saved by the redeemers blood but He is the example by which to live and not every one will do this. Everyone will get in trouble because God cannot take any exception to any sin to any degree. The Redeemer is there to cleanse you of your sins so you can return to God. For those who make it back this is what happens.
Billions and Billions and Billions and Billions and Billions and billions of years from now you will gather your spirit children around and tell them about the plan of salvation. Basically it will be the same process that was gone through before. There will be someone who questions the process and will try to hold you responsible for your sins that were redeemed by you redeemer Billions and Billions and Billions and Billions and Billions and billions of years ago. Huh! I wonder if that is right.