Good, Evil, and Common Ground

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Do you believe there is any such thing as "common ground" between God and satan? Good and evil? Light and darkness?

If so, I would like to hear your reasoning.

Or do you rather believe that light and darkness never will meet and that there never will be common ground between God and satan, good and evil?

What does this have to do with Mormonism? A whole lot. But, I'll explain later. First, some responses, please.

[B2M5L2]

Do you believe there is any such thing as "common ground" between God and satan? Good and evil? Light and darkness?

If so, I would like to hear your reasoning.

Or do you rather believe that light and darkness never will meet and that there never will be common ground between God and satan, good and evil?

What does this have to do with Mormonism? A whole lot. But, I'll explain later. First, some responses, please.

Apparently Mormons think that there is "common ground" between God and Satan. After all, they seem to think that God has a brother named Satan.:rolleyes:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Apparently Mormons think that there is "common ground" between God and Satan. After all, they seem to think that God has a brother named Satan.:rolleyes:

Peanut gallery: Please stay out of this thread.

Thanks.

[alanmolstad]

Apparently Mormons think that there is "common ground" between God and Satan. After all, they seem to think that God has a brother named Satan.:rolleyes:
"brothers"?

I knew that according to Mormon teachings that Jesus and Satan were brothers, but do you mean the Father and Satan are brothers in their theology?

[Sir]

"brothers"?

I knew that according to Mormon teachings that Jesus and Satan were brothers, but do you mean the Father and Satan are brothers in their theology?

No. The Father is the Father of Jesus and Lucifer. Hence Lucifer was a spiritual brother of Jesus.

[alanmolstad]

So the father has no brother and two sons named Satan and jesus......gotcha.

[Sir]

So the father has no brother and two sons named Satan and jesus......gotcha.

Not exactly what I said. But okay.

[alanmolstad]

Apparently Mormons think that there is "common ground" between God and Satan. After all, they seem to think that God has a brother named Satan.:rolleyes:

I think I might get your meanings now...However I think you mix two different theology right>?

According the the Bible we Christians believe that Jesus was God Almighty, and so that must be what you mean when you say that Mormons think God (Jesus) had a brother....correct?

[B2M5L2]

I think I might get your meanings now...However I think you mix two different theology right>?

Nope, not right.


According the the Bible we Christians believe that Jesus was God Almighty, and so that must be what you mean when you say that Mormons think God (Jesus) had a brother....correct?

No, that's what Mormons mean.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

So the father has no brother and two sons named Satan and jesus......gotcha.

I notice how you capitalize satan, but not the Father or Jesus. Was this intentional and significant? Or just a type-o?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Apparently Mormons think that there is "common ground" between God and Satan. After all, they seem to think that God has a brother named Satan.:rolleyes:

And satan rebelled, while Jesus said: "Thy will be done". That put's them on polar opposite ground from each other.

[alanmolstad]

Nope, not right.



No, that's what Mormons mean.

I am confused by your answer ...

Could you tell me, even if by private message what you mean with...um...more words?

are you saying that according to Mormom theology that God the father has a brother?

If that is what you are saying, then this seems to be more in-line with Greek theology of the gods....

[alanmolstad]

I notice how you capitalize satan, but not the Father or Jesus. Was this intentional and significant? Or just a type-o?
.........?


boy, Fig....if you are going to start looking that close at me spellen, my grammer, and my cApitalizations?....you are going to be very, very busy....

[ErikErik]

I notice how you capitalize satan, but not the Father or Jesus. Was this intentional and significant? Or just a type-o?

I never capitalize the word satan although my spell checker says I should...:rolleyes:

[ErikErik]

And satan rebelled, while Jesus said: "Thy will be done". That put's them on polar opposite ground from each other.

Fig, God's Holy Word tells us that Christ created all things..this includes satan, whom you know was originally an angel. Therefore, Jesus Christ cannot possibly be the devil's brother. There was no contest or battle between Jesus Christ and satan. Christ is God and satan is a created being. They can NEVER be equal. So either you have to admit mormonism is wrong on this one, or that God lied in His Word.

Which is it?

[B2M5L2]

And satan rebelled, while Jesus said: "Thy will be done". That put's them on polar opposite ground from each other.

Just a "brother"ly spat.

[B2M5L2]

I am confused by your answer ...

Could you tell me, even if by private message what you mean with...um...more words?

are you saying that according to Mormom theology that God the father has a brother?

If that is what you are saying, then this seems to be more in-line with Greek theology of the gods....

No one said anything about God the Father. I said that Mormonism teaches that God has a brother named Satan.

[Apologette]

No one said anything about God the Father. I said that Mormonism teaches that God has a brother named Satan.

And if we go by what Mormons actually teach, all gods were spirit children of other gods who took up residence on distanct planets. Of course the HF of Mormonism has spirit brothers and sisters, just as they claim Jesus does. Not only does HF have heavenly parents, he has uncles, aunts, cousins, besides brothers and sisters. When you come right down to it, Hinduism has much more in common with Mormonism than Christianity.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

.........?


boy, Fig....if you are going to start looking that close at me spellen, my grammer, and my cApitalizations?....you are going to be very, very busy....

OK. No biggie. A type-o

[B2M5L2]

OK. No biggie. A type-o

And Mormons still think that there is commonality between God and Satan, given that they think that they're brothers.:eek:

[Apologette]

And Mormons still think that there is commonality between God and Satan, given that they think that they're brothers.:eek:

Amen, and it goes right along with Satan's desire to dethrone God and inherit his power - the same thing these cultists teach in their "temples."

[bert10]

*** 1:6 - Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them

Satan could enter with the Sons of God to present themselves before the LORD because he has not yet faced final judgment. Until then he is still part of the "family" and still has the same rights as the rest of the Sons of God.

Now you Christians who keep fighting the true doctrines of God are not taught of God and cannot yet discern spiritual truth which can only be discerned by them who are Spiritual.

All Angels (Messengers) are first Spiritual sons of God.

bert10


Apparently Mormons think that there is "common ground" between God and Satan. After all, they seem to think that God has a brother named Satan.:rolleyes:

[alanmolstad]

No one said anything about God the Father. I said that Mormonism teaches that God has a brother named Satan.

Im still a little in the dark here about this point.

Am I to understand that the Mormons believe God....the God of heaven and earth, the one and only God almighty.....has a brother?

Thats the most silly thing I have ever heard of....



And they think the brother is Satan?

is he an older brother or younger?...LOL

[B2M5L2]

*** 1:6 - Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them

Satan could enter with the Sons of God to present themselves before the LORD because he has not yet faced final judgment. Until then he is still part of the "family" and still has the same rights as the rest of the Sons of God.

Now you Christians who keep fighting the true doctrines of God are not taught of God and cannot yet discern spiritual truth which can only be discerned by them who are Spiritual.

All Angels (Messengers) are first Spiritual sons of God.

bert10

You're committing the same fallacy that all those in the cults do by imposing your beliefs upon Scripture, rather than letting Scripture guide your beliefs.

Otherwise, please show from the reference you've provided where it says that Satan was one of the sons of God. Secondly, please provide a specific reference that backs up your imposition which says, "All Angels (Messengers) are first Spiritual sons of God." Finally, when speaking of the angels as sons, just how do they become "sons." Is it because they're created by God, and the terminology is figurative, or is it that they became sons when God copulated with one of his wives and nine months later a "spirit child" was born, who then became a human, and then because he didn't obey the Mormon protocol, is now an angelic being? If the latter, can you show from Scripture where God is having Celestial sex with anyone, let alone some goddess he married on another earth, let alone even needs to, in order to bring a created being into existence? For some reason, I seriously doubt that you can, but I'm willing to entertain your perverse effort to even try.

[B2M5L2]

Im still a little in the dark here about this point.

Am I to understand that the Mormons believe God....the God of heaven and earth, the one and only God almighty.....has a brother?

Indeed.


Thats the most silly thing I have ever heard of....

Actually, I like the one the Scientologist pose about Xenu, but if you're not privy to that bit of fiction, then I understand.:)


And they think the brother is Satan?

Yeah, it's just that Satan doesn't have a body and God does. I'll bet they had a hard time playing football in the park when they were growing up.;)


is he an older brother or younger?...LOL

Satan would be younger, but what does that really mean, given that not only they, but everyone else, have been around since infinity past? In other words, how does one calculate "younger" and "older" in infinite time? Or does that make any sense either? Apparently it must, given that that conundrum is also a part of the Mormon cosmological scheme.

[BrianH]

Do you believe there is any such thing as "common ground" between God and satan? Good and evil? Light and darkness?

If so, I would like to hear your reasoning.

Or do you rather believe that light and darkness never will meet and that there never will be common ground between God and satan, good and evil?

What does this have to do with Mormonism? A whole lot. But, I'll explain later. First, some responses, please.

Until you define your terms, your question is meaningless and its obvious that you are just trying to be tricky.

For example, if by "common ground" you mean common goals (as in the same goal), then the answer is yes. Both want to rule. Both have a destiny for mankind (even if it is not the same destiny). Both know the Bible really well, and etc. These things could be called "common ground" in some sense. If, on the other hand, by "common ground" you are referring to their ontology - the nature of their beings, the Biblical answer is no, even though for Mormons it would be yes since on the Mormon view both are just highly advanced human males - distinct only in degree, but not ontology.

But, as usual, Mormons are totally wrong. God and Satan are not ontologically identical or even similar. The Biblical truth is that God is the CREATOR and Satan is a CREATED being. God is a necessary being, while Satan is a contingent being. The "grounds" in this case are totally uncommon.

So what do you mean by "common ground"? Are you referring to a common type of BEING or a commonness between their goals, objectives or certain characteristics?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

If, on the other hand, by "common ground" you are referring to their ontology - the nature of their beings, the Biblical answer is no,

That's what I'm referring to.
Good answer. I would agree.



But, as usual, Mormons are totally wrong. God and Satan are not ontologically identical or even similar. The Biblical truth is that God is the CREATOR and Satan is a CREATED being. God is a necessary being, while Satan is a contingent being. The "grounds" in this case are totally uncommon.
.

So, who introduced evil into existence, (or as some would ***ert, "the absence of good)? Who introduced that into existence?

[alanmolstad]

So, who introduced evil
From what i read in the story of Genesis, things are all "good" until the apple issue.

[TheSword99]

*** 1:6 - Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them

Satan could enter with the Sons of God to present themselves before the LORD because he has not yet faced final judgment. Until then he is still part of the "family" and still has the same rights as the rest of the Sons of God.



bert10

Satan lost all rights and was kicked out of heaven.

[B2M5L2]

That's what I'm referring to.
Good answer. I would agree.



So, who introduced evil into existence, (or as some would ***ert, "the absence of good)? Who introduced that into existence?

Since Mormonism teaches that all things have always existed, and that God and Satan are brothers, then no one introduced anything into existence. All things are infinitely and eternally co-existent, and hence co-equal, with a constant dualism taking place between good and evil, much like we see in the Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. The only exception is that Mormonism calls it "one eternal round" rather than samsara or reincarnation.

Therefore, until you change your silly worldview, Figster, then your questions are equally as silly, and ultimately meaningless when it comes to intelligent conversation.

[Sir]

Therefore, until you change your silly worldview, Figster, then your questions are equally as silly, and ultimately meaningless when it comes to intelligent conversation.

LOL

"Until you see things my way, having an intelligent conversation is ultimately meaningless."

Niiiiiiiiice.

And the critics of Mormonism then complain when the LDS decide not to engage in their silly attacks.

[B2M5L2]

LOL

"Until you see things my way, having an intelligent conversation is ultimately meaningless."

Niiiiiiiiice.

Hey, I'm not the one subscribing to a silly worldview, and then sitting back asking silly questions.


And the critics of Mormonism then complain when the LDS decide not to engage in their silly attacks.

I'm not complaining. I merely pointed out a fact. If you object, then tell me where I'm wrong. Don't just sit there engaging in fallacious argumentation and thinking that that someone makes your silly worldview look intelligent.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Since Mormonism teaches that all things have always existed, and that God and Satan are brothers, then no one introduced anything into existence. All things are infinitely and eternally co-existent, and hence co-equal, with a constant dualism taking place between good and evil, much like we see in the Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. The only exception is that Mormonism calls it "one eternal round" rather than samsara or reincarnation.

Therefore, until you change your silly worldview, Figster, then your questions are equally as silly, and ultimately meaningless when it comes to intelligent conversation.

I take that as a "decline to answer" a simple question.

Oh well, I'm sure Brian will have a straightforward answer.


So, who introduced evil into existence, (or as some would ***ert, "the absence of good)? Who introduced that into existence?

[B2M5L2]

I take that as a "decline to answer". Oh well, I'm sure Brian will have a straightforward answer.

Thanks for confirming via your non-response that what I wrote was true, further meaning that your question was nonsense. But then again, anyone who would think for a moment that good and evil have co-equally existed in a contingently infinite existence, as they wage a dualistic war that can never be won, could only engage in such nonsense in the first place.


"So, who introduced evil into existence, (or as some would ***ert, "the absence of good)? Who introduced that into existence?"

Already answered: Since Mormonism teaches that all things have always existed, and that God and Satan are brothers, then no one introduced anything into existence. All things are infinitely and eternally co-existent, and hence co-equal, with a constant dualism taking place between good and evil, much like we see in the Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. The only exception is that Mormonism calls it "one eternal round" rather than samsara or reincarnation.

[Apologette]

Thanks for confirming via your non-response that what I wrote was true, further meaning that your question was nonsense. But then again, anyone who would think for a moment that good and evil have co-equally existed in a contingently infinite existence, as they wage a dualistic war that can never be won, could only engage in such nonsense in the first place.



Already answered: Since Mormonism teaches that all things have always existed, and that God and Satan are brothers, then no one introduced anything into existence. All things are infinitely and eternally co-existent, and hence co-equal, with a constant dualism taking place between good and evil, much like we see in the Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. The only exception is that Mormonism calls it "one eternal round" rather than samsara or reincarnation.

I've always thought that Mormonism has a real affinity to Hinduism, especially the concept of Atman, although the Hindus see Atman as mystical spirit, while the Mormons see matter as being eternal - but very refined matter - and this refined matter is spirit. So, in the longrun, they are very similar.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Already answered:

So you personally go with the Mormon view on this that evil was never actually "introduced" into existence. It just IS.

Kinda surprising that you agree, but that's good.

Now let's give someone else an opportunity to discuss the question.

So, who introduced evil into existence, (or as some would ***ert, "the absence of good)? Who introduced that into existence?

[B2M5L2]

So you personally go with the Mormon view on this that evil was never actually "introduced" into existence. It just IS.

No. I'm just keeping the focus on Mormonism, since that is what the forum is about.

Thanks for confirming, though, the Mormon position on existence, which is, as already noted, silly.


So, who introduced evil into existence, (or as some would ***ert, "the absence of good)? Who introduced that into existence?

Why not simply defend your silliness, rather than engage in argumentation with ulterior motives?

[B2M5L2]

I've always thought that Mormonism has a real affinity to Hinduism, especially the concept of Atman, although the Hindus see Atman as mystical spirit, while the Mormons see matter as being eternal - but very refined matter - and this refined matter is spirit. So, in the longrun, they are very similar.

What the Figster doesn't seem to get, though, is that his "one eternal round" and the infinite existence of all things is in direct contradiction to what the Bible says. That's why his question is silly (or devious), for if all things have always existed, then that would include evil, which fits in perfectly with Hinduism, Buddhism, and even Platonism. There is an inherent dualism built into Mormonism, therefore, that will not allow for the final destruction of evil, which is something that the Mormon doesn't want to happen anyway, since that gives him the opportunity to be his own god on his own planet somewhere. Hence, the necessity of evil and sin in Mormonism rear their ugly heads once again. Sin and evil were a necessity for the human race to advance—humans had to disobey God in order to obey God, if that makes any sense—while contemporary Mormons put on a somber face when it comes to sin today, while later advocating their necessity in order to become gods. What a convoluted world the Mormon lives in, and yet wishes to criticize Christians, the Bible, and God himself, because they're not willing to comply with or support that worldview.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I take that as a "decline to answer" a simple question.

Oh well, I'm sure Brian will have a straightforward answer.


So, who introduced evil into existence, (or as some would ***ert, "the absence of good)? Who introduced that into existence?

Even when the topic of Mormonism is involved, so far no one here has anything to offer of their own--nothing to discuss pertinent to the topic. Nothing to contrast with Mormonism's view. So essentially we are here comparing Mormonism with ... nothingism.

But it's still early in the day, I guess.

So, who introduced evil into existence, (or as some would ***ert, "the absence of good)? Who introduced that into existence?

[B2M5L2]

Even when the topic of Mormonism is involved, so far no one here has anything to offer of their own--nothing to discuss pertinent to the topic.

That is an abject lie. I've written several comments showing the silliness of not only the question, but why, from a Mormon perspective. You, on the other hand, have offered nothing by way of response, except now turn around and lie that no one has responded to your silliness.


Nothing to contrast with Mormonism's view. So essentially we are here comparing Mormonism with ... nothingism.

No, we're talking about Mormonism, which the subject of the forum. Now, if you don't want to defend your silly worldview, which has been explained quite well, even to the point where you've agreed to it, then that's your problem


But it's still early in the day, I guess.

So, when are you going to try and defend the silliness of believing that all things have always existed, while turning around and asking whose responsible for introducing evil into the world? The fact is, if evil always existed, at least according to Mormonism, then no one brought it into existence.


So, who introduced evil into existence, (or as some would ***ert, "the absence of good)? Who introduced that into existence?

Already answered: Since Mormonism teaches that all things have always existed, and that God and Satan are brothers, then no one introduced anything into existence. All things are infinitely and eternally co-existent, and hence co-equal, with a constant dualism taking place between good and evil, much like we see in the Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. The only exception is that Mormonism calls it "one eternal round" rather than samsara or reincarnation.

[Apologette]

What the Figster doesn't seem to get, though, is that his "one eternal round" and the infinite existence of all things is in direct contradiction to what the Bible says. That's why his question is silly (or devious), for if all things have always existed, then that would include evil, which fits in perfectly with Hinduism, Buddhism, and even Platonism. There is an inherent dualism built into Mormonism, therefore, that will not allow for the final destruction of evil, which is something that the Mormon doesn't want to happen anyway, since that gives him the opportunity to be his own god on his own planet somewhere. Hence, the necessity of evil and sin in Mormonism rear their ugly heads once again. Sin and evil were a necessity for the human race to advance—humans had to disobey God in order to obey God, if that makes any sense—while contemporary Mormons put on a somber face when it comes to sin today, while later advocating their necessity in order to become gods. What a convoluted world the Mormon lives in, and yet wishes to criticize Christians, the Bible, and God himself, because they're not willing to comply with or support that worldview.

Great insight. The eternal nature of matter in Mormonism reflects Joseph Smith's oft mentioned fear of annihilation. You find it throughout his journals and letters. The thought of being "nothing" struck a horrible cord in his fallen soul. Perhaps it was fear of judgment, really. So, as he spiraled further and further down into the whirlpool of antichrist heresy, Smith's fear led him to eventually teach that men were destined for eternal godhood, that men had always existed in some material form, and always would. Smith's strange obsession with and fear of "nothingness," led him to deny God as creator, even of the human spirit. God becomes part of existence, not the reason for it. And the Mormons, having no understanding of the True God, lap up this heresy to their own demise.

[BrianH]

That's what I'm referring to.
Good answer. I would agree.

So then you would agree that God and Satan are NOT immortalized former mortals? When did you depart from LDS orthodoxy?




So, who introduced evil into existence, (or as some would ***ert, "the absence of good)? Who introduced that into existence?

Satan appears to be the first one to have rebelled against God which by definition is "evil". And BTW, the "absence of good" is an insufficient definition of "evil". In every case you can name, evil is the privation of good, not the absence of it.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

So then you would agree that God and Satan are NOT immortalized former mortals? When did you depart from LDS orthodoxy?

Never did. I just agreed with that portion of your answer that seemed agreeable.



Satan appears to be the first one to have rebelled against God which by definition is "evil". And BTW, the "absence of good" is an insufficient definition of "evil". In every case you can name, evil is the privation of good, not the absence of it.

-BH
.

Does that mean that satan introduced the privation of God into existence? That's pretty powerful if a being can do that.

[alanmolstad]

well.....to answer the question in the ***le of this topic...

The answer is - "no"

There is no common ground between good and evil.

we humans are the "battle ground" where there is a war going on between our spirit and our flesh.

But we who are Christians are taught that while we may still struggle of the flesh, we are told that in Christ we actually have total victory over the flesh too.

so while I still struggle with evil as to all humans, yet i look forward to the day of my resurrection when the mortal problems I had will be left in the grave.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

well.....to answer the question in the ***le of this topic...

The answer is - "no"

There is no common ground between good and evil.

we humans are the "battle ground" where there is a war going on between our spirit and our flesh.

But we who are Christians are taught that while we may still struggle of the flesh, we are told that in Christ we actually have total victory over the flesh too.

so while I still struggle with evil as to all humans, yet i look forward to the day of my resurrection when the mortal problems I had will be left in the grave.

Do you think that lasting misery is a fruit common to both good and evil? Or that lasting joy is a fruit common to both good and evil? I don't.

[alanmolstad]

Do you think that lasting misery is a fruit common to both good and evil? Or that lasting joy is a fruit common to both good and evil? I don't.
........I dont have a clue what that sentence means...

But I do know for a fact that good and evil have nothing in common....Good is good.

Evil sometimes will put on a dress and act like good....but its never good....

[B2M5L2]

Never did. I just agreed with that portion of your answer that seemed agreeable.



Does that mean that satan introduced the privation of God into existence? That's pretty powerful if a being can do that.

Not in the LDS worldview it isn't, since all things are co-equal and co-eternal. Are you now recanting the LDS worldview?

[alanmolstad]

again...

There is no
Common Ground" between good and evil.

But what we do find true is that many times evil wraps itself up in the outward appearance of goodness.
Evil loves to look justified.
Evil loves to make good look bad.

But in the end, evil is just evil no matter that fact that it might put on a dress and try to p*** as good.

[ErikErik]

Never did. I just agreed with that portion of your answer that seemed agreeable.



Does that mean that satan introduced the privation of God into existence? That's pretty powerful if a being can do that.

Fig please explain what you mean by satan depriving us of God's existence.

[alanmolstad]

Sorry Fig but that makes absolutely no sense.


Ok, I also got to agree with you on that one,,,when I read Fig's sentence with the part "introduced the privation of God into existence" it left me baffled?????

I have never seen those words strung together like that before,,,

Its an interesting phrase mind you.....not sure what it means,but it flows well...

There was another sentence bt Fig I would like him to go over again, slowly.

".........lasting misery is a fruit common to both good and evil....."

again its a nice sentence,
it flows well,
it might mean something interesting...
but all i get is a lot of words that piled into each other from all over....

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Ok, I also got to agree with you on that one,,,when I read Fig's sentence with the part "introduced the privation of God into existence" it left me baffled?????

I have never seen those words strung together like that before,,,

Its an interesting phrase mind you.....not sure what it means,but it flows well...

Well, evil, however you want to define it, had a true beginning according to my understanding of orthodoxy, and had no true beginning according to my understanding of Mormonism. And most people define evil as the absence of good, and a few the opposite of good, and some the privation of good. So, therefore, that must mean that Satan introduced the absence of good, and therefore the absence of God too. Do you have another way of explaining it?



".........lasting misery is a fruit common to both good and evil....."

again its a nice sentence,
it flows well,
it might mean something interesting...
but all i get is a lot of words that piled into each other from all over....

It was a question, alan, not a statement. If a person is miserable, is this a fruit of good or evil?

[ErikErik]

Well, evil, however you want to define it, had a true beginning according to my understanding of orthodoxy, and had no true beginning according to my understanding of Mormonism.

Are you saying that evil always existed??

[B2M5L2]

Well, evil, however you want to define it…

No, it's how YOU define it, which is the problem. You come here asking a silly question, probably for no reason other than to bait those you're looking to dupe, and then when the silliness of your question is pointed out to you, stemming from Mormon thought, then all the sudden you say, "however you want to define it." Well, dear sir, until you come to grips with your own definition, and then try to defend it, then your questioning of others (again, for ulterior motives) is irrelevant, if not deceptive.

Therefore, how about you try and explain to us how God and Satan are co-eternal/co-equal, or why you seem to think that all things are also co-eternal or co-equal, which would include even the abstract concepts of good and evil? If you can't do that, then why sit there and try to bait people into an argument that you cannot or will not defend in the first place? Or is that you simply want company in your otherwise lonely and misguided intellectual abyss that Mormonism had led you into?

[Sir]

You come here asking a silly question,...... then your questioning of others (again, for ulterior motives) is irrelevant, if not deceptive.

...... Or is that you simply want company in your otherwise lonely and misguided intellectual abyss that Mormonism had led you into?

When all else fails and your position is weak....ad hominem attacks.

[B2M5L2]

When all else fails and your position is weak....ad hominem attacks.

Excuse me, but until you state your position, then pointing out the lack of one is not an ad hominem. Rather, it is a statement of fact. And if you can't handle the facts, then there is no need for you (or your buddy Figster) to be baiting people into discussions over something that neither of you even know what you're talking about.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Are you saying that evil always existed??

Well, the other alternative is that someone introduced it for the first time, and that makes no sense.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

When all else fails and your position is weak....ad hominem attacks.

He obviously has nothing to offer on his own.

[B2M5L2]

He obviously has nothing to offer on his own.

And what have you offered Figster?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

And what have you offered Figster?

A discussion topic comparing beliefs.

[B2M5L2]

A discussion topic comparing beliefs.

Where's that at? All I see is you baiting people with silly questions that you haven't even taken the time to answer yourself from your worldview.

[alanmolstad]

I just asked Fig to go over a sentence or two again for me...

I think I will wait untill things calm down...

(I dont even know what a "hominem" is?)

[ErikErik]

Well, the other alternative is that someone introduced it for the first time, and that makes no sense.

Why do you think it doesn't make sense? Satan, unlike God, had a beginning. A created being free to choose. Satan chose to disobey, to rebel against God because he wants to be god, and thus evil began.

[alanmolstad]

........ Satan chose to disobey, to rebel against God ........., and thus evil began.

This is true.
The world was 'good"....this is the natural state of creation before the fall.

But evil is a turning away from God's way.
So evil is not a "thing" that was created by God, rather it is a decision to do other than you know God wants you to do.

[B2M5L2]

I just asked Fig to go over a sentence or two again for me...

I think I will wait untill things calm down...

(I dont even know what a "hominem" is?)

Ad hominem is a Latin expression which means "to the man." It is a logical fallacy used by many to avoid offering a response to a propositional statement or re****al, and instead the person attacks another person by way of insult, defamatory comment, or personally derogatory comment. In fact, it is commonplace in these kinds of forums to see the Mormon "apologist" engage in ad hominem argumentation for a variety of reasons. They don't know what the Bible actually says. Poor theological skill due to even poorer theological training in their so-called "seminaries" and Ins***utes. They don't know either Mormon doctrine or Mormon history, and so many of them fly along by the seat of their pants ***uming one thing, when clearly their leaders have said or written something else. And perhaps the worst handicap many Mormons exhibit is the very thing that got their illustrious leader Joseph Smith killed: human pride. Rather than honestly and openly look at the objective evidence of what is being argued, they would rather take a tumble, and then get mouthy about it, which only leads to further hardening of the heart toward the truth.

So, now you know what the dreaded ad hominem is about. Avoidance of the argument in order to wage a personal attack upon the person bringing the argument.

[alanmolstad]

So what we term "evil" was never a thing made by God.

God never made anything evil.
The world was created 'good".

However the word "evil" has different ways of use.
Like a child being given a booster shot might think that the doctor's needle is "evil". ...
But that is not really the use of the term "evil" that a Christan has in mind when we deal with this term.

Christians will use the term "evil" to talk about a conscious decision to turn away from what you know better.

[alanmolstad]

.......Avoidance of the argument in order to wage a personal attack upon the person bringing the argument.

I have noticed in some of the responses I have received from members of the forum that rather than sticking to the topic they tend to turn and "get personal" on me.

Its like if the don't like the message, they try to find out some dirt on the messenger.

I have seen that happen a few other times, where a bunch of people stop talking about issues and ideas, and then just start bringing up old comments from other topics and personal stuff not connected to the topic at hand.

The result of this is the slow turning of all the different topics into just one big long argument between the same people that goes from one topic to the next...

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

This is true.
The world was 'good"....this is the natural state of creation before the fall.

But satan had rebelled long before that, right? Wouldn't that make evil at least in existence before the Fall?



But evil is a turning away from God's way.
So evil is not a "thing" that was created by God, rather it is a decision to do other than you know God wants you to do.

I agree that evil is not a thing. But it is a choice, and an option, and it is real.
What do you think is at work persuading people to choose wrongly? And to choose rightly?

It makes satan pretty powerful if he introduced for the first time ever the absence of good, or in other words the absence of God.

[alanmolstad]

But satan had rebelled long before that, right? Wouldn't that make evil at least in existence before the Fall?
.

There are a lot of guys who have a whole storyboard of events dealing with the fall of Satan.

I smile when i hear their ways of thinking about such things...

The fact is, I got enough to worry about already that I dont need to try to play - "Pin the tail on the date Satan fell"

Such speculation might make a good movie script, but its just that...

Dr.Walter Martin taught us to have "charity" when it comes to side-issue teachings among my Christian brothers....so I don't make comments.

so look, if believing in a nice little back-story for Satan before he walked into the garden makes things more interesting for you, then that's fine with me.
To each their own on that matter I guess...


However I have learned over time that the same people that push this type of "Doctrines of demons" seem also to be the same people that get swept up in other things that are not so harmless.

[alanmolstad]

if he introduced for the first time ever the absence of good,......

ahh but did he?

Thats the thing....thats the one thing that we read in the Genesis text that stands out to me.
Its the fact that even before Satan got down to the down-and-dirty part of his conversation with Eve that something already was showing signs that it had gone wrong.

its hinted at in the answer Eve gave , where she says that the commandment of God was to not 'touch" it.
If you check (and im sure you already know this) that part was not actually from the Commandment of God.

This prompts the question - "Where did that idea come from?"

The answer from Eve is clearly in error.

Her husband, that we learn was there with her at the time, does not correct her.
As far as the text shows, only her husband knew the real commandment, and yet he says nothing to correct the clear error Eve made.

This brings the question - "Why didn't Adam correct Eve?"

There is no sign from the text that Satan had spoken to Adam or Eve before this moment.

So why didnt Adam chime in and correct the error his wife spoke?

We cant blame this on Satan...
Thus we cant blame the introduction of evil into the Genesis story onto Satan ....

The way the story reads, Eve thought she was telling the truth.
What if she was correct in this?
What if she was actually saying the answer correctly as she had been taught by the only person who knew?...(Adam)

Satan seems in the story to be a "facilitator" for the sin of Adam, but it does not appear from the Text here in Genesis that Satan came up with the idea of Adam messing with the commandment of God....

God told only Adam the commandment.
We dont read that god later told Eve, and that was unnecessary anyway, because Adam knew and it would fall to him to p*** on to both his wife and his children what the law was..

Yet the commandment Eve repeated was already messed up?

There seems to be a plot going here.
Adam seems to be up to something.
Satan seems to be only helping...
That plot seems ( from my reading of the story) to be already in play before Satan spoke one word to Eve....

[B2M5L2]

I have noticed in some of the responses I have received from members of the forum that rather than sticking to the topic they tend to turn and "get personal" on me.

Its like if the don't like the message, they try to find out some dirt on the messenger.

I have seen that happen a few other times, where a bunch of people stop talking about issues and ideas, and then just start bringing up old comments from other topics and personal stuff not connected to the topic at hand.

The result of this is the slow turning of all the different topics into just one big long argument between the same people that goes from one topic to the next...

Welcome to the world of Mormon "Apologetics.";)

[Billyray]

Its like if the don't like the message, they try to find out some dirt on the messenger.

Alan I warned you about this a while back. Remember?







Too bad that the spirit of God in you isn't allowing you to see such bigggotry.

alanmolstad notice the subtlety of Sir's statement which is typical from LDS. It is really a double barreled stealth ad hominem.

What Sir is really saying is his statement but in a cleverly crafted subtle way.

1. You really don't have the holy spirit because it you did you would not be a bigot.

2. You are a bigot.

[ErikErik]

I have noticed in some of the responses I have received from members of the forum that rather than sticking to the topic they tend to turn and "get personal" on me.

...

Alan, asking a person what faith he adheres to is not getting personal on you. If you are a Christian then why won't you go on record stating it? Why are you making excuses like you're not in the mood to discuss it. It makes it sound like you have something to hide. It just strikes me as strange that you won't answer this simple question.

I am a non denominational Evangelical, born again bible believing Christian. You?

[Billyray]

Alan, asking a person what faith he adheres to is not getting personal on you. If you are a Christian then why won't you go on record stating it?

Erik he already did. I will repost it for you.





are you lds pretending to be a christian? Just asking?

no, while i pretend to be a bladesmith, and a dog's master, and a gardener, and a kumdoist, the truth is that im a normal christian.

Hmmm..."normal christian" sounds a bit weak....
Im a super christian...yes, that sounds way better.

Baptized catholic
lutheran at the moment.
Raised and married anglican
confermmered episcopalian
schooled in a non-denominational tradition.
Attended for a year the church of christ, (bellevue wa)
attended for a year 7th day adventist
put on a seminar on how to deal with the cults (i taught on jws, ed decker taught on mormons)
have spoken before many fellowship groups in seattle.

Keep to the normal standard views that you do...(or you better)

my turn-on's are long walks on the beach and dancing in the rain.


Any questions?

[ErikErik]

Erik he already did. I will repost it for you.

Billy, I am having a dialogue with Alan and I asked him what faith he adheres to. He says its too personal which sounds strange. I would like him to address why he feels this way. .

[Billyray]

Billy, I am having a dialogue with Alan and I asked him what faith he adheres to. He says its too personal which sounds strange. I would like him to address why he feels this way. .
Fair enough. But he did say that he was "lutheran at the moment".

[alanmolstad]

Alan, asking a person what faith he adheres to is not getting personal on you......
In your opinion.....

You know......the fact is that the ONLY member of this forum that has made a serious effort to get to know me, and get me to join into a discussion on interesting topics is Fig....

and Fig is not confused as to my Christian faith or views of the Mormons....
(because he listens)

I think fig sets a better example for having good humor in the face of a conflict

Fig also seems to be able to keep control of himself when the spit starts to fly back and forth around here.
I don't agree with fig's religious views, but I have to admire his parent's ability to teach their kids manners...They should have taught a cl*** to a few other parents....

[alanmolstad]

Erik he already did. I will repost it for you.

He just cant take "not right now" for an answer.....

[ErikErik]

He just cant take "not right now" for an answer.....

Why "not right now"? All I want to know from you is what faith do you adhere to. If you are Lutheran, that's fine. Martin Luther was a great Reformer. But to keep dodging this simple question makes no sense.:rolleyes:

[alanmolstad]

..... All I want to know ......
not in the mood

[ErikErik]

not in the mood

Ok, no prob. You answered it for me anyway by non answering your faith in Christ.

[Apologette]

not in the mood

Do you believe in the Holy Trinity and the full Deity of Christ, and with the Chalcedonian statement on Christ?

[Apologette]

Ok, no prob. You answered it for me anyway but non answering your faith in Christ.

Any Christian should be proud to proclaim his faith.

[Apologette]

In your opinion.....

You know......the fact is that the ONLY member of this forum that has made a serious effort to get to know me, and get me to join into a discussion on interesting topics is Fig....

and Fig is not confused as to my Christian faith or views of the Mormons....
(because he listens)

I think fig sets a better example for having good humor in the face of a conflict

Fig also seems to be able to keep control of himself when the spit starts to fly back and forth around here.
I don't agree with fig's religious views, but I have to admire his parent's ability to teach their kids manners...They should have taught a cl*** to a few other parents....

Oh, really? Seems the Christians have been asking you to state your faith over and over, but you seem to like hobnobbing with a Mormon who believes he's going to be a "god" and believes that Our Lord, Jesus Christ, is the spirit brother of Satan. The Bible says that our friends reflect our character:

1 Corinthians 15:33 Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

[ErikErik]

In your opinion.....

You know......the fact is that the ONLY member of this forum that has made a serious effort to get to know me, and get me to join into a discussion on interesting topics is Fig....

and Fig is not confused as to my Christian faith or views of the Mormons....
(because he listens)

I think fig sets a better example for having good humor in the face of a conflict

Fig also seems to be able to keep control of himself when the spit starts to fly back and forth around here.
I don't agree with fig's religious views, but I have to admire his parent's ability to teach their kids manners...They should have taught a cl*** to a few other parents....

Alan, It cant always be about manners when others are being deceived and blinded by the enemy and teaching lies. Did Jesus show manners when he over turned the money changers tables? Did Jesus show manners when he called others hypocrites and broods of vipers?

It is not the lds we dislike, but the enemy, and its the doctrines of demons that we attack. Always being polite can lead a deceived person straight to hell.

[alanmolstad]

...... but you seem to like hobnobbing with a Mormon .......The Bible says that our friends reflect our character:


"Hobnobbing"?
LOL

That made me smile:D

[alanmolstad]

Any Christian should be proud to proclaim his faith.

You do seem to have a limited mold that you expect billions of people to fit it appears...

And your behavior reminds me of something????

yes,, There is something in the Bible that reminds me of you guys....

But what was it?,
,oh what was it??????????

Now I remember!
John 10:24 http://bible.cc/john/10-24.htm

[alanmolstad]

It is not the lds we dislike......its the doctrines of demons that we attack.
.

Things like "ideas" are fair game.
I enjoy a good debate over ideas.

But when people go overboard and start to get personal with each other on a message forum like this?...that's where I tend to shake my head at the way they embarr*** themselves and the faith that they claim.

Play nice....

[Apologette]

Things like "ideas" are fair game.
I enjoy a good debate over ideas.

But when people go overboard and start to get personal with each other on a message forum like this?...that's where I tend to shake my head at the way they embarr*** themselves and the faith that they claim.

Play nice....

This isn't a "message forum," it's an apologetics forum and if you're a Christian you should be addressing Mormon doctrinal error, not wasting our time with your remarks about Christians. Which leads me to suspect you may have another reason (other than apologetics) to be here.

[Apologette]

You do seem to have a limited mold that you expect billions of people to fit it appears...

And your behavior reminds me of something????

yes,, There is something in the Bible that reminds me of you guys....

But what was it?,
,oh what was it??????????

Now I remember!
John 10:24 http://bible.cc/john/10-24.htm

I think we all know why you're here.

[Apologette]

"Hobnobbing"?
LOL

That made me smile:D

You're the one that said the Mormon was your buddy here. Take it from there.

[Apologette]

"Hobnobbing"?
LOL

That made me smile:D

Would you like me to use a simpler term?

[alanmolstad]

Would you like me to use a simpler term?

well,,,,a more masculine term might be more fitting.
"Shooting the breeze" comes to mind.

"Hobnobbing" makes it sound like we are outside hanging out the laundry at the time.:D

[alanmolstad]

I think we all know why you're here.At first I was just going to let this slide...
But then I got curious... :eek:

So, is my reason for being here a secret, or are you going to share with the cl***?

[alanmolstad]

I do not believe there is any common ground between Good and evil...

However I do believe that many times evil will get dressed up as good, and try to p*** as good.

But evil is not from God....

[B2M5L2]

I do not believe there is any common ground between Good and evil...

However I do believe that many times evil will get dressed up as good, and try to p*** as good.

But evil is not from God....

Agreed. But, now's the opportunity to denounce Mormonism as false, since as I've already explained, in the dualistic philosophy of Mormonism, Good and Evil are co-equal, co-eternal adversaries in an uncreated, infinite universe with neither one capable of winning out in the struggle. So, will you seize the opportunity to denounce such an anti-Christian, anti-biblical worldview?

[alanmolstad]

. So, will you seize the opportunity to denounce such an anti-Christian,.....

Well I have tried to speak up when I see someone act in a manner that I think is acting anti-Christian...

But so far that has not been too welcome.
But Im in no hurry...

I also have to give out complements too when I see people act in a more Christ-like manner...
Sometimes it does surprise me who needs criticism and who deserves some credit.

[B2M5L2]

Well I have tried to speak up when I see someone act in a manner that I think is acting anti-Christian...

But so far that has not been too welcome.
But Im in no hurry...

I also have to give out complements too when I see people act in a more Christ-like manner...
Sometimes it does surprise me who needs criticism and who deserves some credit.

I wasn't referring to anyone. I was referring to the religion. Mormonism espouses an anti-Christian worldview as pointed out by equating Good and Evil. Will you denounce it accordingly?

[alanmolstad]

..... Will you denounce it accordingly?
One of the things that we try to offer to other religions is the idea that there is freedom from being controlled in our religion compared to theirs.

This freedom comes at a cost to be sure....
For "freedom" means that each person can be that one voice speaking up in its own way, in its own style.

This is a central core disagreement I have with the authoritarian CULT.

For in the CULT there is a lack of freedom to disagree.

Members of a CULT are always afraid they may say something on a message forum that puts them at odds with the CULT leadership.

It becomes embarr***ing for them to become tripped up when thinking for themselves (something they may not have done for years) and ending up opposing their own religion's leaders.

The central idea of a CULT is that there is no room for disagreement with the leadership....you either walk lock-step with the current leadership's teaching's or you are condemned.

This is how we who know the truth (and should know better) should be reaching out to those who remain trapped by their own fear of thinking for themselves.

its our great freedom to think for ourselves and if needed to openly disagree with a brother that stands out to they who are trapped in an enforced scilence.
....
Thus how sad it is when people who claim to possess all kinds of freedom compared to the world of the CULTS, yet behind the scenes try to enforce the same need to walk lock-step with the Big Shots that the CULTS are guilty of.

sad but true....

[alanmolstad]

One of the things that we try to offer to other religions is the idea that there is freedom from being controlled in our religion compared to theirs.

This freedom comes at a cost to be sure....
For "freedom" means that each person can be that one voice speaking up in its own way, in its own style.

This is a central core disagreement I have with the authoritarian CULT.

For in the CULT there is a lack of freedom to disagree.

Members of a CULT are always afraid they may say something on a message forum that puts them at odds with the CULT leadership.

It becomes embarr***ing for them to become tripped up when thinking for themselves (something they may not have done for years) and ending up opposing their own religion's leaders.

The central idea of a CULT is that there is no room for disagreement with the leadership....you either walk lock-step with the current leadership's teaching's or you are condemned.

This is how we who know the truth (and should know better) should be reaching out to those who remain trapped by their own fear of thinking for themselves.

its our great freedom to think for ourselves and if needed to openly disagree with a brother that stands out to they who are trapped in an enforced scilence.
....
Thus how sad it is when people who claim to possess all kinds of freedom compared to the world of the CULTS, yet behind the scenes try to enforce the same need to walk lock-step with the Big Shots that the CULTS are guilty of.

sad but true....
One of my better posts....(in my view)

[B2M5L2]

One of the things that we try to offer to other religions is the idea that there is freedom from being controlled in our religion compared to theirs.

This freedom comes at a cost to be sure....
For "freedom" means that each person can be that one voice speaking up in its own way, in its own style.

This is a central core disagreement I have with the authoritarian CULT.

For in the CULT there is a lack of freedom to disagree.

Members of a CULT are always afraid they may say something on a message forum that puts them at odds with the CULT leadership.

It becomes embarr***ing for them to become tripped up when thinking for themselves (something they may not have done for years) and ending up opposing their own religion's leaders.

The central idea of a CULT is that there is no room for disagreement with the leadership....you either walk lock-step with the current leadership's teaching's or you are condemned.

This is how we who know the truth (and should know better) should be reaching out to those who remain trapped by their own fear of thinking for themselves.

its our great freedom to think for ourselves and if needed to openly disagree with a brother that stands out to they who are trapped in an enforced scilence.
....
Thus how sad it is when people who claim to possess all kinds of freedom compared to the world of the CULTS, yet behind the scenes try to enforce the same need to walk lock-step with the Big Shots that the CULTS are guilty of.

sad but true....

What does this have to do with my question? One more time, Mormonism espouses an anti-Christian worldview as pointed out by equating Good and Evil. Will you denounce it accordingly?

[alanmolstad]

what does this have to do with my question? ......

it answers it fully and completely...

[alanmolstad]

Will you denounce it......?
I believe my most excellent posting makes it clear that I try to speak up where and when I can, and in a style I think best, when I see activity going on that I believe is anti- Christlike....

But telling the truth of what I see going on is not all that popular is seems.....
but then again, telling the truth and stading up on your own was never a way to get loved or popular with a mob....

[B2M5L2]

I believe my most excellent posting makes it clear that I try to speak up where and when I can, and in a style I think best, when I see activity going on that I believe is anti- Christlike....

In other words, you're not going to denounce Mormonism as anti-Christian, even though its doctrine clearly is. Got it.


But telling the truth of what I see going on is not all that popular is seems.....but then again, telling the truth and stading up on your own was never a way to get loved or popular with a mob....

Uhhhh...yeah...right.:rolleyes:

[B2M5L2]

it answers it fully and completely...

Actually, it is diversionary babble. A simple, "Yes, Mormonism is anti-Christian" would have been more along the line of Jesus' admonition of "Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; and anything beyond these is of evil," than what you wrote.

[BigJulie]

One of the things that we try to offer to other religions is the idea that there is freedom from being controlled in our religion compared to theirs.

This freedom comes at a cost to be sure....
For "freedom" means that each person can be that one voice speaking up in its own way, in its own style.

This is a central core disagreement I have with the authoritarian CULT.

For in the CULT there is a lack of freedom to disagree.

Members of a CULT are always afraid they may say something on a message forum that puts them at odds with the CULT leadership.

It becomes embarr***ing for them to become tripped up when thinking for themselves (something they may not have done for years) and ending up opposing their own religion's leaders.

The central idea of a CULT is that there is no room for disagreement with the leadership....you either walk lock-step with the current leadership's teaching's or you are condemned.

This is how we who know the truth (and should know better) should be reaching out to those who remain trapped by their own fear of thinking for themselves.

its our great freedom to think for ourselves and if needed to openly disagree with a brother that stands out to they who are trapped in an enforced scilence.
....
Thus how sad it is when people who claim to possess all kinds of freedom compared to the world of the CULTS, yet behind the scenes try to enforce the same need to walk lock-step with the Big Shots that the CULTS are guilty of.

sad but true....

Alan, I think you perceive a paradigm for Mormons that do not exist. Keep in mind that Harry Reid and Mitt Romney are both Mormons. All of the criticisms leveled at Mormons within this place tend to speak more of honest open discussion Mormons have within the church that non-Mormons take for our "doctrines." For example, most will quote from the Journal of Discourses, but will not follow through on how the Journal of Discourses came to be nor the fact the Journal of Discourses has never been cannonized.

To me, it appears as a Mormon, that those who attack our beliefs do not want to accept the full truth that Mormons are extremely open to discussion and that for us, the fact that those who attack staunchly defend their closed cannon are the ones who appear close minded. But, just as you accept your cannon as your standard of truth, we likewise accept our scriptures as well as the words of the living prophet as our standard of truth.

[Billyray]

For example, most will quote from the Journal of Discourses, but will not follow through on how the Journal of Discourses came to be nor the fact the Journal of Discourses has never been cannonized.
Can you trust what is written in the Journal of Discourses?

[BigJulie]

Can you trust what is written in the Journal of Discourses?

Here is a good review written by FAIR regarding the Journal of Discourses.


The bind that critics find themselves in is that they want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to use sources written or derived from faithful Mormons and LDS Church leaders in order to maximize the shock value of what they present; but they also can't resist the "the Church hides and/or manipulates its history" claim.

In this case, the two approaches run at cross-purposes, and cancel each other out—the Church has not hidden the Journal of Discourses, but neither has it made its contents binding upon members. Even less has the Church made the (usually distorted or removed from context) claims of critics binding upon members—our doctrine is for us to declare and interpret, not the critics.

Thus, the critic must insist that the Church had (in the past) treated the Journal of Discourses as binding doctrine on the level of scripture and that this has been hidden from the modern member. Neither claim is true.

This is another good example of where fundamentalist critics (whether religious or secular) try to impose their mindset on the Church and its members. Critics cannot understand how the Church can have prophets that are not infallible—they ***ume either that these men must not be prophets, or that members must regard them and their every utterance as infallible. Neither conclusion is correct.

The Journal of Discourses is an excellent example of the open-ness rather than the closemindedness of the church.

[B2M5L2]

Alan, I think you perceive a paradigm for Mormons that do not exist. Keep in mind that Harry Reid and Mitt Romney are both Mormons. All of the criticisms leveled at Mormons within this place tend to speak more of honest open discussion Mormons have within the church that non-Mormons take for our "doctrines." For example, most will quote from the Journal of Discourses, but will not follow through on how the Journal of Discourses came to be nor the fact the Journal of Discourses has never been cannonized.

That's interesting BJ. Have you ever read any of the introductory comments to each of the individual volumes? If not, maybe you should. Because what the Mormon leaders had to say about the JoD, and what you're saying, are two totally different things. And in that case, who would be more authoritative? You or them?


To those who are unacquainted with the Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who are mantled in the darkness of ages, whose minds are sunk in the almost impenetrable shades of error, uncertainty, and doubt, but who sincerely desire to know the truth, these Sermons will prove a source of light, information, and joy. And, according to the vocation which belongs to the Eternal Priesthood, all authorized ministers of God will hail their publication with gladness, for such an embodiment of doctrine will greatly accelerate the grand object they have in view—the salvation of souls, the instruction of Saints, and the building up of Zion in the last days.—Vol. 1, Introduction


Particularly to the Elders who are scattered abroad upon the face of the earth, far from those who alone can instruct them in the more exalted branches of the Everlasting Gospel, these Sermons will be most valuable, as a gauge of doctrine, a rule of rec***ude, and a square of life, furnishing at the same time an extensive repository of historical information.—Vol. 1, Introduction


The Second Volume of the Journal of Discourses needs no recommendation to make it interesting to every Saint who loves to drink of the streams that flow from the fountain of Eternal Truth. It is made up of the choicest fruits that can be culled from the tree of knowledge, suited to the taste of all who can appreciate such delicious food. It contains the principles of the Gospel of Salvation to this generation.


Each successive Volume of these Discourses is a rich mine of wealth, containing gems of great value, and the diligent seeker will find ample reward for his labor. After the fathers and mothers of this generation have made them the study of their lives, their children's children will find that they are still exhausted, and rejoice this Record has been handed down from their fathers to also aid them in following the way of life.—Vol. 3, Preface


It would be altogether gratuitous and uncalled-for, on our part, to write a commendatory preface to the Discourses of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of this Church. To the Saints their words are as the words of God, their teachings fraught with heavenly wisdom, and their directions leading to salvation and eternal lives.—Vol. 4, Preface

I could go on, but I think you get the drift.


To me, it appears as a Mormon, that those who attack our beliefs do not want to accept the full truth that Mormons are extremely open to discussion and that for us, the fact that those who attack staunchly defend their closed cannon are the ones who appear close minded. But, just as you accept your cannon as your standard of truth, we likewise accept our scriptures as well as the words of the living prophet as our standard of truth.

Well good. If you're so open to discuss, then please rectify your previous comments with those of your leaders, and we will proceed from there.

[B2M5L2]

Here is a good review written by FAIR regarding the Journal of Discourses.



The Journal of Discourses is an excellent example of the open-ness rather than the closemindedness of the church.

How about the JoD is an example of what happens when a lot of i-gnorant dolts decide to impose their beliefs upon God, and then when they get caught with their pants down, their subsequent followers have to make up a whole bunch of excuses to try and cover their fannies?

[Billyray]

The Journal of Discourses is an excellent example of the open-ness rather than the closemindedness of the church.

Can you trust what is written in the Journal of Discourses?

[BigJulie]

That's interesting BJ. Have you ever read any of the introductory comments to each of the individual volumes? If not, maybe you should. Because what the Mormon leaders had to say about the JoD, and what you're saying, are two totally different things. And in that case, who would be more authoritative? You or them?











I could go on, but I think you get the drift.



Well good. If you're so open to discuss, then please rectify your previous comments with those of your leaders, and we will proceed from there.

As I said, you may want to read up on more than what you have---this is a standard argument regarding the JoD--which have been responded to already. You can go to FAIR if you would like to read up.

I am not going to argue with you regarding the JoD..I have done my research already and I am satisfied I understand the history of my church, how the JoD came to be, the difference between discussion and doctrine within the church, and am firm in my own testimony.

The criticism leveled here is that Mormons are not free to have their own opinions. You can find plenty of discussion within the church regarding the JoD. I merely used this as an example to show that discussion is open within the church and it is that very discussion that often leads critics to attack our beliefs. When those in this forum have disagreements, they say--but we have our doctrine (the Bible), we may disagree, but ultimately we have our "standard." Likewise, the discussion of the church as well as leaders has been very open to everyone, including non-members, but likewise, we have our standard which is our scriptures and the words of living prophets today.

[BigJulie]

Can you trust what is written in the Journal of Discourses?

Are you really going back to repeating questions this soon?

[Billyray]

Are you really going back to repeating questions this soon?

BJ I asked you a simple question, if you can't answer it then just tell me so.

Can you trust what is written in the Journal of Discourses?

[BigJulie]

BJ I asked you a simple question, if you can't answer it then just tell me so.

Can you trust what is written in the Journal of Discourses?

I gave you a quote from FAIR regarding the JoD. What does it not answer for you?

[Billyray]

I gave you a quote from FAIR regarding the JoD. What does it not answer for you?

Can I trust what is written in the JoD?

[B2M5L2]

As I said, you may want to read up on more than what you have---

Why would I want to do that? Do you not believe that your church leaders are authoritative enough to speak for themselves?

[BigJulie]

Can I trust what is written in the JoD?

Not as cannon. It is interesting for discussion for members who have a firm understanding the gospel. (I wouldn't put you in that catagory seeing our most basic disagreements regarding simple p***ages in the Bible.) ;)

[B2M5L2]

Not as cannon. It is interesting for discussion for members who have a firm understanding the gospel. (I wouldn't put you in that catagory seeing our most basic disagreements regarding simple p***ages in the Bible.) ;)

That's not what your leaders said. So, who's right? You or them? And why should we accept your word over them?

[BigJulie]

That's not what your leaders said. So, who's right? You or them? And why should we accept your word over them?

From FAIR again.


Joseph Smith, for example, said a Church hymnbook would "be a standard work."[2] A "standard work," then, was a book often used or a typical reference work. It did not mean that the work was canonized scripture—which is how modern Church members use the term. The Journal of Discourses was—and is—extremely valuable. It was not, however, without error. It was not without the opinion of leading brethren. And, it was not a work which defined doctrine that was elsewhere undefined or undescribed in LDS scripture.

The most interesting thing to me is that critics of the church will ignore the hundreds of pages of cannonized scripture and go to p***ages of an old publication here or there to find something of "shock value." Then, when I have shared scripture, critics attempt to explain to me that I do not understand it or it is not what I believe. As I have been studying and living my belief for many years, it seems it is up to the members to decide what they believe--not the critics.

[B2M5L2]

From FAIR again.

Is FAIR more authoritative that your church leaders?

[BigJulie]

Is FAIR more authoritative that your church leaders?

FAIR is good at discussing the criticisms leveled at the quotes of church leaders--often taken out of context or not within the parameters understood by the members of the time.

As I said, we have 100's of pages of cannonized scriptures that the church leaders have committed as our doctrines. My question to you is why, when we have so many doctrines clearly defined within our cannons do you insist on asking about old magazine publications that were often not reviewed for correctness before being published or quotes that are hard to know the complete context in which they were said. I guess you could give all the references, etc...but I don't know if I would bother reading them as I said, I have 100's of pages to read, study, and pray about already regarding my beliefs that are cannonized.

[alanmolstad]

....... A simple, "Yes, Mormonism is anti-Christian".......



Ahhhhhh FINALLY we get to the real point you are making...

You want to write my posts for me because you just dont like the way I write...

(not going to happen;))

[alanmolstad]

......Keep in mind that Harry Reid and Mitt Romney are both Mormons. ...........

There was a lot of your post that went over my head...but what was really baffling was the introduction of the names of politicians into you post?

Not sure where that came from?

Not sure you connected the dots for me as to why I care about the religion of guys I have never voted for, nor do I consider them to be part of this discussion?

There was another topic running on the forum that was dealing with the religion of people in the news.
My stand on that issue is that I really dont give a hoot what religion a person has that is running for office.

The weird thing is that even after I state my very moderate position on that issue is that the people on the far fringes will turn right around and try to use the religion of politicians in their arguments, both pro and con.

The trouble is, is that I really dont want the religion of people running for office to be a matter used in arguments about their religion.....both pro and con.

The reason is, if we start to hold up the religion of people running for office as an "example' that supports some sort of point we want to make about a church, then we face a future where any person of faith will shy away from running for office in the first place.
Soon you would only have elections where all the persons with a religious faith would be sitting on the bench, afraid to enter into the race because they dont want their religion to be used in arguments.

[alanmolstad]

In other words, ......:

Go ask Fig if he is confused as to my opinions about his church being a CULT or not?...then get back to me on that....:p

[BrianH]

Never did. I just agreed with that portion of your answer that seemed agreeable.

You never departed from LDS dogma? Really? So then are you trying to imply that LDS doctrine does NOT state that God was once a man like us and that he procreated Satan as one of his celestial children?


Does that mean that satan introduced the privation of God into existence? That's pretty powerful if a being can do that.

Please show me the "privation of God" that you think I am speaking of. Where has the nature of God been changed by Satan, Fig?

-BH

.

[ErikErik]

Things like "ideas" are fair game.
I enjoy a good debate over ideas.

But when people go overboard and start to get personal with each other on a message forum like this?...that's where I tend to shake my head at the way they embarr*** themselves and the faith that they claim.

Play nice....

It is not getting personal wanting to know if someone is lds, Muslim, Christian, etc. If a person says they are a christian, do you think its wrong to ask if that person is born-again? Asking is not the problem. Its when someone comes on these forums discussing God and Scriptures, and won't answer a simple question about faith. Even the lds on here tell us in no uncertain terms that they are Mormons

The Holy Bible says we are to be the salt of the earth. We are not to hide our light under a bushel, but to let it shine. You say you don't want to offend others with questions and yet how is that witnessing for Christ? The greatest sermons are those where hell is preached in no uncertain terms and unsaved people are told they are going there. Do you think these preachers are offensive and too personal by warning the lost?

[ErikErik]

I
But telling the truth of what I see going on is not all that popular is seems.....
but then again, telling the truth and stading up on your own was never a way to get loved or popular with a mob....

Being a Christian is never popular. Jesus was hated by many. He said the world will hate us (Christians) because they hated Him first. To be a true friend is to care about their soul. Giving them clothes and meeting their physical needs is a good and noble thing, but if you neglect the care of their soul you have done the greatest disservice to this person. We cannot stop witnessing because we fear we will be hated. Better to have people dislike us than to see them going straight to hell because we never warned them with the Truth.

[B2M5L2]

Ahhhhhh FINALLY we get to the real point you are making...

You want to write my posts for me because you just dont like the way I write...

(not going to happen;))

Ummm...no. I just want an answer to the question asked; not one that you want to answer, because you didn't like the question.

Nevertheless, your failure to respond, and now this round of game-playing that Mormons are infamous for, has exposed you.

Not sure why the Mormons keep going this route. Do they really think that this kind of chicanery defends Mormonism? If so, I've got news for you: it doesn't.

[B2M5L2]

FAIR is good at discussing the criticisms leveled at the quotes of church leaders--often taken out of context or not within the parameters understood by the members of the time.

In other words, No. Thanks for the round-about answer, as well as the approval to keep on quoting the Mormon authorities on such matters, even though modern-day, Internet Mormons like yourself, don't particularly like what your leaders have said, because they contradict the fictive "Mormon" world that you live in.

[B2M5L2]

Go ask Fig if he is confused as to my opinions about his church being a CULT or not?...then get back to me on that....:p

I don't need to asked Fig anything, given the evasive nature of what you've written. Besides, Fig has his own problems with answering questions as well. And it's because you both share the same worldview that we see all the game-playing. Again, I'm not sure why you think such tactics are beneficial to your cause, but I'll just say once again, they aren't. And you're a fool to keep going that route.

[BigJulie]

There was a lot of your post that went over my head...but what was really baffling was the introduction of the names of politicians into you post?

Not sure where that came from?

Not sure you connected the dots for me as to why I care about the religion of guys I have never voted for, nor do I consider them to be part of this discussion?

There was another topic running on the forum that was dealing with the religion of people in the news.
My stand on that issue is that I really dont give a hoot what religion a person has that is running for office.

The weird thing is that even after I state my very moderate position on that issue is that the people on the far fringes will turn right around and try to use the religion of politicians in their arguments, both pro and con.

The trouble is, is that I really dont want the religion of people running for office to be a matter used in arguments about their religion.....both pro and con.

The reason is, if we start to hold up the religion of people running for office as an "example' that supports some sort of point we want to make about a church, then we face a future where any person of faith will shy away from running for office in the first place.
Soon you would only have elections where all the persons with a religious faith would be sitting on the bench, afraid to enter into the race because they dont want their religion to be used in arguments.

I agree that we should not consider a person's religion when voting. The reason I brought up politicians is that you stated (in this thread).


For in the CULT there is a lack of freedom to disagree.

Members of a CULT are always afraid they may say something on a message forum that puts them at odds with the CULT leadership.

I used well-known politicians and their veiwpoints to refute your position if you think Mormons are part of a cult. Maybe I misunderstood you and you were not talking about the LDS church or its members.

On the other hand, if you are, I am not sure why you would think someone would disagree with the leadership of the LDS church on a cite like this where people are attempting to find fault and criticize one's beliefs.

[BigJulie]

In other words, No. Thanks for the round-about answer, as well as the approval to keep on quoting the Mormon authorities on such matters, even though modern-day, Internet Mormons like yourself, don't particularly like what your leaders have said, because they contradict the fictive "Mormon" world that you live in.

B2M--I think the point I was making is that people like yourself often give only half of the picture when quoting old material. It gives a skewed picture and not a realistic picture of what members of the church believe or practice. People can go to FAIR and read the whole argument against such criticisms. It is not worth reinventing the wheel to you. Those who really want to know the other side of the story can find it if they desire.

[B2M5L2]

B2M--I think the point I was making is that people like yourself often give only half of the picture when quoting old material. It gives a skewed picture and not a realistic picture of what members of the church believe or practice. People can go to FAIR and read the whole argument against such criticisms. It is not worth reinventing the wheel to you. Those who really want to know the other side of the story can find it if they desire.

Then you failed in your point since not only were the full quotes given by your leaders and you did not answer the question asked you, directly. No one needs to go to FAIR to read a bunch of Mormon spin on something that your leaders have spoken quite clearly about. The fact of the matter is, you don't like what's in the JoD because much of it contradictory to not only what you believe currently, but it is blatantly contradictory to the Bible. And you don't like Christians constantly pointing out those faux pas. So instead of bringing your beliefs into line with the Bible and reality by denouncing your leaders as the false teachers that they were, you would rather play games by excusing them and appeal to a bunch of individuals who are as fraudulent as the leaders are, thinking that by combining excuses and fraud the truth will be told. Well, sorry to have to inform you, but the truth doesn't need excuses, and fraud never represents the truth. And whether one appeals to the JoD, FAIR, the Book of Mormon, or whatever represents Mormonism, one will never come to a knowledge of the truth, regardless of the excuses or convoluted reasonings. So, you failed, and you can either adjust or keep up the ruse. My guess is that you'll do the latter.

[BigJulie]

Then you failed in your point since not only were the full quotes given by your leaders and you did not answer the question asked you, directly. No one needs to go to FAIR to read a bunch of Mormon spin on something that your leaders have spoken quite clearly about. The fact of the matter is, you don't like what's in the JoD because much of it contradictory to not only what you believe currently, but it is blatantly contradictory to the Bible. And you don't like Christians constantly pointing out those faux pas. So instead of bringing your beliefs into line with the Bible and reality by denouncing your leaders as the false teachers that they were, you would rather play games by excusing them and appeal to a bunch of individuals who are as fraudulent as the leaders are, thinking that by combining excuses and fraud the truth will be told. Well, sorry to have to inform you, but the truth doesn't need excuses, and fraud never represents the truth. And whether one appeals to the JoD, FAIR, the Book of Mormon, or whatever represents Mormonism, one will never come to a knowledge of the truth, regardless of the excuses or convoluted reasonings. So, you failed, and you can either adjust or keep up the ruse. My guess is that you'll do the latter.

As I said, anyone can go and read the history of the JoD and why it is not part of our cannon. What I will make perfectly clear is my testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet, to the truthfullness of the Book of Mormon and the life I have lived and seen the good fruits of the truths that I know and live. I denounce no one. I understand that the church as a whole is growing and learning and that no one, other than Christ is perfect. As I said, I have lived the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the mormons) for many years. It is true, plain and simple.

[B2M5L2]

As I said, anyone can go and read the history of the JoD and why it is not part of our cannon.

Why not simply read the statements of your leaders? Again, are they somehow less authoritative than the contemporary spinmeisters over at FAIR, or perhaps even yourself, who seem to think they know more about Mormon beliefs than the leaders do?


The Journal of Discourses will become a complete journal of all the Sermons delivered by the First Presidency and the Twelve. Besides this, in the Sixth Volume will be found published some of the choisest Sermons of the Prophet Brigham, and also many choice gems from others of the leading Shepherds of Israel. The Sixth Volume, therefore cannot be other than a choice Volume to all its possessors, while many Saints have had the privilege of reading and possessing theses gems of inspiration who were not in the Church when they were delivered….which gives us the prospect of publishing in the Seventh Volume many of their words of inspiration, power, and salvation."—Vol. 6, Preface

Wow, BJ, did you get that? Your leaders thought that Brigham Young and the "leading Shepherds of Israel" sermons and thought were not only "inspired," but that they were powerful and salvific as well. But here you're trying to tell us that they weren't. I guess my question is, just who are you to be contradicting your leader's declarations?:cool:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

In your opinion.....

You know......the fact is that the ONLY member of this forum that has made a serious effort to get to know me, and get me to join into a discussion on interesting topics is Fig....

and Fig is not confused as to my Christian faith or views of the Mormons....
(because he listens)

I think fig sets a better example for having good humor in the face of a conflict

Fig also seems to be able to keep control of himself when the spit starts to fly back and forth around here.
I don't agree with fig's religious views, but I have to admire his parent's ability to teach their kids manners...They should have taught a cl*** to a few other parents....

Thanks, Alan. That just busted my ****ons and made me all puffy in the chest.;)

I started this thread to explore the idea that the fruits of the Spirit, namely: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance--- Is it possible that these same fruits can be produced by an evil spirit?

In other words, are the fruits of the Spirit that Paul speaks of in Gal. 5:22 exclusive to the Holy Spirit, or are they also manifest by an evil spirit?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You never departed from LDS dogma? Really? So then are you trying to imply that LDS doctrine does NOT state that God was once a man like us and that he procreated Satan as one of his celestial children?



Please show me the "privation of God" that you think I am speaking of. Where has the nature of God been changed by Satan, Fig?

-BH

.

Did you or did no you define evil as the privation of God? Can you explain that definition?

[BigJulie]

Why not simply read the statements of your leaders? Again, are they somehow less authoritative than the contemporary spinmeisters over at FAIR, or perhaps even yourself, who seem to think they know more about Mormon beliefs than the leaders do?



Wow, BJ, did you get that? Your leaders thought that Brigham Young and the "leading Shepherds of Israel" sermons and thought were not only "inspired," but that they were powerful and salvific as well. But here you're trying to tell us that they weren't. I guess my question is, just who are you to be contradicting your leader's declarations?:cool:

I can see that you want to lump all the discourses together as well as everything ever said in the discourses.

I am not contradicting anything:


President Young had two prerequisites for calling a sermon scripture. First, he needed to review the sermon and make any necessary corrections. Second, it had to be identified as scripture.
It should be noted that very few of the recorded sermons of Brigham Young were reviewed for correctness by the him. Even fewer sermons were announced as scripture. For the most part, President Young's sermons were given on an impromptu basis and hand recorded by third parties when he spoke. Since only Jesus Christ was perfect and infallible, it is not surprising that some of his sermons are erroneously transcribed. The fact that President Young required a statement to be reviewed and corrected before it is called scripture presupposes errors in some of the impromtu remarks that were recorded by third parties.

Occasionally, the critics make the argument that Brigham Young had plenty of opportunity to correct the Journal of Discourses for any errors. Therefore, they make the argument that it must be considered scripture by default. However, as noted above, President Young taught that for a statement to be considered scripture it must be positively identified as such. He did not say "***ume it's scripture unless I say otherwise."

Once again B2M, you are taking things out of context and trying to make it appear that it applies to all materials of the church. Please B2M, I ask that you give the full story if you are to give any part of it. To give only half of the truth is to bear false witness against my beliefs.

Here is an Ensign article written in 1978 answering questions regarding the authority of the Journal of Discourses should anyone reading here desire to understand the background regarding them. (You will need to go to the second question of the article.)

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1978.htm/ensign%20august%201978%20.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

[BrianH]

Did you or did no you define evil as the privation of God?

LOL ...No. I said that evil is the privation of good. God cannot be altered at all, and least of all by satan.

Duh.


Can you explain that definition.

I have no obligation to explain a definition I never posted.

-BH

[BigJulie]

LOL ...No. I said that evil is the privation of good. God cannot be altered at all, and least of all by satan.

-BH

Wouldn't the lack of good and the lack of God be one and the same thing?? :)

[alanmolstad]

Say Fig,,,,,

How about this post?

Fig I would be interested in your views of what you make of this?




Ummm...no. I just want an answer to the question asked; not one that you want to answer, because you didn't like the question.

Nevertheless, your failure to respond, and now this round of game-playing that Mormons are infamous for, has exposed you.

Not sure why the Mormons keep going this route. Do they really think that this kind of chicanery defends Mormonism? If so, I've got news for you: it doesn't.

The post above is addressed to me by a forum member who thinks that they got me all figured out.

[TheSword99]

Say Fig,,,,,

How about this post?

Fig I would be interested in your views of what you make of this?





The post above is addressed to me by a forum member who thinks that they got me all figured out.

You know, this is strange. You claim to be a Christian, right? Or maybe you didn't. Still confused on that part since you won't say. You then post about another member who has stated that he is a Christian and you are asking an lds to tell you what he thinks??? Sounds like you are a mormon sympathizer or wanna be...:rolleyes:

Is this why you keep it a big secret about your own faith?

[alanmolstad]

I used well-known politicians and their veiwpoints to refute your position ......

If you did, or rather if you tried to do something like that it sorta failed.

The truth is that the moment someone lists people in goverment to support a religious point of view, I sorta stop reading.

I do not allow myself to go that direction....
For the reasons I have stated (and I know you understand) I do not allow myself to consider the religious faith of a person running for office,

and I get a bit upset when people try to name drop government officials into their religious argument....

so I stopped reading your post and just request you try again a different way to make your point about: "An individual Mormon's freedom to disagree with the current LDS prophet"

[BigJulie]

If you did, or rather if you tried to do something like that it sorta failed.

The truth is that the moment someone lists people in goverment to support a religious point of view, I sorta stop reading.

I do not allow myself to go that direction....
For the reasons I have stated (and I know you understand) I do not allow myself to consider the religious faith of a person running for office,

and I get a bit upset when people try to name drop government officials into their religious argument....

so I stopped reading your post and just request you try again a different way to make your point about: "An individual Mormon's freedom to disagree with the current LDS prophet"

Okay--I will let you discuss this with others as I can't use well known Mormons and their different views as a case in point of Mormons being free to have their own viewpoints that often differ from each other. Others who read this may say to themselves--that is true--we know of Mormons who freely express their own opinions, so the idea that Mormons are a cult with no ability to form or speak their own opinion is false.

[alanmolstad]

In other words, are the fruits of the Spirit that Paul speaks of in Gal. 5:22 exclusive to the Holy Spirit, or are they also manifest by an evil spirit?

That actually is tricky question at times....

, because evil knows how to put on a dress and say all manner of nice things....just like a real lady word.

But evil is never a lady.....


My point is that if evil always looked evil we could spot it too easy.
But we have been warned that there are wolves in sheep's clothing that come in and rip apart the flock.

[alanmolstad]

Did you or did no you define evil as the privation of God? Can you explain that definition?

Ok,,,ummm

WHO.....came up with this phrase in the first place?

Is this a Mormon term?
Is this Catholic?
Is it from the 7th dayers, or the baptists?

Because I dont have a clue what it means...nor have I seen it used in a sentence with enough context to even guess what it means....

[alanmolstad]

Wouldn't the lack of good and the lack of God be one and the same thing?? :)well...I think you are reaching there....

I think a lot of things are good...but they are not God.

Ketchup very good, but not really God.

[alanmolstad]

Is this why you keep it a big secret about your own faith?
No secret....I actually have written at length about my faith and the history I have been active in a religious way.

[BigJulie]

well...I think you are reaching there....

I think a lot of things are good...but they are not God.

Ketchup very good, but not really God.

But would you have ketchup without God? :D:D

[BigJulie]

Ok,,,ummm

WHO.....came up with this phrase in the first place?

Is this a Mormon term?
Is this Catholic?
Is it from the 7th dayers, or the baptists?

Because I dont have a clue what it means...nor have I seen it used in a sentence with enough context to even guess what it means....

LOL, Brian likes to use big words--when I don't understand them, I just google them. Thank goodness for the Internet.

[alanmolstad]

Okay--I will let you discuss this with others as I can't use well known Mormons .....

well, you should feel able to use well known Mormons all you want.
I just suggest you try to not point to guys who are in office or running for office as I tend to not want to listen to such name dropping in a religious context.

But let me introduce the idea I was talking about again, so you can take a fresh run at your answer.


------------------------

One of the things that I hate the most about most CULTS is that there is a fear of disagreement among the average member of the CULT to be discovered in disagreement with the CULT's teachings, or in disagreement with the CULT leadership.

What happens is that a conversation goes on and a member of a CULT is asked a question and based on their answer they suddenly clam-up when they discover that their answer is against some sort of CULT teaching or a statement of the CULT leader.

So they just stop talking because they dont want to get caught disagreeing with the leadership.
So rather than think for themselves and answer the question from their heart....they ask for more information on what the CULT leader said?

Then apon learning what the CULT leader said that twist their own answer to fit the official answer.

THAT is the point I think we Christians should understand.
That a member of a CULT is always living in fear of finding themselves accidently in opposition to the leadership and thereby have to switch their answers around to make it look better.

I will post to you a story to show you about the way this works in real life ...

[alanmolstad]

But would you have ketchup without God? :D:D
hmmmmmm........

"TOUCHE"

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;86641]One of the things that I hate the most about most CULTS is that there is a fear of disagreement among the average member of the CULT to be discovered in disagreement with the CULT's teachings, or in disagreement with the CULT leadership. Well, let me see if I can help you see inside the paradigm of the average mormon. We believe in revelation as well as things such as honoring your parents. You may wonder how these two things are related, but it has to do with how we view leadership and honoring those that God gives stewardship. As I explained to a friend of mine when he was discussing his religion and "voting" for what they wanted in their church--I explained that we believe in a theocracy and not a democracy when it comes to God. In other words, God speaks and it is not our priviledge to decide whether He is correct or not. So, what if a prophet is speaking? Do we automatically agree? As members, we are taught to pray about what the prophet is saying. We hopefully then get our own confirmation to the truthfullness of the prophets words. Do I pray over everything the prophet says? No--things like say your prayers, love others, etc. do not seem like things I need to pray about--they are a given that this is true. Other things may be a little harder to swallow and yes, I have taken things to prayer. One example might be the role of a mother and women--as we are taught that the primary role of women is that of a mother (if it makes you feel any better, the primary role of men is that of father.) But, I can and have received a definite confirmation that God wants my first priority to be that of a mother. By this guidance, I have put my children first and have never regretted it. My joy truly is in watching my children grow and succeed and to see my own daughter find the joy in motherhood.


What happens is that a conversation goes on and a member of a CULT is asked a question and based on their answer they suddenly clam-up when they discover that their answer is against some sort of CULT teaching or a statement of the CULT leader. Maybe it is because they are still coming to understand their own beliefs. As I stated, we believe in a theocracy and not a democracy. As one leader in our church just got wildly criticized in the news for--we do not vote on whether a cat is a male or female (he was speaking of whether ****sexuality is okay or not--in other words, we don't vote on it to decide what God thinks.)


So they just stop talking because they dont want to get caught disagreeing with the leadership.
So rather than think for themselves and answer the question from their heart....they ask for more information on what the CULT leader said? It is the same as you turning to the Bible to understand your beliefs--as you see the Bible as your standard, we likewise see the scriptures as well as the words of the living prophets as our standard.


Then apon learning what the CULT leader said that twist their own answer to fit the official answer. I think you believe we do less thinking then we do. I have studied out and prayed about many things--it is just when I have received a witness regarding a prophet of God--when I have a hard time understanding, I see the fault with myself rather than the person who I have received a witness regarding his stewardship within the church.


THAT is the point I think we Christians should understand.
That a member of a CULT is always living in fear of finding themselves accidently in opposition to the leadership and thereby have to switch their answers around to make it look better. I don't see myself living in fear at all. I think you mis-stereotype us when you believe that.

[bert10]

The understanding of the word "Elohim" would tell you how God created spiritual Sons and Daughters..where they come from and from whom they are made of.

By not understanding your roots in heaven...how can you understand yourself in this world?

This verse is literally true. And the Scriptures cannot be broken by false interpretation by the blind. GOD calls gods unto whom the word of God comes.

Psalms 82:6 - I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

John 10:35 - If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


bert10


You're committing the same fallacy that all those in the cults do by imposing your beliefs upon Scripture, rather than letting Scripture guide your beliefs.

Otherwise, please show from the reference you've provided where it says that Satan was one of the sons of God. Secondly, please provide a specific reference that backs up your imposition which says, "All Angels (Messengers) are first Spiritual sons of God." Finally, when speaking of the angels as sons, just how do they become "sons." Is it because they're created by God, and the terminology is figurative, or is it that they became sons when God copulated with one of his wives and nine months later a "spirit child" was born, who then became a human, and then because he didn't obey the Mormon protocol, is now an angelic being? If the latter, can you show from Scripture where God is having Celestial sex with anyone, let alone some goddess he married on another earth, let alone even needs to, in order to bring a created being into existence? For some reason, I seriously doubt that you can, but I'm willing to entertain your perverse effort to even try.

[ErikErik]

John 10:34 - Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

John 10:35 - If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
[/COLOR]

bert10

Its very interesting that you ignore all the p***ages where GOD HIMSELF said there are NO OTHER GODS! God also said there are false gods, idols, man made gods of stone, wood, etc.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

LOL ...No. I said that evil is the privation of good. God cannot be altered at all, and least of all by satan.

Duh.



I have no obligation to explain a definition I never posted.

-BH

Isn't God the only source of good? Where you have good--you have God, and where you have God you have good, do you not? Or do you believe there are other sources of good than God?

[alanmolstad]

Isn't God the only source of good? Where you have good--you have God, and where you have God you have good, do you not? Or do you believe there are other sources of good than God?


Umn..."good" is not a thing.

There is no such thing as "good" that we can grab and trace back to someone.

"Good" is a description of the nature of other things.

I dont think God actually made "good"
Rather I believe that God made many other real things that were described as being 'good".

mercy is good
love is good
forgiveness is good.
sunshine is good
walking in the woods is good.

Sometimes evil will get dressed up as good and try to convince us that it is good....
But with a little wisdom you will be able to notice that the goodness of some things is fake.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Umn..."good" is not a thing.

There is no such thing as "good" that we can grab and trace back to someone.

"Good" is a description of the nature of other things.

I dont think God actually made "good"
Rather I believe that God made many other real things that were described as being 'good".

mercy is good
love is good
forgiveness is good.
sunshine is good
walking in the woods is good.

Sometimes evil will get dressed up as good and try to convince us that it is good....
But with a little wisdom you will be able to notice that the goodness of some things is fake.

Still, isn't God the source of all good? Or are there other sources of good?

[alanmolstad]

Still, isn't God the source of all good? Or are there other sources of good?
My guess is you would really have to define the context of how you want me to view the term 'good"

right now all the term means to me is that it describes other things....but is not actually a thing that is "made"

Therefore it would be hard for me to say that God made "good".....
On The Other Hand...
God did make lots of things in Genesis, and they are described as being "good".

Now would I say that God made all things that are good?
the answer to that is again to understand the context of how you want to understand the term.

[alanmolstad]

Perhaps we could replace the word "good" with a word that is way more closely connected to God, and that this would help me understand and answer your question.

"holy" is good.

God is Holy.
God alone in Holy in his nature.
All the rest of things that are called "holy" have a borrowed holiness to them.

Im holy, but only because Im a saved Christian and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
So its the implanted "holiness' of God that now is my own.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Perhaps we could replace the word "good" with a word that is way more closely connected to God, and that this would help me understand and answer your question.

"holy" is good.

God is Holy.
God alone in Holy in his nature.
All the rest of things that are called "holy" have a borrowed holiness to them.

Im holy, but only because Im a saved Christian and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
So its the implanted "holiness' of God that now is my own.

Luke 18:19
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

James 1:17
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Matthew 7:11
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

LDS scriptures also teach that there is only one source for good, and that is God. Not the devil. And I believe this completely.

[alanmolstad]

Luke 18:19
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

.

well you have to define how you want to use the term I guess...

without a common context I dont have any idea how others are using the term.

Oh and by the way , Jesus is good...LOL

[Russianwolfe]

well you have to define how you want to use the term I guess...

without a common context I dont have any idea how others are using the term.

Oh and by the way , Jesus is good...LOL

Then why did Christ say he wasn't?

Marvin

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

well you have to define how you want to use the term I guess...

without a common context I dont have any idea how others are using the term.

Oh and by the way , Jesus is good...LOL

Do we really need to squabble about a definition of "good"?

To me, it is clear what "good" means, especially in the moral context of this thread.

[alanmolstad]

Do we really need to squabble about a definition of "good"?

To me, it is clear what "good" means, especially in the moral context of this thread.
I would need to know what context a word is used in before I can answer a question on how it was used by others...
---------------------------------
an example:

Im Holy
Yet does not the Bible say "Holy, holy, holy art the Lord"?

Im Holy because Im saved and I am a member of the Kingdom as much as Paul is and as much as any Christians are , living or p***ed.

Im Holy not because I am that way in my nature, rather Im Holy because when i become a Christian the Holiness of Christ is credited to me....for only God is Holy in his nature....

Christians are Holy by Grace.

so God has made men Holy
and this is because God is Holy in his nature.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I would need to know what context a word is used in before I can answer a question on how it was used by others...
---------------------------------
an example:

Im Holy
Yet does not the Bible say "Holy, holy, holy art the Lord"?

Im Holy because Im saved and I am a member of the Kingdom as much as Paul is and as much as any Christians are , living or p***ed.

Im Holy not because I am that way in my nature, rather Im Holy because when i become a Christian the Holiness of Christ is credited to me....for only God is Holy in his nature....

Christians are Holy by Grace.

so God has made men Holy
and this is because God is Holy in his nature.

So you prefer not to use the word "good" in reference to God's nature? Instead you want to use the word "holy".

So, how does a person discern holy from unholy?

[alanmolstad]

Then why did Christ say he wasn't?

MarvinYou better drop back and read what he actually said one more time.....:D

[alanmolstad]

So you prefer not to use the word "good" in reference to God's nature? Instead you want to use the word "holy".


well, there are many ways to understand the term "good"...but only one way to understand 'holy"

and we know that the term "holy" can only be used of God.
So it would seem a far better term to suggest you use as it might keep us both on the same page.

[alanmolstad]

So, how does a person discern holy from unholy?
That is a very good question to ask...

Let me think.......

I guess I would say that I would search the Bible to see what is holy and what is not.

[ErikErik]

Then why did Christ say he wasn't?

Marvin

You missed Jesus' point. He was trying to explain that no MAN is good. Yet the rich man called Jesus: good teacher. So Jesus was saying: You call me good. Do you realize what you are saying? If I am, indeed, good, as you say, then I am God. Are you willing to call me God?

This forces the rich man to draw one of two conclusions: either Jesus was not good, or He was God.

[alanmolstad]

Then why did Christ say he wasn't?

Marvin

never got back to me about this....

In the Text we never see Jesus say he was "not good"....

Rather in a conversation with people who were out to trip him up Jesus noticed that they called him "Good", and so Jesus turned this on them and asked them about why they would call him "good" if they knew only God was good?


The point Jesus was leading the guys to was that they were actually correct. Jesus was good, and only God is good....therefore even if the men did not understand what they were truly saying, they had found the truth , in the Jesus = God Almighty, and therefore "good"

[Pa Pa]

never got back to me about this....

In the Text we never see Jesus say he was "not good"....

Rather in a conversation with people who were out to trip him up Jesus noticed that they called him "Good", and so Jesus turned this on them and asked them about why they would call him "good" if they knew only God was good?


The point Jesus was leading the guys to was that they were actually correct. Jesus was good, and only God is good....therefore even if the men did not understand what they were truly saying, they had found the truth , in the Jesus = God Almighty, and therefore "good"
He said..."there is none good but God that send-eth me" sorry about the dash my IPad kept correcting the old English.

[James Banta]

He said..."there is none good but God that send-eth me" sorry about the dash my IPad kept correcting the old English.

What is your reference for this? I have never seen it before.. I have seen this one:


Luke 18:19
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

I praise God you can still hold on to your faith in God. Sometimes that gets difficult when things aren't going good.. It doesn't matter if you believe me or not. I am a human being and I hate to see others in pain or trouble especially when it wasn't of their own making.. IHS jim

[Pa Pa]

What is your reference for this? I have never seen it before.. I have seen this one:


Luke 18:19
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

I praise God you can still hold on to your faith in God. Sometimes that gets difficult when things aren't going good.. It doesn't matter if you believe me or not. I am a human being and I hate to see others in pain or trouble especially when it wasn't of their own making.. IHS jim
Same meaning.

[James Banta]

Same meaning.

The question still remains.. What was your reference? IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

The question still remains.. What was your reference? IHS jim
Im GOOGLEing now.........I will report any findings I come up with...

[alanmolstad]

http://bible.cc/luke/18-19.htm

[alanmolstad]

as for the little 'addition" we saw posted here?.....so far i cant find where such a thing came from?

I will keep looking

[alanmolstad]

He said..."there is none good but God that send-eth me" sorry about the dash my IPad kept correcting the old English.


Im searching for where that little addition is supported?

[alanmolstad]

James, any idea where Papa came up with this little addition to the text at that verse?

I have searched the normal places I go all the time and I have yet to find any support for it....

[alanmolstad]

James, any idea where Papa came up with this little addition to the text at that verse?

I have searched the normal places I go all the time and I have yet to find any support for it....

I have looked up and down and have not been able to confirm the addition to the text that Papa has listed here for us..

it's not a big deal, im used to seeing people add to the text to make their arguments appear stronger, but because this addition was aimed at correcting my own understanding of the Text i took it serious and wanted to see if there was support for Papa's addition or not?

So far i have yet to find any support for it...but Im still looking....

[James Banta]

http://bible.cc/luke/18-19.htm

His is close but it is a totally different wording and I wondered in what translation it was found.. So far he is keeping secret.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

James, any idea where Papa came up with this little addition to the text at that verse?

I have searched the normal places I go all the time and I have yet to find any support for it....

Yes I think h was using in JSP, They call it a translation.. I call it a perversion.. But I am not sure and because he offered it he should have also offered a reference but it looks like he would rather just be a man of mystery.. IHS jim



NOPE, wasn't there either... I don't know ge came up with that wording IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

he kinda ran away when the issue came up I see.......

well then,...thats something for me to make a note of for the future....

[jdjhere]

I was reading this thread and am interested in where Papa got that as well. I cannot find it anywhere either. Papa, can you explain this to us and WHY you are adding to Gods Word?

[alanmolstad]

I was reading this thread and am interested in where Papa got that as well. I cannot find it anywhere either. Papa, can you explain this to us and WHY you are adding to Gods Word?




:eek:



I think what we are seeing is a guy caught with his pants down.....

[alanmolstad]

I have looked up and down and have not been able to confirm the addition to the text that Papa has listed here for us..

it's not a big deal, im used to seeing people add to the text to make their arguments appear stronger, but because this addition was aimed at correcting my own understanding of the Text i took it serious and wanted to see if there was support for Papa's addition or not?

So far i have yet to find any support for it...but Im still looking....



After my final look at the post in question, and doing a search for what Papa was trying to quote...I have come to the conclusion that Papa simply did not know what he was saying.....

[alanmolstad]

He said..."there is none good but God that send-eth me" sorry about the dash my IPad kept correcting the old English.

after this post was made....and challenged, I noticed that this was about the last conversation i ever had with Pa Pa...

What ever happened to him?

[James Banta]

after this post was made....and challenged, I noticed that this was about the last conversation i ever had with Pa Pa...

What ever happened to him?

All it says about him is that he is banned.. That is unusual for the Walter Martin forum.. The only way I know that it someone can do it would be to insult our Host and/or her father.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

I never capitalize the word satan although my spell checker says I should...:rolleyes:

I know that feeling. Mine tells me to cap mormonism but I just have trouble doing it.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

All it says about him is that he is banned.. That is unusual for the Walter Martin forum.. The only way I know that it someone can do it would be to insult our Host and/or her father.. IHS jim

I didnt know that.
I never checked on who was banned around here, so I guess that has to be on my list of things to check on in the future.

Well thats too bad too, for I have no idea about other names he goes under on other forums?


In the context of what I was talking about with him back then, it was that I caught him adding an ending to a verse that just does not appear in the text.

The thing that was so striking was that I know he never would have done this had he suspected he was doing this, (As evidenced by the fact that he was so embarr***ed he never returned again) and so this leads me to believe that whatever source he was using it had blind-sided him.

Im still not sure what source he was quoting, but I have the feeling that from then of he never again trusted it as much as he had been trusting it.
He knows his source really let him down that time.

The problem is that whatever his source was it was adding to the word of god things that do change the meaning of the verse....thus it sure does seem to be a very "****py" source...LOL



Im not sure that Pa Pa was a Mormon or might have been some other CULT, but one thing for sure, his source sure seems to smell like its a CULT'S bible....

[James Banta]

I didnt know that.
I never checked on who was banned around here, so I guess that has to be on my list of things to check on in the future.

Well thats too bad too, for I have no idea about other names he goes under on other forums?


In the context of what I was talking about with him back then, it was that I caught him adding an ending to a verse that just does not appear in the text.

The thing that was so striking was that I know he never would have done this had he suspected he was doing this, (As evidenced by the fact that he was so embarr***ed he never returned again) and so this leads me to believe that whatever source he was using it had blind-sided him.

Im still not sure what source he was quoting, but I have the feeling that from then of he never again trusted it as much as he had been trusting it.
He knows his source really let him down that time.

The problem is that whatever his source was it was adding to the word of god things that do change the meaning of the verse....thus it sure does seem to be a very "****py" source...LOL



Im not sure that Pa Pa was a Mormon or might have been some other CULT, but one thing for sure, his source sure seems to smell like its a CULT'S bible....

Status isn't hard to see. It is listed right under your name. As an example yours says

alanmolstad
alanmolstad is online now
Senior Member

While PaPa's status says

Pa Pa
Pa Pa is offline
Banned.

PaPa is LDS, he was born in a Christian home but rebelled against Biblical teachings and sought out a different way he thought would bring him to God.. He has had a lot of physical problems in life and when God places him on your heart do pray that he will find his way to Jesus, and back to fellowship in a Christian church. He has not been the easiest person here on Water Martin to deal with but for some reason I like him.. I don't believe those affections are returned. I do see PaPa as an honest man who has been seriously poisoned by the lies of mormonism. He has more knowledge of the Bible than most LDS do. That can be good and bad.. Good that he doesn't deny that Jesus, John, and Paul all were very clear on Grace by faith in Jesus as the ONLY way to God. Bad that he has fallen for the misinterpretation of mormonism in p***ages like James 2.. Papa is not always in total agreement with the central leadership of the LDS church. That is a good point we can use to plant in his mind the love of Jesus.. Never stop loving him as Jesus has made clear that He loves Him.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

good post...

[alanmolstad]

Yes I think h was using in JSP, They call it a translation.. I call it a perversion.. jim



Is this what you were talking about ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPS_Tanakh


if so?. then I know nothing about this work and will do some reading to find out about it.
thanks,

[James Banta]

Is this what you were talking about ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPS_Tanakh


if so?. then I know nothing about this work and will do some reading to find out about it.
thanks,

Nothing that deep.. This was what I was talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

holy smoke, thats a new one on me!.,
I had no idea the mormons had that ...

I will check out the link and see if there are a few other surprises

[James Banta]

holy smoke, thats a new one on me!.,
I had no idea the mormons had that ...

I will check out the link and see if there are a few other surprises

Then look here too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible).. I couldn't possible make all this stuff up... IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

You know something James....I looked at the link just now that you provided,and I saw what Joe Smith had been doing.

And it goes against EVERYTHING that a religious person with any fear of God would do....

to the point that as far as Im concerned, Smith can just go rot in Hell....

[James Banta]

You know something James....I looked at the link just now that you provided,and I saw what Joe Smith had been doing.

And it goes against EVERYTHING that a religious person with any fear of God would do....

to the point that as far as Im concerned, Smith can just go rot in Hell....

There is nothing we can do for him. He has sealed his fate by his denial of Jesus and the message of salvation that fills His word. What we can do with this knowledge is lovingly tell those that call him a prophet of God that he was a liar and a fraud.. It is a difficult balancing act. There are many that he today communes with gods making plans for those in the church he started.. No I don't make that up either. It isn't part of their scripture but is celebrated in their church meetings

LDS Hymnal Praise to the Man #27
Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again.

Notice please that they are not looking to the plans of God to guide them but instead to Smith.. Sometime I wish these things were lies that I made up about mormonism but alas, This is the truth they are taught and still to this day believe.. IHS jim