Did Jesus Sin?

[TheSword99]

In another thread it has been insinuated that Jesus Christ was a sinner. Is this what Mormonism teaches?

[theway]

In another thread it has been insinuated that Jesus Christ was a sinner. Is this what Mormonism teaches?LOL... You still don't get it. I was laughing at YOU and how completely ridiculous your accusation was.

Perhaps if you actually reposted my post that you misinterpreted to mean I was saying Jesus sinned.
That way we can all have a good laugh.

[glm1978]

LOL... You still don't get it. I was laughing at YOU and how completely ridiculous your accusation was.

Perhaps if you actually reposted my post that you misinterpreted to mean I was saying Jesus sinned.
That way we can all have a good laugh.

Bruce McConkie:

The man who became the Father was not eternal God. Since he died, he needed to be "resurrected". And once being a sinner, he needed "salvation". That is the theology system of Mormonism.


Guess the last laugh is on you...lol

[Billyray]

LOL... You still don't get it. I was laughing at YOU and how completely ridiculous your accusation was.


So you believe that Jesus was perfect before he was baptized?

[theway]

Bruce McConkie:

The man who became the Father was not eternal God. Since he died, he needed to be "resurrected". And once being a sinner, he needed "salvation". That is the theology system of Mormonism.


Guess the last laugh is on you...lolThat's not my post to which your OP is alluding to.
Post the one where I said Jesus was not perfect.

[glm1978]

That's not my post to which your OP is alluding to.
Post the one where I said Jesus was not perfect.



"He needed baptism to become perfected, but it's also my belief that He needed baptism to be perfect also. Jesus did not pick and chose which of the the Father's commandments He wanted to follow, the way you do."

The above is your post. I don't see anything about Christ being perfect in the above. Seems you keep dodging the simple question Billy has been asking you. Was Jesus perfect before his baptism?

Are you denying that your church teaches God sinned before he became God.

[theway]

"He needed baptism to become perfected, but it's also my belief that He needed baptism to be perfect also. Jesus did not pick and chose which of the the Father's commandments He wanted to follow, the way you do."

The above is your post. I don't see anything about Christ being perfect in the above. Seems you keep dodging the simple question Billy has been asking you. Was Jesus perfect before his baptism?It's very simple... Christ needed to fulfill every jot and ***tle in order for Him to be [complete] perfected

Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth p*** away, one jot or one ***tle shall in no wise p*** from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Had Christ of missed just one prophesy or work of His Father in Heaven, or if Christ left one act of righteousness unfulfilled that would make someone a liar and Jesus not perfect. Christ's mission was not fulfilled and hence He could not be perfected[perfect in all things] until after His resurrection.

"
Are you denying that your church teaches God sinned before he became God.Of course I'm denying that, that's just silly.

[James Banta]

"He needed baptism to become perfected, but it's also my belief that He needed baptism to be perfect also. Jesus did not pick and chose which of the the Father's commandments He wanted to follow, the way you do."

The above is your post. I don't see anything about Christ being perfect in the above. Seems you keep dodging the simple question Billy has been asking you. Was Jesus perfect before his baptism?

Are you denying that your church teaches God sinned before he became God.

WHAT? Just where is the Law Jesus kept by being baptized? Did the baptism of John even have the same authority as Christian baptism? What about those that had received the baptism of John who submitted to Christian baptism:


Acts 19:2-5
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Therefore to equate the Baptism of John which Jesus submitted to with Christian baptism is a mistake.. Even in that a Christian is saved by the cleansing power of the Blood of Jesus not that of mere water, even the waters of baptism. IHS jim

[James Banta]

It's very simple... Christ needed to fulfill every jot and ***tle in order for Him to be [complete] perfected

Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth p*** away, one jot or one ***tle shall in no wise p*** from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Had Christ of missed just one prophesy or work of His Father in Heaven, or if Christ left one act of righteousness unfulfilled that would make someone a liar and Jesus not perfect. Christ's mission was not fulfilled and hence He could not be perfected[perfect in all things] until after His resurrection.
Of course I'm denying that, that's just silly.

GARBAGE! Jesus did all He did because He is perfect not that He had to become prefect.Jesus is God there was no way He could be anything but what He is Perfect.. Just like we can't be anything but what we are SINNERS.. IHS jim

[theway]

GARBAGE! Jesus did all He did because He is perfect not that He had to become prefect.Jesus is God there was no way He could be anything but what He is Perfect.. Just like we can't be anything but what we are SINNERS.. IHS jimThere you go again James changing words. I said He had to become perfected by remaining perfect.

[TheSword99]

WHAT? Just where is the Law Jesus kept by being baptized? Did the baptism of John even have the same authority as Christian baptism? What about those that had received the baptism of John who submitted to Christian baptism:


Acts 19:2-5
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Therefore to equate the Baptism of John which Jesus submitted to with Christian baptism is a mistake.. Even in that a Christian is saved by the cleansing power of the Blood of Jesus not that of mere water, even the waters of baptism. IHS jim

No Jim, glm1978 was quoting theway who said Jesus needed baptism to be perfect.

[TheSword99]

It's
Of course I'm denying that, that's just silly.


Than why did McConkie say God had sinned when he was a man? Even Lorenzo Snow said the same thing.

[theway]

Than why did McConkie say God had sinned when he was a man? Even Lorenzo Snow said the same thing.Well... I already know you are wrong, but I'd like to see you waste time looking for that quote, in those words, and not just your twisted opinion of what they said.

Have fun!

[TheSword99]

Well... I already know you are wrong, but I'd like to see you waste time looking for that quote, in those words, and not just your twisted opinion of what they said.

Have fun!


glm1978 already gave you the quote. Scroll up...lol

You said Christ needed baptism to be perfect. Then you say he was always perfect. Which is it?

Lorenzo Snow says as man is, God once was, If that's true than God must have sinned if he was just like us. So go ahead and tell me he didn't mean what he said.

[TheSword99]

Well... I already know you are wrong, but I'd like to see you waste time looking for that quote, in those words, and not just your twisted opinion of what they said.

Have fun!

BTW, here's a great site that quotes the lds on whether God ever sinned.

www.mrm.org/god-never-sinned

However, I bet you won't have the courage to look at it.

[Libby]

Aaron Shaf?

[Libby]

Btw, there was some study done showing that over 50% of people calling themselves Christian, believed it was possible that Jesus sinned.

That belief is not really all that uncommon.

[Libby]

Sorry, not 50%...but, one third.


Half of Americans who call themselves “Christian” don’t believe Satan exists and fully one-third are confident that Jesus sinned while on Earth, according to a new Barna Group poll.

Another 40 percent say they do not have a responsibility to share their Christian faith with others, and 25 percent “dismiss the idea that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches,” the organization reports.

http://www.wnd.com/2009/01/86312/

[Libby]

Interesting...


By a margin of 71 percent to 26 percent adults “noted that they are personally more likely to develop their own set of religious beliefs than to accept a comprehensive set of beliefs taught by a particular church,” the report said.

Nearly two-thirds of “born again Christians” adopted that stance.

People are starting to think for themselves, more. Personally, I think that's a very good sign.

[RealFakeHair]

There you go again James changing words. I said He had to become perfected by remaining perfect.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.:rolleyes:

[glm1978]

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.:rolleyes:

That's the confusing world of Mormonism. They will say that Jesus needed to be baptized in order to be perfect. Then they say he was always perfect.

[RealFakeHair]

That's the confusing world of Mormonism. They will say that Jesus needed to be baptized in order to be perfect. Then they say he was always perfect.

I ask her every day, " what more you want of a perfect husband?"
Before I give her a chance to answer I pick up my golf clubs and head out the door.

[Libby]

It's not really that confusing.

All "the way" is trying to say is that, if Jesus really did come here to "fulfill the law", there was a process to that. He may have been perfect, but his mission was not complete (perfection was not displayed) until he fulfilled that mission perfectly.

[Billyray]

It's not really that confusing.

All "the way" is trying to say is that, if Jesus really did come here to "fulfill the law", there was a process to that. He may have been perfect, but his mission was not complete (perfection was not displayed) until he fulfilled that mission perfectly.

So you are saying that Jesus was perfect prior to his baptism which of course is what every Christian has said thus far?

[Libby]

I believe Jesus was always perfect, yes. Perfectly God.

[Billyray]

I believe Jesus was always perfect, yes. Perfectly God.
So you seem to disagree with theway then, right?

[theway]

glm1978 already gave you the quote. Scroll up...lol No he didn't, please show where the actual quote is, not an Anti-Mormon opinion



You said Christ needed baptism to be perfect. Then you say he was always perfect. Which is it?So???

If you refused to fulfill all righeousness would He still be perfect?


Lorenzo Snow says as man is, God once was, If that's true than God must have sinned if he was just like us. So go ahead and tell me he didn't mean what he said. Really???? Think Jesus Christ.

[theway]

It's not really that confusing.

All "the way" is trying to say is that, if Jesus really did come here to "fulfill the law", there was a process to that. He may have been perfect, but his mission was not complete (perfection was not displayed) until he fulfilled that mission perfectly.There you go...
Now why do you suppose Anti-mormons have such a hard time with that?
Maybe because it's simple logic.

[Libby]

So you seem to disagree with theway then, right?

I don't think so. I think you guys are misunderstanding what "the way" is saying.

I don't think he is saying Jesus ever sinned. He is simply saying that his "perfecting" was a process. A process which he completed "perfectly".

[Billyray]

I don't think he is saying Jesus ever sinned. He is simply saying that his "perfecting" was a process. A process which he completed "perfectly".
So then both of you would agree that Jesus was perfect before Jesus was baptized. Is that what you are saying?

[theway]

So then both of you would agree that Jesus was perfect before Jesus was baptized. Is that what you are saying?
And around and around she goes...

[Billyray]

And around and around she goes...

So are you finally going to admit that Jesus was perfect before he was baptized??.

[theway]

So are you finally going to admit that Jesus was perfect before he was baptized??.
Oh no you don't... I'm not getting on that merry-go-round ride with you.

[Billyray]

Oh no you don't... I'm not getting on that merry-go-round ride with you.

It is OK to admit that you were wrong.

[Libby]

Except that he wasn't the one who was wrong. You were misunderstanding what he was saying.

[Billyray]

Except that he wasn't the one who was wrong. You were misunderstanding what he was saying.

So you are saying that he meant to say that Jesus was perfect before he was baptized?


Jesus was baptized because He said He needed "to fulfill all righteousness"

Had He not of fulfilled all righteousness would He of still been perfect?
And if He was not perfect, was He still saved?
Libby perhaps you could explain what he meant by this post.

[glm1978]

I don't think so. I think you guys are misunderstanding what "the way" is saying.

I don't think he is saying Jesus ever sinned. He is simply saying that his "perfecting" was a process. A process which he completed "perfectly".

why not let theway speak for himself. When I and others on here mentioned that "being perfect" meant "complete" you posted that we were wresting the scripture to make it mean what we wanted.

The lds cannot have it both ways. To say that Jesus (As well as God) was once a man like us would mean that he was imperfect. If he was imperfect then he sinned. There are no perfect humans. So either Christ was always God the Son, or he was once a mortal who had to learn and grow which includes having been a sinner. Which is it?

Did you even look at the link sword9 submitted? There are lds apologists and others who said it was possible that God had sinned. That my dear is the confusing world of Mormonism.

[glm1978]

So you are saying that he meant to say that Jesus was perfect before he was baptized?


Libby perhaps you could explain what he meant by this post.

Theway has said more than once that Jesus needed to be baptized in order to be perfect. He has placed himself in this quagmire that he cannot get out of. The lds know full well the Lorenzo Snow couplet. If God was once like us, then once upon a time he was not perfect.

[TheSword99]

No he didn't, please show where the actual quote is, not an Anti-Mormon opinion


So???

If you refused to fulfill all righeousness would He still be perfect?

Really???? Think Jesus Christ.

Was Bruce McConkie anti mormon? I will quote what glm1978 posted earlier:

"The man who became the Father was not eternal God. Since he died, he needed to be "resurrected". And once being a sinner, he needed "salvation". (Bruce McConkie)

BTW, why are you afraid to check out the link I submitted? Lots of quotes from the lds about how God could have sinned.

[glm1978]

BTW, why are you afraid to check out the link I submitted? Lots of quotes from the lds about how God could have sinned.

I checked out the link you gave. It's very interesting. I must have spend a good 30 minutes. It was refreshing to hear from individual LDS speak so freely without the influence of the church. I was also amazed how casually they talked about how its possible that God could have sinned as if it were no big deal.

[theway]

Was Bruce McConkie anti mormon? I will quote what glm1978 posted earlier:

"The man who became the Father was not eternal God. Since he died, he needed to be "resurrected". And once being a sinner, he needed "salvation". (Bruce McConkie)
Ths is not a quote of BRM.

This makes 11 times now; NEVER go to an Anti-Mormon source for your information, you will end up embarr***ing yourself.


BTW, why are you afraid to check out the link I submitted? Lots of quotes from the lds about how God could have sinned. If I wanted to read about someone who believes that God sinned, I would go to a Christian site, where 50% of Christians are open to the idea.
Ironically, in studies actually done on this subject, Mormons are the "least likely" of all major religions to hold the belief that God sinned. You guys are always looking for a mote while ignoring the beam in your own eye.

Sorry, but you have embarr***ed yourself again. I suggest you quit while you are behind.

[Billyray]

Ths is not a quote of BRM.

We don't need BRM's quote because we have your quote


Jesus was baptized because He said He needed "to fulfill all righteousness"

Had He not of fulfilled all righteousness would He of still been perfect?
And if He was not perfect, was He still saved?

[James Banta]

There you go again James changing words. I said He had to become perfected by remaining perfect.

Just how does anything become perfect of it was perfect to start with.. Another mystery of mormonism? Like becoming children of God even though mormonism teaches that we are all children of God by right of birth to him in some invented preexistence? I say that Jesus has always been perfect. That unlike us He entered this world PURE where we entered this world with the stain of sin on us. He remained perfect because His nature was good. We entered this world with the nature to do evil because that is our nature.. So Jesus never became righteous, He never gain perfection. These are just part of His nature as God.. But in mormonism there is no eternal God.. There is always a older more powerful god one generation back.. To Christians God is the only God.. There was never any other God formed in the eons of the past and no other God will ever be formed in the eons of time yet in the future.. God alone is God there is no other.. If mormonism reflected the Bible that fact would replace it's false teaching of exaltation.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

No Jim, glm1978 was quoting theway who said Jesus needed baptism to be perfect.


Good he sacred me..

This fact of a difference between John's baptism and Christian baptism is something mormonism just can't understand. Even the story of their Aaronic priesthood's "restoration" see John the Baptist conferring that "authority" on them and not the priesthood of the believer.. It a mix mash of OT and NT and has no truth in it at all.. IHS jim

[theway]

We don't need BRM's quote because we have your quoteAh yes... don't let the fact that you guys were wrong get in the way.

If you look at my post you'll notice all I did was ask two questions.
If you notice further you never answered them; instead you just decided to misrepresent a question and turn it into a statement, because to answer the question would show how bankrupt your argument was, so you'll just pretend it never existed.
We've been down this road a hundred times now Billyray, I'm tired of play the game.
You answer my question directly, then I will answer your's; otherwise have a nice day.

[Billyray]

We've been down this road a hundred times now Billyray, I'm tired of play the game.

Not a game and this is something that you started not me. Jesus was perfect before he was baptized, and Jesus didn't need to be saved.

[theway]

Not a game and this is something that you started not me. Jesus was perfect before he was baptized, and Jesus didn't need to be saved.Answer my questions Billyray; that will be my argument.

[Billyray]

Answer my questions Billyray; that will be my argument.

I would love to hear your argument theway. Let's hear it.

[TheSword99]

Ths is not a quote of BRM.

This makes 11 times now; NEVER go to an Anti-Mormon source for your information, you will end up embarr***ing yourself.

.

I don't know where glm was quoting from, but I did some research on what exactly McConkie said. He wrote, “The Father is a glorified, perfected resurrected, exalted man who worked out his own salvation by obedience” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 64).

So yes, he does mean that God needed to be "saved."

I'm not worried about embarr***ing myself. Again I ask: was McConkie anti mormon?

[TheSword99]

Sorry, but you have embarr***ed yourself again. I suggest you quit while you are behind.

Quit? Why would I ever quit proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ? That would be being disobedient wouldn't it, since Christ commanded we carry out the Great Commission.

Look, theway, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God (and Jesus) was always God, or he was a man. Either Jesus was always perfect or he became perfect. No brother of the devil is the eternal God. Your own prophets have continuously taught that God was once a mortal man who p***ed through a school of earth life similar to that which we are now p***ing. That he became God, an exalted being, through obedience. Therefore, the lds church does not believe in the same God and Jesus Christ of the Holy Scriptures.

[theway]

I would love to hear your argument theway. Let's hear it.Like I said... your answers to my two questions will be my argument. (That is, if it's an actual yes or no answer, and not your usual wishy-washy, maybe yes, maybe no, answer)

[Billyray]

Like I said... your answers to my two questions will be my argument. (That is, if it's an actual yes or no answer, and not your usual wishy-washy, maybe yes, maybe no, answer)


As far as your questions they are hypothetical "what if" questions and I am not going to answer "what if" because we know exactly what Christ did. If you gave an argument I would love to hear it. Thus far I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[theway]

As far as your questions they are hypothetical "what if" questions and I am not going to answer "what if" because we know exactly what Christ did. If you gave an argument I would love to hear it. Thus far I have no idea what you are trying to say.Then I'm not going give you an answer, to do so would be for me to jump onto yet another one of your neverending circular arguments of never ending questions.

[Billyray]

Then I'm not going give you an answer, to do so would be for me to jump onto yet another one of your neverending circular arguments of never ending questions.

This is supposedly your argument and you don't even want to present it? OK

BTW nobody seems to know what on earth you were trying to say and you have an opportunity to try and tell us but it looks like you don't want to.

Bottom line Jesus is God and is perfect. He was perfect before his baptism and he was perfect after his baptism.

[James Banta]

There you go...
Now why do you suppose Anti-mormons have such a hard time with that?
Maybe because it's simple logic.

It's the logic of men not of God.. Jesus was God the whole time he walked among us during His mortal ministry. He was perfect the whole time because it is His nature to be perfect, as it is our nature to be sinners.. The problem here is that both mormons and Libby believe that Jesus is a creation of God and NOT really God.. That He is the creation Himself and not the creator.. If you could believe the Bible just a bit you would see that Jesus created ALL things, all things include Satan, it includes the human spirit.. Anything else is just antibiblical myth.. IHS jim

[theway]

BTW nobody seems to know what on earth you were trying to say and you have an opportunity to try and tell us but it looks like you don't want to.
That's strange???
First you tell me what it is I'm really saying, and then you tell me nobody understands what I am saying?

Libby had no problem with it, same with any LDS.
You are just trying to hard to find something wrong with the LDS, that your whole worldview doesn't make any sense when you can't find anything wrong with what an LDS is saying.

But then I'm not that naive, I know you understand what I am saying, that's why I won't play your game. You just want me to go around and around with you until I make a mistake somewhere; this also keeps you from answering any questions.

[theway]

It's the logic of men not of God.. Jesus was God the whole time he walked among us during His mortal ministry. He was perfect the whole time because it is His nature to be perfect, as it is our nature to be sinners.. The problem here is that both mormons and Libby believe that Jesus is a creation of God and NOT really God.. That He is the creation Himself and not the creator.. If you could believe the Bible just a bit you would see that Jesus created ALL things, all things include Satan, it includes the human spirit.. Anything else is just antibiblical myth.. IHS jimOh I see... so the logic of God is that God is perfect because He says so? That means it is impossible for Jesus to have sinned. That would make Christ's claim to perfection and righteousness meaningless, because there would be nothing to gauge His perfection or righteousness against.

If it is impossible for Jesus to have sinned, then at the same time it would be impossible for Him to have claimed His righteousness.

[James Banta]

That's strange???
First you tell me what it is I'm really saying, and then you tell me nobody understands what I am saying?

Libby had no problem with it, same with any LDS.
You are just trying to hard to find something wrong with the LDS, that your whole worldview doesn't make any sense when you can't find anything wrong with what an LDS is saying.

But then I'm not that naive, I know you understand what I am saying, that's why I won't play your game. You just want me to go around and around with you until I make a mistake somewhere; this also keeps you from answering any questions.

Do you want to know what is wrong with mormonism? I mean Biblically? O have stated the fundamental problem many times.. It is that you have created a different God from the God found in the Bible.. You have three beings and three God (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473). According to Joseph Smith your God became a God and at one time in the past was nothing more than a mortal man (JS, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 302-317). It was taught to the LDS people over the pulpit in conference where even the prophet seer and revelator of the LDS church said AMEN that "If we should take a million of worlds like this and number their particles, we should find that there are more Gods than there are particles of matter in those worlds." (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345). But God tell us through the Prophet that He does know of any other God.


Isaiah 44:8
Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.


Mormonism is therefore teaching a different God(s) than we find in the Bible.. If we have a different foundation other than what we were first given we are in terrible error.. And mormonism has done just that.. It built it's self on a false foundation a god other than the God revealed in the Bible.. That one fact alone proves mormonism to be nothing but an invention of men, A LIE FROM IT'S INCEPTION.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

That's strange???
First you tell me what it is I'm really saying, and then you tell me nobody understands what I am saying?


Because what you have said doesn't make sense. Why don't you just explain what you were trying to say and give us your argument if you have one. Did Jesus need to be baptized to be perfect or was he perfect prior to his baptism?

[Billyray]

Libby had no problem with it, same with any LDS.

I asked her to try and explain what you meant and I didn't see that she ever did. What is so hard just trying to tell us what you meant because it looked like you said Jesus had to be baptized in order to be perfect and to be saved which to me seem nutty since Jesus God and he is perfect before and after he was baptized.

[Billyray]

If it is impossible for Jesus to have sinned, then at the same time it would be impossible for Him to have claimed His righteousness.

Jesus is God and has always been righteous. Are you now saying that he wasn't righteous before his baptism?

[TheSword99]

This is supposedly your argument and you don't even want to present it? OK

BTW nobody seems to know what on earth you were trying to say and you have an opportunity to try and tell us but it looks like you don't want to.

Bottom line Jesus is God and is perfect. He was perfect before his baptism and he was perfect after his baptism.


Amen Billy. We know what he is trying to say. It's what he won't say. The lds say that Jesus had to continue to be perfect in order to complete his role as Savior. What they won't say is that they have had leaders who believe God had to work out His own salvation. That God and man are of the same species and God is now an exalted man. This isn't what God said about Himself in the Scriptures. God never changes. He's the same yesterday, today and forever. Even the BoM says He's the unchangeable God. Same for Jesus who is the Alpha and Omega.

So the lds has a dilemma they cannot fix. If God and Jesus were once men like us, then yes they had to have sinned.

When Jesus was on earth, was he capable of sinning. Could he have chosen to disobey? No, of course Not. God cannot sin. There is nothing evil in His nature.

[TheSword99]

That's strange???
First you tell me what it is I'm really saying, and then you tell me nobody understands what I am saying?

Libby had no problem with it, same with any LDS.
You are just trying to hard to find something wrong with the LDS, that your whole worldview doesn't make any sense when you can't find anything wrong with what an LDS is saying.

But then I'm not that naive, I know you understand what I am saying, that's why I won't play your game. You just want me to go around and around with you until I make a mistake somewhere; this also keeps you from answering any questions.


There is plenty wrong with Mormonism and if you were honest you would admit it. Brigham Young knew nothing about Christianity. He was extremely carnal. His teachings were blasphemous. Look at the Adam-God teaching and his version of blood atonement which was an eye for an eye. Killing a murderer makes one a murderer. Didn't God say vengeance belongs to Him alone. That we are to love our enemies and bless those who hate us? Yet the lds believe they have restored original Christianity with men like Brigham Young and all these other leaders who claimed God is of the same species we are and is now an exalted man. Where does God say that in the Holy Scriptures?

Libby has admitted she doesn't believe in many of your church's doctrines. She has said that she believes in Hinduism and Buddhism and that there are many paths to God.

[Libby]

There is plenty wrong with Mormonism and if you were honest you would admit it.

There is plenty wrong with your religion and "if you were honest you would admit it".

[Libby]

I think I'm beginning to see why you may have been banned from MDD, TS.

Talking to LDS like that, about the religion they hold sacred...plus, demeaning, degrading their leaders, does exactly what? Do you really think any practicing LDS is going to take that kind of talk seriously? I know that they believe that kind of talk is directly from Satan.

Why not just present your own views of religion and lay off the bashing?

[Libby]

Libby has admitted she doesn't believe in many of your church's doctrines.

There is actually a LOT I do agree with, in their basic doctrine. I try to find areas of agreement, instead of always searching out things with which I disagree.

[Billyray]

There is plenty wrong with your religion and "if you were honest you would admit it".
Can you give me an example what is wrong with Christianity?

[Libby]

Can you give me an example what is wrong with Christianity?

I'm not going to retread that water. You should have a pretty good idea of what I believe, by now.

I believe in a loving God...and all of my beliefs stem from that one basic belief.

I am getting ready to take a sabbatical from here. (I'm sure James, at least, will do a happy dance, when he reads this ;))

Need to focus on more positive things. I don't think most of these conversations do anyone much good.

[Billyray]

I believe in a loving God...and all of my beliefs stem from that one basic belief.


So you have made up in your own mind what you want to believe and ignore what the Bible teaches.

[Libby]

So you have made up in your own mind what you want to believe and ignore what the Bible teaches.

I have made up my own mind with God's guidance. And, no, I do not ignore what is taught in the Bible.

[TheSword99]

I think I'm beginning to see why you may have been banned from MDD, TS.

Talking to LDS like that, about the religion they hold sacred...plus, demeaning, degrading their leaders, does exactly what? Do you really think any practicing LDS is going to take that kind of talk seriously? I know that they believe that kind of talk is directly from Satan.

Why not just present your own views of religion and lay off the bashing?


Christ commanded we preach the Gospel, not give personal views.

[TheSword99]

There is actually a LOT I do agree with, in their basic doctrine. I try to find areas of agreement, instead of always searching out things with which I disagree.

Ok, so you believe in Mormonism, Hinduism and Buddhism.

[TheSword99]

I am getting ready to take a sabbatical from here.



A sabbatical sounds like a good idea. All this back and forth bantering really doesn't do much good. I have noticed how much different some of the other forum sites are and I much more enjoy the dialogues and civility there.

[Billyray]

And, no, I do not ignore what is taught in the Bible.

You have admitted on multiple occasions that you don't believe sections of the Bible.

[Billyray]

Need to focus on more positive things. I don't think most of these conversations do anyone much good.

They haven't done you much good because you still hold to your heretical viewpoint but I think that they are illustrative to others who may be reading the board that you postion does not have merit.

[James Banta]

Oh I see... so the logic of God is that God is perfect because He says so? That means it is impossible for Jesus to have sinned. That would make Christ's claim to perfection and righteousness meaningless, because there would be nothing to gauge His perfection or righteousness against.

If it is impossible for Jesus to have sinned, then at the same time it would be impossible for Him to have claimed His righteousness.

Yes it was impossible for Jesus to have sinned.. God is the measure by which perfection is measured. And since He also can't lie, when He says so that is the way it is.. Are you ready to judge Him? You do that and tell Him that He isn't as perfect as you..

Just how is the claim that Jesus is God and therefore perfect make His perfection meaningless? It makes His the pure lamb of God that could be the spotless sacrifice for sin. He had no sin of His own to pay for so He could become the sacrifice for the sins of all sinners.. It was the only way we could become the righteousness of God through Him..

Why under heaven is it impossible for a totally righteous person to claim to be righteous? You have said that it is impossible for that to be the case and yet you have not explained why that can be.. The LDS claim that new born babies are clean before God, so they not? What is cleanliness before God is not sinlessness? disagree that people sin to become sinners.. If sin is their base nature that is why they are sinners and they sin because they are sinners.. God is not a sinner by His nature but rather is perfect is His nature.. Your baseless claim that God can't be righteous if He had never sinned is not logical. Righteousness is righteousness, sin is sin.. A person is either one or the other. It doesn't take a genesis to understand the difference.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Christ commanded we preach the Gospel, not give personal views.

Then, preach the gospel, as you perceive it and stop the bashing.

[Libby]

A sabbatical sounds like a good idea. All this back and forth bantering really doesn't do much good. I have noticed how much different some of the other forum sites are and I much more enjoy the dialogues and civility there.

Yes, that's what I said and I agree. I think all that can be said, has been said. Just a lot of words, really, with little meaning, unless we are applying it in our lives..and moving closer to God.

[TheSword99]

Then, preach the gospel, as you perceive it and stop the bashing.

I wish you well Libby. But I have had enough.

[Libby]

I wish you well Libby. But I have had enough.

No offense intended, TW. I wish you well, also.

[glm1978]

But I have had enough.

There will always be those who will try to silence Christians. Many are closed to the truth which is why they have a low view of the authority and inspiration of the bible, We can show love until we turn blue, but a lot of people will never give up those beliefs that feel right to them. I was on another discussion board where mention of the bible was met with resistance, even hostility. They balk at anyone who expressed absolute statements of faith. These were disenfranchised Mormons who no longer know what to believe nor want to hear what the scriptures teaches. They will turn on you like a pack of vultures.

The apostle Paul never minced words nor compromised his faith. This led to beatings and imprisonments. Many tried to silence Jesus who called the pharisees and other Jews, hypocrites, brood of vipers and white-washed tombs and it led to his death. All we can do is reason from the scriptures. We cannot control how others will respond.

[James Banta]

I wish you well Libby. But I have had enough.

The problem with this site and sites like it is that we can't hold each other and so personal support we could person to person.. The love we hold for the body in general and each other in particular can get lost in the defense for Gospel that must be made here daily.. If you have to leave I for one understand this constant degradation of the Word, the Gospel, and of our Lord Himself can be draining.. But fear friend don't go away feeling alone or that there is no love here is is here between those that love Him, and extended even to those that deny Him.. They can't see it but it is an act of love point to the cross and and act of love revealing the lies of a man.. It is my love toward you that I say if I can't meet you here and have fellowship I will see you and share our experience of standing before our Lord and worshiping Him together.. I am your friend and stand with you IHS, jim

[alanmolstad]

Jesus never sinned.

The Mormon idea of Jesus is a lie....so this is why the Mormons can have all kinds of crazy ideas about both Jesus and the father.

But the Jesus of the bible and the christian church was without sin.

[nrajeffreturns]

Jesus never sinned..
It's always good when people recognize the doctrines that LDS and other Christians agree on.

[RealFakeHair]

It's always good when people recognize the doctrines that LDS and other Christians agree on.

Is there a (doctrine) statement from LDS HQ saying your mormon jesus never sinned?

[alanmolstad]

Is there a (doctrine) statement from LDS HQ saying your Mormon Jesus never sinned?


This question came up a few years ago...

As I remember it, there was a Mormon writer or something, who came out with a book or website where he was pointing out to other Mormons that their Mormon god could sin in the past.

I think the Mormon was just trying to help other Mormons see how their own sins are not a big deal and that even their god was a sinner in the past.

It must be the natural implications of the Mormon teaching that as man is, god was, as god is man may become....
This Mormon knew that all men are sinners, and if this is how their god was too, then their Mormon god was a sinner, case closed.

What i do remember is that a lot of other Mormons took issue with his thinking, yet actually found it hard to say that the guy was wrong.
It's like the other Mormons knew that the guy had a good point, but just did not want this teaching known widely.

[RealFakeHair]

This question came up a few years ago...

As I remember it, there was a Mormon writer or something, who came out with a book or website where he was pointing out to other Mormons that their Mormon god could sin in the past.

I think the Mormon was just trying to help other Mormons see how their own sins are not a big deal and that even their god was a sinner in the past.

It must be the natural implications of the Mormon teaching that as man is, god was, as god is man may become....
This Mormon knew that all men are sinners, and if this is how their god was too, then their Mormon god was a sinner, case closed.

What i do remember is that a lot of other Mormons took issue with his thinking, yet actually found it hard to say that the guy was wrong.
It's like the other Mormons knew that the guy had a good point, but just did not want this teaching known widely.

You are correct, mormons can't believe in their heart of hearts that the mormon jesus didn't sin.
If for a moment it entered their head that the mormon jesus didn't sin then it would leave them hopeless. In NO way could a temple recommend male in good standing with LDSinc. HQ ever have a chance at LDS godhood if the thought of a sinless mormon jesus ever existed.
So the correct answer in the halls of LDSinc HQ is both the mormon jesus and mormon god the father did if fact sin.

[Snow Patrol]

You are correct, mormons can't believe in their heart of hearts that the mormon jesus didn't sin.

How do you guys get away with such blatant lies?



So the correct answer in the halls of LDSinc HQ is both the mormon jesus and mormon god the father did if fact sin.

No, in fact Jesus didn't sin. Another blatant lie.

[alanmolstad]

You are correct, mormons can't believe in their heart of hearts that the mormon jesus didn't sin.
If for a moment it entered their head that the mormon jesus didn't sin then it would leave them hopeless. In NO way could a temple recommend male in good standing with LDSinc. HQ ever have a chance at LDS godhood if the thought of a sinless mormon jesus ever existed.
So the correct answer in the halls of LDSinc HQ is both the mormon jesus and mormon god the father did if fact sin.

Thanks ...
They sure do have a messed idea about God!

[nrajeffreturns]

Is there a (doctrine) statement from LDS HQ saying your mormon jesus never sinned?

"He lived a perfect, sinless life"
http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/08/standing-together-for-the-cause-of-christ?lang=eng&query=sinless

"He was sinless"
http://www.lds.org/new-era/2009/03/why-do-we-baptize-for-the-dead?lang=eng&query=sinless

[nrajeffreturns]

Here are the search hits: http://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=Sinless

[Sir]

Thanks ...
They sure do have a messed idea about God!

No, you guys just obviously make up what you want LDS to believe and then attack that as messed up.

That, ironically, is pretty messed up. But more to the point it is dishonest and reflective of the "christianity" that you guys would have us follow.

[Billyray]

No, you guys just obviously make up what you want LDS to believe and then attack that as messed up.


You believe that Jesus has not always been God. Right?

[nrajeffreturns]

You believe that Jesus has not always been God. Right?

We believe what the Bible says about it to the extent that it gives details. Unfortunately, it doesn't have many details about Jesus' pre-OT history. If such details got written down, they are no longer in the Bible.

[Billyray]

We believe what the Bible says about it to the extent that it gives details. Unfortunately, it doesn't have many details about Jesus' pre-OT history. If such details got written down, they are no longer in the Bible.

But Mormons don't believe that Jesus has always been God. Do you disagree and believe that Jesus has always been God?

[Billyray]

If such details got written down, they are no longer in the Bible.

But you have modern day revelation by your modern day prophets who have given you further information on these topics. Right?

[nrajeffreturns]

But you have modern day revelation by your modern day prophets who have given you further information on these topics. Right?

Right.You are correct.

[Billyray]

Right.You are correct.
And statements by you own prophet has said that God has not always been God. Right?

[nrajeffreturns]

And statements by you own prophet has said that God has not always been God. Right?

Which prophet, and which statements? Are you referring to the King Follet funeral remarks that Joseph Smith made?

[Billyray]

Which prophet, and which statements? Are you referring to the King Follet funeral remarks that Joseph Smith made?

I think the king follett sermon is a perfect example.

[RealFakeHair]

Here are the search hits: http://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=Sinless

No double speak now.
Okay, so the LDSinc HQ go as far back as 1971 saying the (Man) Mormon jesus was sinless, ie perfect.
Question; how far back do you go with the mormon jesus? Do you say he was sinless as a human, but before that time as a spirit child the LDSinc. doesn't know the answer.
Question #1; is it now in the LDSinc. Cannon declaring the mormon jesus never, ever, ever sinned.
Question #3 When was the first recording of LDSinc. Declaring the mormon jesus was sinless?

[nrajeffreturns]

No double speak now.

Oh, so you think that when you asked:


RealFakeHair
Is there a (doctrine) statement from LDS HQ saying your mormon jesus never sinned?

and I made two posts in response, that there was double speak in my answer?

Really? Please state exactly what, to your mind, was double speak.


Okay, so the LDSinc HQ go as far back as 1971 saying the (Man) Mormon jesus was sinless, ie perfect.
Oh, I bet I could find statements dating back into the 1840s affirming the doctrine that Jesus lived a sinless life. If you need more quotes, just say so.


Question; how far back do you go with the mormon jesus?
The Bible goes back as far as "In the beginning," at least. No implication that Jesus sinned there, and LDS agree, of course.

(When it comes to) before the beginning of the creation of the Earth, LDS are privileged and blessed to have scriptures that fill in some gaps, including accounts of a time before "In the beginning" when Lucifer and his followers rebelled against God. Again: LDS scriptures state that Jesus was ALWAYS faithful and obedient to His Father in all things.

I will get you some quotes in my next post. Unless you're satisfied that I know what I am talking about and you really don't need verses quoted to prove it.

[James Banta]

Oh, so you think that when you asked:



and I made two posts in response, that there was double speak in my answer?

Really? Please state exactly what, to your mind, was double speak.


Oh, I bet I could find statements dating back into the 1840s affirming the doctrine that Jesus lived a sinless life. If you need more quotes, just say so.


The Bible goes back as far as "In the beginning," at least. No implication that Jesus sinned there, and LDS agree, of course.

(When it comes to) before the beginning of the creation of the Earth, LDS are privileged and blessed to have scriptures that fill in some gaps, including accounts of a time before "In the beginning" when Lucifer and his followers rebelled against God. Again: LDS scriptures state that Jesus was ALWAYS faithful and obedient to His Father in all things.

I will get you some quotes in my next post. Unless you're satisfied that I know what I am talking about and you really don't need verses quoted to prove it.

The only problem I have with your statement is teaching that Lucifer and his followers existed in the beginning. The Bible teaches that in the beginning God created the HEAVENS and the EARTH.. At the earth's creation it was formless and void. Would not heaven had been the same? The idea that our spirits were first created in a heaven (preexistence) is countered by the teaching of the Holy Spirit as He gave revelation to the prophet Zechariah. He taught that God created the spirits of men within them.. Unless our bodies are the preexistence Smith and all the teachers of mormonism since that teach that doctrine are flat wrong..

This is a point in mormon doctrine that just doesn't conform to the word of God.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Oh, so you think that when you asked:



and I made two posts in response, that there was double speak in my answer?

Really? Please state exactly what, to your mind, was double speak.


Oh, I bet I could find statements dating back into the 1840s affirming the doctrine that Jesus lived a sinless life. If you need more quotes, just say so.


The Bible goes back as far as "In the beginning," at least. No implication that Jesus sinned there, and LDS agree, of course.

(When it comes to) before the beginning of the creation of the Earth, LDS are privileged and blessed to have scriptures that fill in some gaps, including accounts of a time before "In the beginning" when Lucifer and his followers rebelled against God. Again: LDS scriptures state that Jesus was ALWAYS faithful and obedient to His Father in all things.

I will get you some quotes in my next post. Unless you're satisfied that I know what I am talking about and you really don't need verses quoted to prove it.

Thank you for your response. However we can't leave it just quite yet. What I mean by double speak, is this. LDS and Christians use the same language, but have different definitions. In LDSinc. doctrine, Jesus and Heavenly Father are two different gods, and it Christians doctrine The Son Jesus and Hevenly Father are one Godhood, and not two different gods. So when we say Jesus never sinned that means the Godhood never sinned. However in mormon speak you may say the mormon jesus never sinned after the age of accountability here on earth, but you can't say or know if he ever sinned before coming to earth, and you can't say his mormon heavenly father ever sinned or not.
Can you tell me now that your mormon heavenly father never sinned, and this is LDSinc. doctrine?

[Snow Patrol]

Thank you for your response. However we can't leave it just quite yet. What I mean by double speak, is this. LDS and Christians use the same language, but have different definitions. In LDSinc. doctrine, Jesus and Heavenly Father are two different gods, and it Christians doctrine The Son Jesus and Hevenly Father are one Godhood, and not two different gods.

You are using doublespeak here in your own definition of doublespeak. You say the LDS believe Jesus and Heavenly Father are two different Gods but then describe your belief as Jesus and Heavenly Father are one Godhood. The definition of Godhood is "The quality or state of being a god; divinity." In that description, as well as our own beliefs, we absolutely believe and teach that Jesus and The Father are part of the Godhead or Godhood as you describe your beliefs.

[RealFakeHair]

You are using doublespeak here in your own definition of doublespeak. You say the LDS believe Jesus and Heavenly Father are two different Gods but then describe your belief as Jesus and Heavenly Father are one Godhood. The definition of Godhood is "The quality or state of being a god; divinity." In that description, as well as our own beliefs, we absolutely believe and teach that Jesus and The Father are part of the Godhead or Godhood as you describe your beliefs.

Oh, Sir, why, oh, why do you do this. There is but 1 God, now stop that!

[Snow Patrol]

Oh, Sir, why, oh, why do you do this. There is but 1 God, now stop that!

You must have had a reason you wrote "Godhood" and not one God. Do you believe God and Godhood have the exact same meaning?

[alanmolstad]

You must have had a reason you wrote "Godhood" and not one God. Do you believe God and Godhood have the exact same meaning?
Thats a good question...I think they have mostly the same meaning, but we should look how the words are used in the Bible to see if it matters?...

I dont think it matters, but we should read the text to confirm this....


Reminds me of a time I was talking to a JW and they noticed I wrote a sentence about Jesus and used the term "mighty God"

The JW was attempting to make a big deal that i did not use the term "almighty God"

I just smiled at this....I mean it is true i used the term "mighty" and not "almighty", but in my context I really dont think I meant there was any difference in the terms.....regardless of what the dictionary might say....

[RealFakeHair]

You must have had a reason you wrote "Godhood" and not one God. Do you believe God and Godhood have the exact same meaning?

Here is a good example why mormons and christians are like salt and pepper, you can mix them together, but the pepper will always be pepper and the salt will aways be salt. It might make for a good cake, but not religious wedding.
When a Christian says, Godhood, we mean, The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, three persons, 1 God, or Godhood or Godhead.
When a Mormon says, Godhood, that could mean any number between 2 and 2 trillion or more.
We will never be together on this and that is find, although LDSinc. have come more to the middle over the last 50 + years on the Godhead. The use of the term, (one in mind, power and wisdom and purpous.) Serparate beings, you now call it. So you are getting closer, who knows maybe some day?

[alanmolstad]

Here is a good example why mormons and christians are like salt and pepper, you can mix them together, but the pepper will always be pepper and the salt will aways be salt. It might make for a good cake, ........

?

ah yes, many times I have complemented the Bride at a wedding , "I just love all the pepper you added in your wedding cake!"

[RealFakeHair]

?

ah yes, many times I have complemented the Bride at a wedding , "I just love all the pepper you added in your wedding cake!"

Just don't eat any of my wedding cake. lol

[nrajeffreturns]

Thank you for your response. However we can't leave it just quite yet.
But you DO accept that it really is LDS doctrine that Jesus is sinless? You admit that it's a double-speaking lie to say that LDS believe that Jesus has ever sinned? Correct?


What I mean by double speak, is this. LDS and Christians use the same language, but have different definitions. In LDSinc. doctrine
Well, we might have a case of doublespeak right here: When LDS use the term "church" they use commonly accepted definitions, but anti-LDS people feel some need to twist it and re-define it so they can avoid calling a church a church, and can instead replace it with "inc." as an insulting pejorative, in order to poison the well of mature, meaningful discussion.


, Jesus and Heavenly Father are two different gods
Not different, really. Just separate. LDS believe the Bible verse that says that Jesus is like His Father in every way. In fact, LDS seem to believe that verse more than a lot of other Christians do.


, and it Christians doctrine The Son Jesus and Hevenly Father are one Godhood
Is there any chance that the term you're trying to use is actually Godhead?


So when we say Jesus never sinned that means the Godhood never sinned.
***uming you can speak on behalf of all Christianity when you say "We believe ___" your claim, when taken to its logical conclusion, seems to lead to the idea that everything Jesus DIDN'T do, the other 2 Persons of the Trinity didn't do as well. So everything God the Father didn't do, God the Son didn't do. Do you see where that reasoning can lead? If you believe that God the Father was never mortal, then you have to believe that Jesus was never mortal either. Such reasoning sounds more like Docetism than Trinitarianism.

[Billyray]

Not different, really. Just separate. LDS believe the Bible verse that says that Jesus is like His Father in every way. In fact, LDS seem to believe that verse more than a lot of other Christians do.

Which makes you a polytheist. But the Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God.

[RealFakeHair]

But you DO accept that it really is LDS doctrine that Jesus is sinless? You admit that it's a double-speaking lie to say that LDS believe that Jesus has ever sinned? Correct?


Well, we might have a case of doublespeak right here: When LDS use the term "church" they use commonly accepted definitions, but anti-LDS people feel some need to twist it and re-define it so they can avoid calling a church a church, and can instead replace it with "inc." as an insulting pejorative, in order to poison the well of mature, meaningful discussion.


Not different, really. Just separate. LDS believe the Bible verse that says that Jesus is like His Father in every way. In fact, LDS seem to believe that verse more than a lot of other Christians do.


Is there any chance that the term you're trying to use is actually Godhead?


***uming you can speak on behalf of all Christianity when you say "We believe ___" your claim, when taken to its logical conclusion, seems to lead to the idea that everything Jesus DIDN'T do, the other 2 Persons of the Trinity didn't do as well. So everything God the Father didn't do, God the Son didn't do. Do you see where that reasoning can lead? If you believe that God the Father was never mortal, then you have to believe that Jesus was never mortal either. Such reasoning sounds more like Docetism than Trinitarianism.

LDSinc. only believe the mormon jesus was sinless from about 8 or so years of age. I mean you do agree the mormon jesus could have sinned before the age of 8 and not be held against him, correct?
Anyways, this is where LDSinc. have a problem, on the one hand they say a mormon male with a temple recommend who obeys all the rules and commandment of the LDSinc. HQ, and so forth can one day in the future become just like the mormon jesus and or mormon heavenly father. Own your own planet, just don't name it Kobol or try and steal any of Joseph Smith jr, or Brigham Youngs virgins.
If you do all this and with a little luck you can be called a mormon god too.
Now here is the problem with Joseph Smith jr. imaginary mind religion, you can't make it to LDSinc. godhood. It is impossible if has you believe the mormon jesus did not sin after the age of 8 here on earth and as you know in order to become a mormon god you gotta follow the mormon jesus example and be sinless too.
Just thank for a moment, your religion is a lie, a ****able lie, your whole system is based on a mountain of fraudulent hurdles. For every loop a good mormon male jumps through there is another one just ahead and more difficult to achive, and in the end the golden ring is just one step to far.
Do you even see how sad that is?
Do you ever feel ashame of your faith in Joseph Smith jr.?
Your whole system is a fraude and an abuse of every young boy from the age of 8 and until death, the impossible dream of a lie called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
How sad indeed.

[nrajeffreturns]

LDSinc. only believe the mormon jesus was sinless from about 8 or so years of age.
That could only be true if ANTI-LDS, Inc., to which YOU belong, believes that Jesus and Satan are the same person. In other words, you made a false statement that any LDS here would also condemn as false.


I mean you do agree the mormon jesus could have sinned before the age of 8 and not be held against him, correct?
Maybe you should read what Christ's words in the Book of Mormon say about your false idea, and then you won't feel like ever trotting your false statement out in public again.


Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin;
(Book of Mormon | Moroni 8:8)

Just think for a moment, your false statement is a lie, a ****able lie, your whole system is based on a mountain of fraudulent accusations against the LDS.

Do you even see how sad that is?

Do you ever feel ashamed of your faith in Ed Decker?

Your whole system is a fraud and an abuse of every gullible person who believes the false things you say about the LDS, the impossible dream of a lie called anti-LDSism.
How sad indeed.

[Billyray]

That could only be true if ANTI-LDS, Inc., to which YOU belong, believes that Jesus and Satan are the same person. In other words, you made a false statement that any LDS here would also condemn as false.


I was raised LDS and I don't recall ever being taught that Jesus sinned.

[nrajeffreturns]

I was raised LDS and I don't recall ever being taught that Jesus sinned.

Thank you. Any chance Real Fake will believe you? Because he doesn't seem to believe it when I tell him.

[Libby]

I wasn't taught that, either.

But, I have seen Aaron's videos and some LDS do seem to believe it's possible. But, they are surmising that on their own, because it's really not taught.

[Billyray]

I wasn't taught that, either.

But, I have seen Aaron's videos and some LDS do seem to believe it's possible. But, they are surmising that on their own, because it's really not taught.
Let me expand on my what I said earlier. I was never taught that Jesus sinned. However when speaking about the Father it wasn't so clear especially with the Lorenzo Snow couplet, and that is perhaps why some LDS believe that te father could have sinned.

[TheSword99]

The lds are never clear on many of their teachings. Sometimes they "appear" to be on both sides of the issues. They do teach that God the Father had to "work out his own salvation." That says that He was capable of sinning. But the lds will never admit that. The fact is, if God and Jesus were once men like us, that means they sinned just as well as we All do. So why the denials?

[Billyray]

The fact is, if God and Jesus were once men like us, that means they sinned just as well as we All do. So why the denials?

I think that you will find that most LDS believe that Jesus was sin free. However with the Father it is not as clear because this topic --at least when I was LDS--wasn't something that came up other than the odd occasion such as when discussing the Lorenzo Snow couplet.

[TheSword99]

I think that you will find that most LDS believe that Jesus was sin free. However with the Father it is not as clear because this topic --at least when I was LDS--wasn't something that came up other than the odd occasion such as when discussing the Lorenzo Snow couplet.

Like I said, the lds are rarely clear on any of their peculiar beliefs.

[nrajeffreturns]

I think that you will find that most LDS believe that Jesus was sin free. However with the Father it is not as clear because this topic --at least when I was LDS--wasn't something that came up other than the odd occasion such as when discussing the Lorenzo Snow couplet.

That seems pretty accurate, except it's not at all hard to conclude that Jesus' Father is as sinless as Jesus is.

1. Jesus never sinned.
2. Jesus said He did only what He saw His Father do.
3. The Bible says that Jesus is like His Father in every way.

Ergo, all the scriptural evidence points toward Jesus' Father being as sinless as Jesus is.
And there is no evidence that would suggest otherwise. There might be conjecture and speculation by some Aaronites or by people wanting to play his game, but again: No evidence.

[Snow Patrol]

When a Christian says, Godhood, we mean, The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, three persons, 1 God, or Godhood or Godhead.

Ok, so you use these words interchangably, correct? God, Godhood, Godhead. To you there is no difference in the definition?

[Billyray]

That seems pretty accurate, except it's not at all hard to conclude that Jesus' Father is as sinless as Jesus is.

1. Jesus never sinned.
2. Jesus said He did only what He saw His Father do.
3. The Bible says that Jesus is like His Father in every way.

Ergo, all the scriptural evidence points toward Jesus' Father being as sinless as Jesus is.
And there is no evidence that would suggest otherwise. There might be conjecture and speculation by some Aaronites or by people wanting to play his game, but again: No evidence.But if you take the Lorenzo Snow couplet as written one could conclude that the Father sinned.

[Billyray]

Ok, so you use these words interchangably, correct? God, Godhood, Godhead. To you there is no difference in the definition?

Christians agree that there is only one God.

[Billyray]

Like I said, the lds are rarely clear on any of their peculiar beliefs.

I agree and different LDS have different beliefs.

[Snow Patrol]

Christians agree that there is only one God.

Oh, Billyray, the funny thing is that you even quoted my questions in your response and didn't come near answering either of the questions. Let's try again...

"Ok, so you use these words interchangably, correct? God, Godhood, Godhead. To you there is no difference in the definition?"

[Billyray]

"Ok, so you use these words interchangably, correct? God, Godhood, Godhead. To you there is no difference in the definition?"
I don't use the terms Godhood or Godhead (unless specifically discussing LDS beliefs) so I don't use these terms interchangeably.

[nrajeffreturns]

I don't use the terms Godhood or Godhead (unless specifically discussing LDS beliefs) so I don't use these terms interchangeably.

Like I said, the evangelicals are rarely clear on any of their peculiar beliefs. Some use multiple words interchangeably, while others don't. It makes it hard to pin them down on exactly what it is they believe in.

[Billyray]

Like I said, the evangelicals are rarely clear on any of their peculiar beliefs. Some use multiple words interchangeably, while others don't. It makes it hard to pin them down on exactly what it is they believe in.
I gave you my answer. What exactly are you having a hard time with? BTW "Godhood" is not used in the KJV or the modern translations such as the NASB or the ESV. "Godhead" is used in the KJV but not in the modern versions such as the NASB or the ESV.

KJV
NASB

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
Acts 17:29 “Being then the offspring of God, we aought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

Rom. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Col. 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col. 2:9 For in Him all the afulness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

[nrajeffreturns]

I gave you my answer.

And it doesn't match up with your buddy's answer. Hence the problem.


What exactly are you having a hard time with? BTW "Godhood" is not used in the KJV or the modern translations such as the NASB or the ESV
Have you told RealFakeHair about this fact?


Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
Acts 17:29 “Being then the offspring of God, we aought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

Well, the divine nature is something we have the potential to partake of, according to the Bible. Is that heresy?

[Billyray]

And it doesn't match up with your buddy's answer. Hence the problem.

I am not sure what the big issue is. Is there a point you are trying to make?

[Billyray]

Well, the divine nature is something we have the potential to partake of, according to the Bible. Is that heresy?

The LDS belief that you can become a god is heresy.

[alanmolstad]

Here it is....

http://www.godneversinned.com/



I dont think this idea that the Mormon god is a sinner is actually one of my Christian brother's ideas...

I think we found this stuff
I think it was an idea that Mormons have been kicking around for a while and it just suddenly showed up on the web and is now getting a lot more play

[alanmolstad]

I think the idea that the Mormon god is a sinner is an idea that many Mormons understood well, but us Christians don't really bump into at the door when sharing with a Mormon visitor.

Telling people you think your own god is a sinner is likely a bit embarr***ing to be sure.

But because of the internet this idea is getting out there to more and more Christians, and thus we see the issue raised now with Mormons.
What really has spread the word are the Mormons who enjoy posting their views on the internet.
This has allowed ideas that perhaps were not much spoken about off the Mormon reservation to now be seen and spread across the world.

It was because of such links I have seen on a different forum that is the reason I came to first learn that some Mormons were really pushing this Mormon idea that their god was a sinner.

Im not sure, but I don't think I remember even the great Walter Martin much raising this issue on his show?

I did not really have a clue about the concept of a "sinning god" before I saw a link posted that took me to a website where a Mormon theology teacher/web-writer was laying out the case for the teaching that his god could be known to be a sinner.

Right now there are a lot more websites where you can find Mormons talking about this idea....GOOGLE and BING the topic and it shows you that this issue is starting to get raised more and more on forums.

[James Banta]

Here it is....

http://www.godneversinned.com/



I dont think this idea that the Mormon god is a sinner is actually one of my Christian brother's ideas...

I think we found this stuff
I think it was an idea that Mormons have been kicking around for a while and it just suddenly showed up on the web and is now getting a lot more play

Lets think about this.. The LDS doctrine of eternal progression teaches that that God was once a man like we are, that He lived a life that included all the LDS requirements for exaltation that includes repentance. Why would a sinless being require repentance? Still if he was a man the same as the rest of us repentance IS required. Then there is the concept that they believe they will be exalted and become a Heavenly Father to a new generation of spirit Children.. They will then become these spirit children's God, a God that had been a sinner. Since they believe that the generations of Gods are one eternal round then there are gods in the genealogy of our Father in Heaven that have been sinners even if He himself was a Christ for his world.

If all the Gods the LDS insist are in existence were all the Christs of their Father in Heaven worlds then it goes that only Jesus can be exalted.. This is a problem for LDS that demand that the Father was never a sinner. A problem that threats the very purpose for the mormon gospel. They teach that (Moses 1:39) For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to p*** the immortality and eternal life of man. Either it is possible and even probably that the Father was a sinner or it is NOT possible for the LDS to gain eternal life.. And the work and glory of their God in nothing but a lie.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

I am not sure what the big issue is. Is there a point you are trying to make?
The point is that when you point a finger at another church and accuse their beliefs of being unclear, your own beliefs have 3 fingers pointing back at them.

[nrajeffreturns]

I dont think this idea that the Mormon god is a sinner is actually one of my Christian brother's ideas...
I think we found this stuff

You think wrong IMO.


I think it was an idea that Mormons have been kicking around for a while and it just suddenly showed up on the web and is now getting a lot more play
I have been LDS for 50 years, and this "theory" never came up until some anti such as Aaron S. dreamed up this loophole.

[Billyray]

I have been LDS for 50 years, and this "theory" never came up until some anti such as Aaron S. dreamed up this loophole.

With the Lorenzo Snow couplet it has always been there Jeff.

[Billyray]

The point is that when you point a finger at another church and accuse their beliefs of being unclear, your own beliefs have 3 fingers pointing back at them.
Godhead and Godhood are terms that lds use that other Christians rarely if ever use. Since leaving Mormonism I don't think I have heard either terms used once by any other Christian.

[nrajeffreturns]

With the Lorenzo Snow couplet it has always been there Jeff.

Nope. With MISINTERPRETATION of the couplet as a possibility, it has always had the POTENTIAL to be MISCONSTRUED into what Aaron misconstrued it INTO.

Suppose an anti-Trinitarian went around ambushing Trinitarians, and quoting Bible verses that could be interpreted as supporting Modalism. Verses like "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." Then suppose that person said "With Bible verses like these, Modalism has always been there."

Would you agree with that person's claim? Or would you argue, as I did, that just because such interpretations of the verses are POSSIBLE, it doesn't mean that such a DOCTRINE is actually part of the religion ?

[Libby]

Fact is, a LOT of Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus sinned, as well.

1 in 3 Christians say Jesus Sinned (http://www.wnd.com/2009/01/86312/)

[nrajeffreturns]

Godhead and Godhood are terms that lds use that other Christians rarely if ever use. Since leaving Mormonism I don't think I have heard either terms used once by any other Christian.

See Post # 104. Unless you're saying that Realfakehair is not any other Christian, so his use of it doesn't count....

[Billyray]

See Post # 104. Unless you're saying that Realfakehair is not any other Christian, so his use of it doesn't count....

I am saying that these terms are rarely if ever used among Christians. When discussing things with LDS these terms do come up because they are terms that you use. Another example is the term "exaltation" when referring to salvation. This is a term that LDS use that Christian rarely if ever usd.

[Billyray]

Fact is, a LOT of Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus sinned, as well.

1 in 3 Christians say Jesus Sinned (http://www.wnd.com/2009/01/86312/)

True Christians who have an ounce of knowledge about the Bible know that Jesus did not sin. A lot of people who claim to be Christian are not truly Christian, they are tares mixed together with the wheat.

[Billyray]

Nope. With MISINTERPRETATION of the couplet as a possibility, it has always had the POTENTIAL to be MISCONSTRUED into what Aaron misconstrued it INTO.


Jeff if you read the Lorenzo Snow as written you come to the conclusion that the Father was just like us AND that we can become like him.

[nrajeffreturns]

Jeff if you read the Lorenzo Snow as written you come to the conclusion that the Father was just like us AND that we can become like him.

Except the word "just" is absent from the actual statement. By adding it, you imply that God was exactly like we are in all ways. And since one of the things we are is sinners, you can jump to the unwarranted, irresponsible conclusion that it's saying that God was once a sinner. This is the kind of misconstrued interpretation, basically extrapolation, that I was talking about in my previous post.

In context, it is fairly apparent that the way in which God was once like us, is in the area of MORTALITY.

Since LDS believe that Jesus is a lot like His Father, we could use Jesus' life as an example of the couplet being true:

As Jesus once was (mortal), mankind now is.

As Jesus now is (immortal and glorified and an heir to the Father's kingdom), mankind may become.

Those 2 statements don't require Jesus to have sinned while HE was a mortal in order to be true, so they also don't require His Father to have been a sinner when HE was mortal, in order for the statements to be true.

It's only Aaronesque people who WANT people to BELIEVE that God once sinned or that the idea exists in LDSism, who read stuff into the couplet that aren't there. Aaron's motives for misinterpreting it are obvious.

There are plenty of things that LDS actually DO believe that Aaron could attack if he wanted to. He deliberately chose this idea, that we DON'T believe, because he realized he could make some waves with it and get some attention.

An anti-Trinitarian could do similarly with a Bible statement and stir up trouble for no good reason.
"It says right in the Bible that God has wings, and that God will gather Israel like a chicken gathers her chicks. Therefore, Trinitarians believe that God is a giant chicken!"

When of course you don't believe that.

[Billyray]

Except the word "just" is absent from the actual statement. .

"As man is God once was, as God is man may be."

So what you are saying is that God was not "As man is"

And on the flip side man may not be a god.

[nrajeffreturns]

"As man is God once was, as God is man may be."
And "as" means "like" in this context. But not EXACTLY like. Not identical to. Inferring those extra words for political gainsaying, is a textbook case of eisegesis.


So what you are saying is that God was not "As man is"
What I and Pres. Snow did NOT say is that God was JUST like we are. If we'd wanted to say that, we could have.

Here is a story to help you realize the point: Billionaire Bill Gates is a man who made a fortune by having some genius ideas, and working for many years to make them pay off. Long ago, he was a high school student with little money, but now he is a billionaire. Suppose he decides to leave his son 2 billion of his money as an inheritance. His will states that if the son meets a few conditions, then he will become a billionaire, as his dad now is. Suppose the conditions are:

1. Must not have any felony convictions.
2. Must graduate from high school.

Currently, as the son now is, his dad once was (poor, and not yet a high school grad).
But as the dad now is, the son may become (a high school grad who is a billionaire)

Saying that "as the son now is, his dad once was" does not mean that the dad was EXACTLY like the son. And it doesn't mean that the son has to do exactly what the dad did to become a billionaire. The son doesn't need to have an ingenious idea and market it lucratively. All the son needs to do is some relatively easy things, and the money will be GIVEN to him.

[James Banta]

And "as" means "like" in this context. But not EXACTLY like. Not identical to. Inferring those extra words for political gainsaying, is a textbook case of eisegesis.


What I and Pres. Snow did NOT say is that God was JUST like we are. If we'd wanted to say that, we could have.

Here is a story to help you realize the point: Billionaire Bill Gates is a man who made a fortune by having some genius ideas, and working for many years to make them pay off. Long ago, he was a high school student with little money, but now he is a billionaire. Suppose he decides to leave his son 2 billion of his money as an inheritance. His will states that if the son meets a few conditions, then he will become a billionaire, as his dad now is. Suppose the conditions are:

1. Must not have any felony convictions.
2. Must graduate from high school.

Currently, as the son now is, his dad once was (poor, and not yet a high school grad).
But as the dad now is, the son may become (a high school grad who is a billionaire)

Saying that "as the son now is, his dad once was" does not mean that the dad was EXACTLY like the son. And it doesn't mean that the son has to do exactly what the dad did to become a billionaire. The son doesn't need to have an ingenious idea and market it lucratively. All the son needs to do is some relatively easy things, and the money will be GIVEN to him.

Doesn't this mean that a man can gain all the divine attributes that are possessed by God? Would it not be true that such a being would have spirit children that would call him their Father in Heaven? Would they see such a being as their God just as LDS do the created being they call God? IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Doesn't this mean that a man can gain all the divine attributes that are possessed by God?
Maybe you should tell us what you believe all those attributes are.

If you can stay with the topic, the topic here and now is whether the phrase "As man now is, God once was" was intended to mean that "Because mankind now sins, God once sinned." Or whether people who believe that's what it was intended to mean, are guilty of reading more into it than it really says.

Do you have an actual opinion on THAT issue that you'd like to share with the readers, Jim? If not, all you need to do is say "I don't have an opinion on that."

[James Banta]

Maybe you should tell us what you believe all those attributes are.

If you can stay with the topic, the topic here and now is whether the phrase "As man now is, God once was" was intended to mean that "Because mankind now sins, God once sinned." Or whether people who believe that's what it was intended to mean, are guilty of reading more into it than it really says.

Do you have an actual opinion on THAT issue that you'd like to share with the readers, Jim? If not, all you need to do is say "I don't have an opinion on that."

haven't I made this clear? The Bible tells us that God has been God from everlasting and will be God to everlasting future? With that is mind as the basic truth as to how long God has been God when did he have time to have once been a man, or sin in any way? Since there has never been even one moment when God was not God how could He have sinned? The whole concept that God was once a mere man and not God even while He walked among us in mortality is BLASPHEMY (Colossians 2:9).. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Thanks for agreeing that people are wrong if they think the phrase "As man now is, God once was" was intended to mean that "Because mankind now sins, God once sinned."

I agree with you that it's absurd to jump to such a conclusion.


Thanks for making your opinion on this issue clear.

[MacG]

Jeff, Thanks for verifying that the Ensign and articles from the Twelve are good for LDS doctrine. I had heard that they are not. :)

[nrajeffreturns]

Jeff, Thanks for verifying that the Ensign and articles from the Twelve are good for LDS doctrine. I had heard that they are not. :)
Who were you hearing it from? And what has it to do with the ****amamie idea that God is a sinner?

[Billyray]

Thanks for agreeing that people are wrong if they think the phrase "As man now is, God once was" was intended to mean that "Because mankind now sins, God once sinned."

I agree with you that it's absurd to jump to such a conclusion.


"As man is God once was, as God is man may be."

It is not absurd at all to conclude that God sinned based on this couplet. If God was "as nan is now" then God would be as "man is now" which is a sinner. Also this is strengthened by the other half of the couplet in that "as God is man may be". He was like us and we may become like him. If he was never like us how can we ever expect to become like him?

[RealFakeHair]

See Post # 104. Unless you're saying that Realfakehair is not any other Christian, so his use of it doesn't count....

I love it when you talk about me, but really, it is a non-issue. We Christians believe in The Trinity, to us there is but 1 God.
****ing smoke is a no no for an LDSinc, card carring member, aint it?

[James Banta]

Thanks for agreeing that people are wrong if they think the phrase "As man now is, God once was" was intended to mean that "Because mankind now sins, God once sinned."

I agree with you that it's absurd to jump to such a conclusion.


Thanks for making your opinion on this issue clear.

It would be nice to see you answer my questions with at least the same fidelity I answer yours. I asked "The Bible tells us that God has been God from everlasting and will be God to everlasting future. With that is mind as the basic truth as to how long God has been God when did he have time to have once been a man, or sin in any way? Since there has never been even one moment when God was not God how could He have sinned? The whole concept that God was once a mere man and not God even while He walked among us in mortality is BLASPHEMY" Answer these questions in the light of Psalm 90:2.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

I love it when you talk about me, but really, it is a non-issue.
It became an issue when you mentioned "godhood" and someone else said that real Christians almost never use that word.

[MacG]

Who were you hearing it from? And what has it to do with the ****amamie idea that God is a sinner?

I could be misremembering stuff it seems to me that whenever old light teachings are brought up like say the Adam God doctrine or Father God living on a planet near Kolob etc., these 'fringe' doctrines that one the face are at variance with the bible etc. it is stated that those things are not published in official good-for-doctrine publications; newsletters and opinion pieces is really what they amount to so in that light I found it odd that you referenced the Ensign as your authority. It needs to be in BoM, PoGP, Doctrine and Covenants, etc.

As for God being a sinner that would be ludicrous. However if the Adam God doctrine was true for a time then that Adam sinned but the Exalted Adam-God would not have.

[nrajeffreturns]

I could be misremembering stuff
I agree.


it seems to me that whenever old light teachings are brought up like say the Adam God doctrine or Father God living on a planet near Kolob etc., these 'fringe' doctrines that one the face are at variance with the bible etc. it is stated that those things are not published in official good-for-doctrine publications; newsletters and opinion pieces is really what they amount to so in that light I found it odd that you referenced the Ensign as your authority.
Can you remind me when and where it was that I did that?


As for God being a sinner that would be ludicrous.
I agree, but apparently some zealots like Aaron want people to believe it's true or at least logical.


However if the Adam God doctrine was true for a time then that Adam sinned but the Exalted Adam-God would not have.
I rejoice with you in the knowledge that the doctrine you mention isn't true.

[Apologette]

Obviously the exalted god of Mormonism, once a mortal, did sin since he had to be baptized to become a Mormon.

[nrajeffreturns]

Obviously the exalted god of Mormonism, once a mortal, did sin since he had to be baptized to become a Mormon.

It's funny how such things are only obvious to unbelievers....

[Billyray]

It became an issue when you mentioned "godhood" and someone else said that real Christians almost never use that word.

And that someone was me. "Godhood" and "Godhead" are common LDS terms but rarely if ever used by Christians when speaking with other Christoans. Although as I stated before we do use these terms when speaking with Mormons because that is a term that you guys use a fair bit. Another example is the term "exaltation", this is a word that Christians rarely use around fellow Christions but is used when speaking with LDS because it is a frequent term that you guys use.

[Valentinus]

Bruce McConkie:

The man who became the Father was not eternal God. Since he died, he needed to be "resurrected". And once being a sinner, he needed "salvation". That is the theology system of Mormonism.


Guess the last laugh is on you...lol

The fact that you quote McConkie says more about you and McConkie than it does actual Mormon theology.

Also, I like your sig line. It's completely ridiculous that you would not only misquote but take Joseph Goebbels words out of context.

[alanmolstad]

Obviously the exalted god of Mormonism, once a mortal, did sin since he had to be baptized to become a Mormon.

The idea that many Mormons believe their god was or is a sinner was unknown to me before i ran into this concept at a link i saw posted on a forum.

The link was to a webpage of a mormon who was promoting this idea that his god (the Mormon god) had to be a sinner.

I think this Mormon's idea behind his need to post on the web his views is that he felt knowing their god is a sinner made him more 'human" to other mormons, and thereby was aimed at supporting the Mormon teaching that every man can become as their god is.

The Mormon felt that if Mormons believe that their god was always 'sinless" that it made the idea of trusting you also can become a god harder to believe.

[RealFakeHair]

The idea that many Mormons believe their god was or is a sinner was unknown to me before i ran into this concept at a link i saw posted on a forum.

The link was to a webpage of a mormon who was promoting this idea that his god (the Mormon god) had to be a sinner.

I think this Mormon's idea behind his need to post on the web his views is that he felt knowing their god is a sinner made him more 'human" to other mormons, and thereby was aimed at supporting the Mormon teaching that every man can become as their god is.

The Mormon felt that if Mormons believe that their god was always 'sinless" that it made the idea of trusting you also can become a god harder to believe.

BINGO! There you have it.

[nrajeffreturns]

The idea that many Mormons believe their god was or is a sinner ...

...is a false idea.

[James Banta]

...is a false idea.

Then by example it is impossible for a sinner or a person who had been a sinner to be forgiven and obtain exaltation.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Then by example it is impossible for a sinner or a person who had been a sinner to be forgiven and obtain exaltation.. IHS jim

You are mistaken.

[Apologette]

...is a false idea.
How is it false? You believe you can become a god, right. And we all know you have sinned.

[nrajeffreturns]

How is it false?

The idea that "many Mormons believe their god was or is a sinner" is just plain false, as far as I can tell.

Here is what I would consider a possibly-true statement, though, for what it's worth:

A FEW Mormons believe their god was or is a sinner.

[Apologette]

The idea that "many Mormons believe their god was or is a sinner" is just plain false, as far as I can tell.

Here is what I would consider a possibly-true statement, though, for what it's worth:

A FEW Mormons believe their god was or is a sinner.

Jesus was tempted in all ways, as are we, but without sin. Jesus was God.

[Valentinus]

To answer the thread question...No. I, as a Mormon, do not believe Jesus or even God ever sinned. I don't accept the KFS as doctrine.

[Billyray]

To answer the thread question...No. I, as a Mormon, do not believe Jesus or even God ever sinned. I don't accept the KFS as doctrine.
So what Joseph said was wrong?

[James Banta]

You are mistaken.

If that is a error then it is very possible iif not probable that the Father was once no more than a sinner.. True or false? IHS jim

[Valentinus]

So what Joseph said was wrong?

Yes. I do believe Joseph was wrong in these cases.

[Billyray]

Yes. I do believe Joseph was wrong in these cases.

If Joseph was wrong why do you think the LDS church republished his talk in two back to back Ensign articles?

[Valentinus]

If Joseph was wrong why do you think the LDS church republished his talk in two back to back Ensign articles?

I don't know. I can't speak for the church. Personally, I don't bother with it. However, I do like reading up on anthropomorhism via Daniel O. McClellan's master's thesis and from Origen's writings.

[Valentinus]

Duplicate post.

[Billyray]

I don't know. I can't speak for the church.
The church must stand by his speech or else they wouldn't have republished it in back to back Ensign publications.

[Valentinus]

The church must stand by his speech or else they wouldn't have republished it in back to back Ensign publications.

That's fine for the church but that doesn't mean that I have to.

[RealFakeHair]

I don't know. I can't speak for the church. Personally, I don't bother with it. However, I do like reading up on anthropomorhism via Daniel O. McClellan's master's thesis and from Origen's writings.

Anthropomorhism, what is that some kind of mormon disease?
Anyways, I do find it interesting, master thesis of a con-man Joseph Smith jr. Don't you?

[Valentinus]

Anthropomorhism, what is that some kind of mormon disease?
Anyways, I do find it interesting, master thesis of a con-man Joseph Smith jr. Don't you?

Educate yourself, bud. Your ignorance is shining through.

an·thro·po·mor·phism
/ˌanTHrəpəˈmôrˌfizəm/
Noun
The attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.

Daniel O. McClellan's thesis Anti-Anthropomorphism and the Vorlage of LXX Exodus can be found here (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6259597/Master%27s%20Thesis.pdf).

Perhaps you should read Origen's work. After all, he is an Early Church Father.

[RealFakeHair]

Educate yourself, bud. Your ignorance is shining through.

an·thro·po·mor·phism
/ˌanTHrəpəˈmôrˌfizəm/
Noun
The attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.

Daniel O. McClellan's thesis Anti-Anthropomorphism and the Vorlage of LXX Exodus can be found here (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6259597/Master%27s%20Thesis.pdf).

Perhaps you should read Origen's work. After all, he is an Early Church Father.

Us retards need your love, not hate.

[Valentinus]

Us retards need your love, not hate.

How presumptuous and asinine. You demonstrated hostile ignorance and then play the victim by calling yourself a "retard" and then accuse me of being hateful. I'm not hateful...I'm correcting you. There is a difference. Again, you should educate yourself on theological matters that even predate Mormonism.

If you are only going to play victim and use bait tactics then you will be hardly worth taking seriously.

[RealFakeHair]

How presumptuous and asinine. You demonstrated hostile ignorance and then play the victim by calling yourself a "retard" and then accuse me of being hateful. I'm not hateful...I'm correcting you. There is a difference. Again, you should educate yourself on theological matters that even predate Mormonism.

If you are only going to play victim and use bait tactics then you will be hardly worth taking seriously.

I only play a victim on the internet, in real life I am a Hammer Toe Physician. I was a middle finder Surgeon years ago, but gave it up when I ran across an asininer, who used the word presumptuous one time to many, and I remove his middle finger, on both hand. So now he can only use words in his expression of hate.
Did I ever operate on you?

[Valentinus]

I only play a victim on the internet, in real life I am a Hammer Toe Physician. I was a middle finder Surgeon years ago, but gave it up when I ran across an asininer, who used the word presumptuous one time to many, and I remove his middle finger, on both hand. So now he can only use words in his expression of hate.
Did I ever operate on you?

Thankfully, no. Do you have anything of substance to contribute or do you thrive on your child-like behavior and ignorance?

[RealFakeHair]

Thankfully, no. Do you have anything of substance to contribute or do you thrive on your child-like behavior and ignorance?

Okay, so you outted me, is that spelled with one or two Ts?
Oh, well, Rush is on so I'll leave you for awhile.

[Billyray]

However, I do like reading up on anthropomorhism via Daniel O. McClellan's master's thesis and from Origen's writings.

Why do you think this has anything to do with Mormonism?

[Valentinus]

Why do you think this has anything to do with Mormonism?

I believe anthropomorphism is theologically accurate within LDS teachings. McClellan is LDS and his thesis is great.

[alanmolstad]

I only play a victim on the internet, in real life I am a Hammer Toe Physician. I was a middle finder Surgeon years ago, but gave it up when I ran across an asininer, who used the word presumptuous one time to many, and I remove his middle finger, on both hand. So now he can only use words in his expression of hate.
Did I ever operate on you?


Perhaps the greatest post ever......of all time.....

[Valentinus]

Perhaps the greatest post ever......of all time.....

How so? Because it is so typically anti-...wait...non-Mormon critical? The post was comical at best because of the lack of intelligent inquiry and thoughtful response. Typical tactics.

[RealFakeHair]

How so? Because it is so typically anti-...wait...non-Mormon critical? The post was comical at best because of the lack of intelligent inquiry and thoughtful response. Typical tactics.

Hey that aint fair, or is it fare?
I wrote it on first draft, which is a lot better than Joseph Smith jr. First draft of the Book of Mormon, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***. NOW stop that!
I am sorry, everytime I'm reminded of the first draft of Joseph Smith jr. Book of Mormon, I can't help myself. It came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***. Help me please,somebody!

[Valentinus]

Hey that aint fair, or is it fare?
I wrote it on first draft, which is a lot better than Joseph Smith jr. First draft of the Book of Mormon, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***. NOW stop that!
I am sorry, everytime I'm reminded of the first draft of Joseph Smith jr. Book of Mormon, I can't help myself. It came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***, and it came to p***. Help me please,somebody!

Do you like stalking me on this board?

[RealFakeHair]

Do you like stalking me on this board?

Are you saying, I have the same characteristics of Joseph Smith jr. Who Stalked young and old, married and non-married women and used his revelation in his pocket to jump into their skirts?

[Valentinus]

Are you saying, I have the same characteristics of Joseph Smith jr. Who Stalked young and old, married and non-married women and used his revelation in his pocket to jump into their skirts?

No...I'm saying you're worse.

[James Banta]

No...I'm saying you're worse.


Real will confess that he is a sinner. And being a sinner He/I am guilty of the whole Law.. We would never deny that. The LDS who quote the p***ages of James 2 all the time ignore the p***age that tell us that if we keep the whole Law and offend in just one point is guilty of all (James 2:10).. Knowing that how can any man be worse than another? I don't claim to be less of a sinner than Smith.. I claim that He had caused many if the little ones Jesus died for to be lead astray. Do you know the disdain Jesus held for such as they? Read about it (Matt 18:6).. PLEASE ASK ME HOW HE DID THAT.... IHS jim

[Billyray]

I believe anthropomorphism is theologically accurate within LDS teachings.
an·thro·po·mor·phism
The attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.

If you are speaking about God from the LDS point of view, God is an exalted human so why the need to attribute human characteristics to someone who is already human in an exalted state?

[RealFakeHair]

No...I'm saying you're worse.

I am worse than Joseph Smith jr.? Now that hurt my feelings!
Don't let my wife know how you feel!

[Valentinus]

Real will confess that he is a sinner. And being a sinner He/I am guilty of the whole Law.. We would never deny that. The LDS who quote the p***ages of James 2 all the time ignore the p***age that tell us that if we keep the whole Law and offend in just one point is guilty of all (James 2:10).. Knowing that how can any man be worse than another? I don't claim to be less of a sinner than Smith.. I claim that He had caused many if the little ones Jesus died for to be lead astray. Do you know the disdain Jesus held for such as they? Read about it (Matt 18:6).. PLEASE ASK ME HOW HE DID THAT.... IHS jim

It was a joke, James. If you haven't been following, Real seems to have a fascination with my posts and with responding with non-responses.

I don't take James 2 in the same way as other LDS. If I examine Matthew 5, I'm not just reading the Sermon on the Mount, I'm seeing the Anti theses (<-read as one word; the censors on this board are weird) where Jesus is NOT doing away with the Law but is intensifying it.

Matt 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults[d] his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Matt 5:28
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matt 5:39-42
But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

As for Matt 18:6, I like this commentary from Study Light:


(3.) The special care Christ takes for those that are humble he espouses their cause, protects them, interests himself in their concerns, and will see that they are not wronged, without being righted.

Those that thus humble themselves will be afraid,

[1.] That nobody will receive them but (Matthew 18:5), Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. Whatever kindnesses are done to such, Christ takes as done to himself. Whoso entertains a meek and humble Christian, keeps him in countenance, will not let him lose by his modesty, takes him into his love and friendship, and society and care, and studies to do him a kindness and doth this in Christ's name, for his sake, because he bears the image of Christ, serves Christ, and because Christ has received him this shall be accepted and recompensed as an acceptable piece of respect to Christ. Observe, Though it be but one such little child that is received in Christ's name, it shall be accepted. Note, The tender regard Christ has to his church extends itself to every particular member, even the meanest not only to the whole family, but to every child of the family the less they are in themselves, to whom we show kindness, the more there is of good will in it to Christ the less it is for their sakes, the more it is for his and he takes it accordingly. If Christ were personally among us, we think we should never do enough to welcome him the poor, the poor in spirit, we have always with us, and they are his receivers. See Matthew 25:35-40.

[2.] They will be afraid that every body will abuse them the basest men delight to trample upon the humble Vexat censura columbas--Censure pounces on doves. This objection he obviates (Matthew 18:6), where he warns all people, as they will answer it at their utmost peril, not to offer any injury to one of Christ's little ones. This word makes a wall of fire about them he that touches them, touches the apple of God's eye.

Observe, First, The crime supposed offending one of these little ones that believe in Christ. Their believing in Christ, though they be little ones, unites them to him, and interests him in their cause, so that, as they partake of the benefit of his sufferings, he also partakes in the wrong of theirs. Even the little ones that believe have the same privileges with the great ones, for they have all obtained like precious faith. There are those that offend these little ones, by drawing them to sin (1 Corinthians 8:10,11), grieving and vexing their righteous souls, discouraging them, taking occasion from their mildness to make a prey of them in their persons, families, goods, or good name. Thus the best men have often met with the worst treatment in this world.

Secondly, The punishment of this crime intimated in that word, Better for him that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. The sin is so heinous, and the ruin proportionably so great, that he had better undergo the sorest punishments inflicted on the worst of malefactors, which can only kill the body. Note, 1. Hell is worse than the depth of the sea for it is a bottomless pit, and it is a burning lake. The depth of the sea is only killing, but hell is tormenting. We meet with one that had comfort in the depth of the sea, it was Jonah (Matthew 2:2,4,9) but never any had the least grain or glimpse of comfort in hell, nor will have to eternity. 2. The irresistible irrevocable doom of the great Judge will sink sooner and surer, and bind faster, than a mill-stone hanged about the neck. It fixes a great gulf, which can never be broken through, Luke 16:26. Offending Christ's little ones, though by omission, is ***igned as the reason of that dreadful sentence, Go ye cursed, which will at last be the doom of proud persecutors.


This commentary does not seem to take on the same position as you do.

Also, you're going to have to learn that I don't play by the same rules as the LDS posters do here and on other boards. I'm Mormon but I'm not LDS.

[Valentinus]

I am worse than Joseph Smith jr.? Now that hurt my feelings!
Don't let my wife know how you feel!

Of course I don't mean it. You were baiting and I bit. Shame on me.

[Valentinus]

an·thro·po·mor·phism
The attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.

If you are speaking about God from the LDS point of view, God is an exalted human so why the need to attribute human characteristics to someone who is already human in an exalted state?

I don't believe that God is an exalted human being.

[RealFakeHair]

Of course I don't mean it. You were baiting and I bit. Shame on me.

You are forgiven.

[Billyray]

I don't believe that God is an exalted human being.
Jesus is God and you would say that he is an exalted human wouldn't you?

Don't you believe that the Father was a man who lived on other planet prior to becoming God of this world?

[Valentinus]

Jesus is God and you would say that he is an exalted human wouldn't you?

No.


Don't you believe that the Father was a man who lived on other planet prior to becoming God of this world?

No.

[Valentinus]

You are forgiven.

Thank you.

[Billyray]

No.



No.
I think most LDS would disagree with you.

[Valentinus]

I think most LDS would disagree with you.

That's fine.

[RealFakeHair]

Valentinus View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Add as Contact
Member


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date Mar 2013
Posts 65
Originally Posted by Billyray
Jesus is God and you would say that he is an exalted human wouldn't you?
No.


Don't you believe that the Father was a man who lived on other planet prior to becoming God of this world?
No.


This is no fun. A mormon that doesn't believe in mormonism. That's like saying Obama is American, but doesn't believe in America. OOPs

[Valentinus]

Valentinus View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Add as Contact
Member


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date Mar 2013
Posts 65
Originally Posted by Billyray
Jesus is God and you would say that he is an exalted human wouldn't you?
No.


Don't you believe that the Father was a man who lived on other planet prior to becoming God of this world?
No.


This is no fun. A mormon that doesn't believe in mormonism. That's like saying Obama is American, but doesn't believe in America. OOPs

;) I just can't please anyone.

[Billyray]

That's fine.

But you are LDS and yet you disagree with what LDS leaders have taught on this subject.

[RealFakeHair]

;) I just can't please anyone.

But you tried, and now days everyone gets a Trophy.

[Valentinus]

But you tried, and now days everyone gets a Trophy.

Better be a dang good trophy!

[RealFakeHair]

Better be a dang good trophy!

Good to see you lightening up. Anyways, have a good day, bye.

[Valentinus]

Good to see you lightening up. Anyways, have a good day, bye.

You too. Shalom!

[James Banta]

It was a joke, James. If you haven't been following, Real seems to have a fascination with my posts and with responding with non-responses.

I don't take James 2 in the same way as other LDS. If I examine Matthew 5, I'm not just reading the Sermon on the Mount, I'm seeing the Anti theses (<-read as one word; the censors on this board are weird) where Jesus is NOT doing away with the Law but is intensifying it.

Matt 5:22
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults[d] his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Matt 5:28
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matt 5:39-42
But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

As for Matt 18:6, I like this commentary from Study Light:



This commentary does not seem to take on the same position as you do.

Also, you're going to have to learn that I don't play by the same rules as the LDS posters do here and on other boards. I'm Mormon but I'm not LDS.

To bad you didn't read a good commentary on Matthew 5. You would see a step by step program of what it is to come to Jesus.. Still it is in total agreement with James as the Holy Spirit taught there though him that if we keep the whole Law and offend in just one point is guilty of all.

As for Matthew 18 I mentioned the false teacher that lead people astray but I didn't take it deeper than what it teaches in the p***age.. As for the commentary of Matthew 18 that you quoted how do you know that I disagree with it.. This is very good "The punishment of this crime intimated in that word, Better for him that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. The sin is so heinous, and the ruin proportionably so great, that he had better undergo the sorest punishments inflicted on the worst of malefactors, which can only kill the body. Note, 1. Hell is worse than the depth of the sea for it is a bottomless pit, and it is a burning lake. The depth of the sea is only killing, but hell is tormenting. We meet with one that had comfort in the depth of the sea, it was Jonah (Matthew 2:2,4,9) but never any had the least grain or glimpse of comfort in hell, nor will have to eternity. 2. The irresistible irrevocable doom of the great Judge will sink sooner and surer, and bind faster, than a mill-stone hanged about the neck. It fixes a great gulf, which can never be broken through, Luke 16:26. Offending Christ's little ones, though by omission, is ***igned as the reason of that dreadful sentence, Go ye cursed, which will at last be the doom of proud persecutors." Most LDS deny the idea of a hell where they are punished eternally? While I don't see the reference for Jonah fitting in here other than a mention of the sea. His description of hell and the anger of God for those who have lead others that Jesus dies to save astray is clear and correct.. IHS jim

[Valentinus]

But you are LDS and yet you disagree with what LDS leaders have taught on this subject.

I'm not LDS. I'm Mormon.

[Valentinus]

To bad you didn't read a good commentary on Matthew 5. You would see a step by step program of what it is to come to Jesus.. Still it is in total agreement with James as the Holy Spirit taught there though him that if we keep the whole Law and offend in just one point is guilty of all.

As for Matthew 18 I mentioned the false teacher that lead people astray but I didn't take it deeper than what it teaches in the p***age.. As for the commentary of Matthew 18 that you quoted how do you know that I disagree with it.. This is very good "The punishment of this crime intimated in that word, Better for him that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. The sin is so heinous, and the ruin proportionably so great, that he had better undergo the sorest punishments inflicted on the worst of malefactors, which can only kill the body. Note, 1. Hell is worse than the depth of the sea for it is a bottomless pit, and it is a burning lake. The depth of the sea is only killing, but hell is tormenting. We meet with one that had comfort in the depth of the sea, it was Jonah (Matthew 2:2,4,9) but never any had the least grain or glimpse of comfort in hell, nor will have to eternity. 2. The irresistible irrevocable doom of the great Judge will sink sooner and surer, and bind faster, than a mill-stone hanged about the neck. It fixes a great gulf, which can never be broken through, Luke 16:26. Offending Christ's little ones, though by omission, is ***igned as the reason of that dreadful sentence, Go ye cursed, which will at last be the doom of proud persecutors." Most LDS deny the idea of a hell where they are punished eternally? While I don't see the reference for Jonah fitting in here other than a mention of the sea. His description of hell and the anger of God for those who have lead others that Jesus dies to save astray is clear and correct.. IHS jim

What cons***utes a good commentary? One in which you agree with because it makes sense to you? I sometimes like Matthew Henry's commentary.

[Billyray]

I'm not LDS. I'm Mormon.

You are not a Latter-day Saint?

[Valentinus]

You are not a Latter-day Saint?

I'm not a member of any Restoration movement church but I am a Mormon.

[Billyray]

I'm not a member of any Restoration movement church but I am a Mormon.

I guess I don't understand why you don't consider yourself LDS since LDS is a term that Mormons normally use?

[Valentinus]

I guess I don't understand why you don't consider yourself LDS since LDS is a term that Mormons normally use?

Which one of these churches is technically defined as "Mormon"?

-The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Utah LDS)
-The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Community of Christ)
-The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonites)
-The Church of Christ, Temple Lot (Hedrickites)
-The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangites)
-The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (formerly part of Reorganized LDS)
-The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (formerly part of Reorganized LDS)
-The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (Progressive separation sect)
-The Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (formerly active group but I believe dissolved)
-Joint Conference of Restoration Branches (majority body of RLDS members who have not deviated from traditional RLDS beliefs and are not part of other RLDS separation groups)

[Billyray]

Which one of these churches is technically defined as "Mormon"?

-The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Utah LDS)
-The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Community of Christ)
-The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonites)
-The Church of Christ, Temple Lot (Hedrickites)
-The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangites)
-The Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (formerly part of Reorganized LDS)
-The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (formerly part of Reorganized LDS)
-The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ (Progressive separation sect)
-The Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (formerly active group but I believe dissolved)
-Joint Conference of Restoration Branches (majority body of RLDS members who have not deviated from traditional RLDS beliefs and are not part of other RLDS separation groups)
The same one that is technically defined as LDS which is the Utah based sect.

[Valentinus]

The same one that is technically defined as LDS which is the Utah based sect.

No offense, but that is typical. I'm not a member of any of those groups. Mormon, for me, is someone who has theological ties to the Restoration. However, I do understand your perspective.

[Billyray]

I'm not a member of any of those groups. Mormon, for me, is someone who has theological ties to the Restoration.

But if you believe in the restoration how can you reject the belief of priesthood restoration and the need for LDS baptism via that authority etc.?

[Valentinus]

But if you believe in the restoration how can you reject the belief of priesthood restoration and the need for LDS baptism via that authority etc.?

I believe that there were incorrect teachings. Priesthood restoration, I do believe, despite what I have heard some claim about Hebrews 7.

[Billyray]

I believe that there were incorrect teachings. Priesthood restoration, I do believe, despite what I have heard some claim about Hebrews 7.
And if you believe in priesthood restoration how can you receive that priesthood or the benefits without belonging to the authorized church whether that be the SLC Mormons or the FLDS etc.?

[James Banta]

What cons***utes a good commentary? One in which you agree with because it makes sense to you? I sometimes like Matthew Henry's commentary.

A commentary from a well studied teacher who stays as close to what the word teaches as is possible while opening up the fullness of it's meaning. If a commentator teaches that Jesus is a creation and not God, that would be a problem.. IHS jim

[Valentinus]

And if you believe in priesthood restoration how can you receive that priesthood or the benefits without belonging to the authorized church whether that be the SLC Mormons or the FLDS etc.?

I'm not a priesthood holder at all.

[Valentinus]

A commentary from a well studied teacher who stays as close to what the word teaches as is possible while opening up the fullness of it's meaning. If a commentator teaches that Jesus is a creation and not God, that would be a problem.. IHS jim

So...preferably not someone who is Reformed or Acts 29 Reformed. Don't want none of that mess.

[Billyray]

I'm not a priesthood holder at all.

But I was asking you if you believe in what Joseph Smith taught--and that would include the restoration of the priesthood--what good are your beliefs if you don't receive the blessings/ordinances that come with that restored priesthood?

[alanmolstad]

In another thread it has been insinuated that Jesus Christ was a sinner. Is this what Mormonism teaches?
from what i have learned...its been on a mormon talk show that the father may have sinned

[alanmolstad]

Bruce McConkie:

The man who became the Father was not eternal God. Since he died, he needed to be "resurrected". And once being a sinner, he needed "salvation". That is the theology system of Mormonism.


Guess the last laugh is on you...lolBruce McConkie is wrong.....way, way wrong.

Anyone who tries to defend such a false teacher is also wrong....anyone who listens to such a teacher is going to end up wrong.
The teachings of McConkie are not based on the God of the Bible...and therefore are not to be believed nor trusted.

It also seems clear to me that the person of Bruce McConkie should be considered a "False teacher" and treated as being someone we should drive out of an leadership position over others that might trust him based on his office.