Shawn and the Mormon Caller

[Apologette]

Give Mormons enough rope and they will always hang themselves. They are not Christians, and not bound by Christian constraints. They have absolutely no knowledge of the Bible (which is why these foolish cultists are Mormons in the first place), and have traded the Lord Jesus for the "god" of Mormonism, Joseph Smith. They believe their works will save them (as we can see from here, they trust in themselves and not in Jesus), and when they are confronted with the Gospel they lapse into nasty comments, condemnation and whatever else they have in their ****nal of abuse, as they deny the sufficiency of Christ's Blood and cling to their own works (which so reek with the smell of sulfur):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f06lEjML6yM

This is the first of three consecutive videos anybody being lured into Mormonism needs to watch.

[Erundur]

For the lurkers:


They are not Christians, and not bound by Christian constraints.
You should know that this is a lie. Mormons believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, therefore we are by definition Christians.


They have absolutely no knowledge of the Bible
This is not even remotely true. This survey (http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey-who-knows-what-about-religion/#Bible) suggests that the average Mormon knows more about the Bible than the average Protestant.


and have traded the Lord Jesus for the "god" of Mormonism, Joseph Smith.
This is a lie. Joseph Smith is not our god, he was merely a prophet.


They believe their works will save them (as we can see from here, they trust in themselves and not in Jesus)
This is a lie. We do not believe our works will save us; the atonement of Jesus Christ will.


and when they are confronted with the Gospel they lapse into nasty comments, condemnation and whatever else they have in their ****nal of abuse
Who is actually lapsing into nasty comments and condemnation here?

as they deny the sufficiency of Christ's Blood and cling to their own works
This is a lie. Mormons ***ert the sufficiency of Christ's blood to save all men (as opposed to some Protestants who say Jesus died only for an elite few).

[Apologette]

For the lurkers:


You should know that this is a lie. Mormons believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, therefore we are by definition Christians.


This is not even remotely true. This survey (http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey-who-knows-what-about-religion/#Bible) suggests that the average Mormon knows more about the Bible than the average Protestant.


This is a lie. Joseph Smith is not our god, he was merely a prophet.


This is a lie. We do not believe our works will save us; the atonement of Jesus Christ will.


Who is actually lapsing into nasty comments and condemnation here?

This is a lie. Mormons ***ert the sufficiency of Christ's blood to save all men (as opposed to some Protestants who say Jesus died only for an elite few).

Were you the caller?

[Erundur]

Were you the caller?
No. Will you retract the lies in your OP?

[John T]

No. Will you retract the lies in your OP?

When you can show us the Snowden couplet in the text of the New Testament, I am sure that she will.
Until such a time comes, then she is the one telling the truth about the fact that you LDS people worship a different jesus christ, than is found in the Bible.


You need to know that we Christians know that you are merely parroting the lies told to you; therefore I am NOT calling you a liar. Calling a person a liar speaks to the intention of the other, but stating that a person is repeating the lies told to him/her is really a statement of understanding, and is neither an insult nor a condemnation because it is merely a statement of fact.

[Erundur]

When you can show us the Snowden couplet in the text of the New Testament, I am sure that she will.
Well, I'm not aware of any Snowden couplet in the New Testament, so I guess you're telling me that she will never retract her lies. Sad, but that's what I've come to expect from her.


You need to know that we Christians know that you are merely parroting the lies told to you
Another example of anti-Mormon projection.

[alanmolstad]

thats better.....

[John T]

thats better..... From the Forum RULES : "As you know, the Walter Martin website takes the position that Mormon theology is not Christian theology. Use of the term "LDS Christian" is inaccurate and misleading, and as such is not acceptable on this board."


Does the term "anti-Mormon" fall into that category? We Christians surely are against mormonISM, the religion, but we are not against the LDS PEOPLE.

[John T]

Originally Posted by John T http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=168747#post168747) You need to know that we Christians know that you are merely parroting the lies told to you


Another example of EDIT projection.

You acceded to the point of my post which is that you LDS people get your views about jesus Christ from other sources, other than the Bible. Thank you.
Since you also believe in the Bible (with stipulations) can you reconcile the glaring differences between your alternative sources, which I listed and the Bible?

[Phoenix]

Well, I'm not aware of any Snowden couplet in the New Testament, so I guess you're telling me that she will never retract her lies.

dang that Snowden! First he hacks into the NSA's cl***ified files on foreign leaders, and now he's hacked into the New Testament? He better not leave Russia and return to the USA, or he will be in big trouble!

[John T]

dang that Snowden! First he hacks into the NSA's cl***ified files on foreign leaders, and now he's hacked into the New Testament? He better not leave Russia and return to the USA, or he will be in big trouble!


Your silliness is noted. Here are the facts:


LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

from http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

(http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet)Please refer to that in your answer.

[Erundur]

You acceded to the point of my post which is that you LDS people get your views about jesus Christ from other sources, other than the Bible.
I did what now?

[BigJulie]

Calling a person a liar speaks to the intention of the other, but stating that a person is repeating the lies told to him/her is really a statement of understanding, and is neither an insult nor a condemnation because it is merely a statement of fact.
Okay, I will concede that Apollogette is not a liar but merely repeating the lies to to her (Even though she has been told repeated by Mormons that her statements are not correct.)

[BigJulie]

Your silliness is noted. Here are the facts:


LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

from http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

(http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet)Please refer to that in your answer.

Yes, I completely agree with the comments of Lorenzo Snow. But if you do not believe him, here is backing of it from the Bible:


“As man is, God once was;".... Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


"as God is, man may become.” 1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.


Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

As you said to Apologette--I will just not see you as a liar, but someone who has repeated the lies told to you. As you can note even in your own quoting of Bruce R. McConkie--when you state what you believe we believe in your words, you use the term "become God." But when you quote using resources, it states "They are gods." Do you see the difference that Bruce R. did not use a capitol G as you did? You therefore, misunderstand what is meant.

Look at this scripture: Mat 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. The terms "gods" is synonymous with ruler. As a Bible reader, I am sure you know this. But you believe and repeat the lies you hear and repeat them. Can you see this error when pointed out to you?

[John T]

Yes, I completely agree with the comments of Lorenzo Snow. But if you do not believe him, here is backing of it from the Bible:

... John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.



HUMBUG!

These verses taken in their entirety, and taken within their context have ZEDRO to do with the Lorenzo Snowden couplet.
The Jesus of the Bible only is NOT a chameleon:
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.


The Jesus of the Bible is wholly God 100%, and there never was a time that He was not god. NOR is there a time when He was NOT 100% human, simultaneously, having two natures, each complete, and unmixrd or diluted, but there is no "God part" nor "human part"
.
Philippians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.





As you said to Apologette--I will just not see you as a liar, but someone who has repeated the lies told to you. As you can note even in your own quoting of Bruce R. McConkie--when you state what you believe we believe in your words, you use the term "become God." But when you quote using resources, it states "They are gods." Do you see the difference that Bruce R. did not use a capitol G as you did? You therefore, misunderstand what is meant.



YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I QUOTED A SOURCE, AND GAVE A REFERENCE :mad:

Your beef is with that source, not me.

[John T]

thats better.....


really?????

[BigJulie]

HUMBUG!

These verses taken in their entirety, and taken within their context have ZEDRO to do with the Lorenzo Snowden couplet.
The Jesus of the Bible only is NOT a chameleon:
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The Jesus of the Bible is wholly God 100%, and there never was a time that He was not god. NOR is there a time when He was NOT 100% human, simultaneously, having two natures, each complete, and unmixrd or diluted, but there is no "God part" nor "human part"
. What about the couplet makes you Lorenzo Snow did not see Jesus Christ as fully God? Are you saying that you do not believe that as man is God once was? Do you disagree. You stated, God was 100% human. So, to me, you agree, God was as we are. 100% human.


Philippians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. So yes, Jesus Christ-God--was once a man. You agree, you point out scriptures that agree. Keep in mind, the couplet never states, God was never God or was not God or stopped being God.






YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I QUOTED A SOURCE, AND GAVE A REFERENCE :mad: I never called you a liar. I just agreed with you that people often repeat what they have heard because they believe it is true--even when it is not.


Your beef is with that source, not me.[/QUOTE] No, I merely noted that your source did not match your statement. The source used a "little" g when speaking of "gods"--or, merely another word for a ruler. When you referred to it, you did not state "gods" but "God"--you paraphrased the source to match your beliefs, rather than what it really stated.

[BigJulie]

To make my point that you change what it states to match your belief of our beliefs.

Here is your understanding our our beliefs:

Ythis couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God.

And here is your reference:
They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).


You asked me to refer to the quote in my answer. My answer noted that there is a difference in your understanding and your quote. You made a small difference which has a large difference in meanings.

I ask that you acknowledge this difference and that it does change the meaning--and provided a reference where Christ declares that his righteous servants will become rulers--which can be translated as "gods."

[alanmolstad]

the Word became flesh...

The Word was and always is God.

But so that he could die for us, the Word became flesh.

The Word was not flesh before....that is why we use the word "became".

The Word never stopped being God..
But the Word took on to himselfa 2nd nature....the nature of a man.


So this means that the Word now has two totally different natures.
One as God almighty, the one and only God.
The other nature is this new nature as a man.

So thats 2 natures.

The Father was not made flesh.
The Father and the Holy Spirit are not man.

But so that he could die for us, the Word "BECAME"flesh.......

[Phoenix]

the Word became flesh...
and so did mankind.


Word was not flesh before....that is why we use the word "became".
mankind was not flesh before, either...so mankind became flesh.

So as mankind now is, The Word once was--about 2000 years ago, to be more precise.

The Word now is resurrected.
So as the Word now is, mankind may become.


But so that he could die for us, the Word "BECAME"flesh.......
Yes, you are correct. So the Word became as we are now, so that we could someday become as He now is.

well said, glad you agree with all the above.

[John T]

What about the couplet makes you Lorenzo Snow did not see Jesus Christ as fully God? Are you saying that you do not believe that as man is God once was? Do you disagree. You stated, God was 100% human. So, to me, you agree, God was as we are. 100% human.

So yes, Jesus Christ-God--was once a man. You agree, you point out scriptures that agree. Keep in mind, the couplet never states, God was never God or was not God or stopped being God.


I never called you a liar. I just agreed with you that people often repeat what they have heard because they believe it is true--even when it is not.



Originally Posted by John T http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=168758#post168758) Your silliness is noted. Here are the facts:

LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).
from http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

(http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet)Please refer to that in your answer.


BJ posted:

Yes, I completely agree with the comments of Lorenzo Snow. But if you do not believe him, here is backing of it from the Bible:

No, I merely noted that your source did not match your statement. The source used a "little" g when speaking of "gods"--or, merely another word for a ruler. When you referred to it, you did not state "gods" but "God"--you paraphrased the source to match your beliefs, rather than what it really stated.

How can you state two such contradictory statements?
First you agree, then you disagree over a capital/lower case letter.

The wonder of it all comes because you are blaming me for what is posted on the website, and which I cut-and-pasted accurately. Therefore, this is an accurate statement:

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I QUOTED A SOURCE, AND GAVE A REFERENCE :mad:

[BigJulie]

How can you state two such contradictory statements?
First you agree, then you disagree over a capital/lower case letter. Because the capital/lower case letter changes the meaning. You do not understand the meaning therefore do not see the difference.


The wonder of it all comes because you are blaming me for what is posted on the website, and which I cut-and-pasted accurately. Therefore, this is an accurate statement:

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I QUOTED A SOURCE, AND GAVE A REFERENCE :mad:[/QUOTE] Nope, you did not understand, therefore did not paraphrase correctly. You made a change, that while it may have seemed small, is significant. I made this point and asked you to recognize it. I also did not call you a liar, just merely used the same understanding that you stated when you noted that people can misunderstand and then repeat their own misunderstandings even when they are not true.

As the Bible also denotes a difference when using a capital G versus a lower case g when it comes to the term "God" versus "gods", I am wondering if you will acknowledge your mistake on this point of understanding.

[John T]

The wonder of it all comes because you are blaming me for what is posted on the website, and which I cut-and-pasted accurately. Therefore, this is an accurate statement:

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I QUOTED A SOURCE, AND GAVE A REFERENCE :mad:


Nope, you did not understand, therefore did not paraphrase correctly. You made a change, that while it may have seemed small, is significant. I made this point and asked you to recognize it. I also did not call you a liar, just merely used the same understanding that you stated when you noted that people can misunderstand and then repeat their own misunderstandings even when they are not true.

The ORIGINAL QUOTE


LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).
from http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

(http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet)LOOK IT UP

[BigJulie]

The wonder of it all comes because you are blaming me for what is posted on the website, and which I cut-and-pasted accurately. Therefore, this is an accurate statement:

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR WHEN I QUOTED A SOURCE, AND GAVE A REFERENCE :mad: I am not blaming you for anything, nor calling you a liar. I am merely pointing out that you made a claim that has a significant difference than the reference you posted. Surely, the gentleman doth protest too much.




The ORIGINAL QUOTE


LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).
from http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

(http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet)LOOK IT UP


Once again--just high-lighting in red the difference between the LDS original references and your non-LDS reference. I did look up your reference. mrm.org is not an LDS site. In research, this is called using a secondary (or in this case, third) resource. It is a quote of a quote of a quote. This author himself miss-uses the capital G and little g in his own references to the Bible. Bill McKeever does not seem to understand the difference.

In truth, you make your own case in point where people do not try to tell untruths, but merely repeat the untruths told to them.

[alanmolstad]

If a matter of great importance in your faith is determined by the ability and likelihood of a writer to push his little pinky finger down on the "SHIFT" key?...

Then your faith is a joke....

[BigJulie]

If a matter of great importance in your faith is determined by the ability and likelihood of a writer to push his little pinky finger down on the "SHIFT" key?...

Then your faith is a joke....

And yet Alan, we have had a long discussion on this very subject with you defending that the term "God" does not equate to "gods" as seen in the Bible:

Deu 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

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

I guess the writers of the Bible also made their "pinky finger" shift of great importance as well.

[John T]

If a matter of great importance in your faith is determined by the ability and likelihood of a writer to push his little pinky finger down on the "SHIFT" key?...

Then your faith is a joke....

Their faith is a joke, but that is besides the point, WHICH YOU MISSED.

The poster IS ACCUSING ME OF LYING DELIBERATELY (search the posts) even though I stated THREE TIMES, and GAVE A REFERENCE to the site from which I made a cut-and-paste.

[alanmolstad]

I guess the writers of the Bible also made their "pinky finger" shift of great importance as well.

well...actually the Greek New Test is all caps.......the whole thing.....

You cant really defend any point by referring to caps or a lack of caps, as thats just a thing the editor of your bible tossed in to the mix and is not really part of any original writing...

[BigJulie]

Their faith is a joke, but that is besides the point, WHICH YOU MISSED.

The poster IS ACCUSING ME OF LYING DELIBERATELY (search the posts) even though I stated THREE TIMES, and GAVE A REFERENCE to the site from which I made a cut-and-paste.

Will you please cut and paste my exact quote that leads you to believe I was accusing you of lying? I am not sure where you are lead to believe this, so if you could point it out for me, it would be appreciated.

Is this the line?
As you said to Apologette--I will just not see you as a liar, but someone who has repeated the lies told to you.

I can see where you misunderstood--but I tried to clarify many times that I did not see you as a liar, but someone who is repeating the lies told to you.

Here is what you stated:

You need to know that we Christians know that you are merely parroting the lies told to you; therefore I am NOT calling you a liar. Calling a person a liar speaks to the intention of the other, but stating that a person is repeating the lies told to him/her is really a statement of understanding, and is neither an insult nor a condemnation because it is merely a statement of fact.

Likewise, I noted you were merely parroting the lies told to you. Yet, I can see how the sentence was misread. Likewise, the reference you gave has also been misread, misrepresented, etc.

[BigJulie]

well...actually the Greek New Test is all caps.......the whole thing.....

You cant really defend any point by referring to caps or a lack of caps, as thats just a thing the editor of your bible tossed in to the mix and is not really part of any original writing...

Yes, but when you quote it, you do not quote the Greek and you yourself have denoted the difference between the word "God" and "gods" in the Bible. Now you will not afford us to make the same distinction?

[alanmolstad]

Their faith is a joke, but that is besides the point, WHICH YOU MISSED.

The poster IS ACCUSING ME OF LYING DELIBERATELY (search the posts) even though I stated THREE TIMES, and GAVE A REFERENCE to the site from which I made a cut-and-paste.


I had a JW at my door once, and he was also attempting to make a big deal out of the fact that in his New World Translation, the verse we were talking about at John 1:1 said that the Word was "a god" with the word "god" with a little "g".

To him this proved that Jesus was not God Almighty as the Father is called God with a big "G" while Jesus is called a god with a little 'g".



Thats when I pointed out that in the Greek New test its all written in all CAPS.
at first he doubted this fact so I had to show him.

[alanmolstad]

My guess is.....(and this is just a guess)....is that there are many little off-shoot religions out there that pick out one thing from the Bible, and build their whole new religion around it.
The idea that you can build a teaching around the idea of a word appearing in all CAPS is one of the more silly concepts I have run into, but I bet its not that unknown.

There are the "Holy Name" cults that are a lot like this..
There are the "King James Only" bunch that go crazy about that stuff.


It may be that many of these off-shoot religions were started by preachers who did not really know that much about the Bible, but were just clever enough to notice one little thing that most people did not know the true history about, and so that made the preachers look just a bit smarter than their followers.



To be honest, I really dont know of the Mormon CULT has a official position regarding the high-and-mighty meaning their people should place on the fact that this or that word in the King James appears in all CAPS ?

...or is this just one lone Mormon's dreamed up idea?

I don't know....


I do think the whole idea is very funny, and its not really something that I think I will run into much in the future...but its still a very funny item to try to use to defend a position.

[John T]

Will you please cut and paste my exact quote that leads you to believe I was accusing you of lying? I am not sure where you are lead to believe this, so if you could point it out for me, it would be appreciated.


FOR THE THIRD TIME

The ORIGINAL QUOTE


LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

from http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

(http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet)LOOK IT UP

[John T]

I had a JW at my door once, and he was also attempting to make a big deal out of the fact that in his New World Translation, the verse we were talking about at John 1:1 said that the Word was "a god" with the word "god" with a little "g".

To him this proved that Jesus was not God Almighty as the Father is called God with a big "G" while Jesus is called a god with a little 'g".

You CONTINUE TO miss the point. It is NOT about upper case/lower case. That is a really STUPID argument.
Instead, the poster is accusing me of fabricating something in the cut-and-paste. THAT IS A ****ABLE LIE.

THEREFORE THE POSTER IS A PROVED LIAR.




Thats when I pointed out that in the Greek New test its all written in all CAPS.
at first he doubted this fact so I had to show him.
That is called UNICALS.

[BigJulie]

FOR THE THIRD TIME

The ORIGINAL QUOTE


LDS President Lorenzo Snow. In June of 1840, Snow declared, “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God. According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with exaltation and godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, “Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation. . . They are gods.” (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).

from http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

(http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet)LOOK IT UP

Well, I guess I will restate my point again and see if you get it.

The site you gave me references Mormon Doctrine. If you go to the page referenced, the only thing there is the very last part of what you posted. Therefore, the first part of what you posted and referenced is not in Mormon Doctrine. It is the writing of Bill McKeever.

So, this sentence--"Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God" is misleading and untrue.

"mere mortal" is not true. "become God" is not true. Point blank--trust a Mormon, he has this wrong.

So, let me tell you exactly how it is misleading.

1. It leads the believer to think Mormons believe the God was not God prior to his birth on earth; that he is just like you and me; or in other words, was not God and then was born and then became God. Hence, mere mortal is not correct.
2. It dismisses the LDS theology that Jesus Christ was part of the Godhood prior to his birth and continued that place after his birth. Hence, mere mortal is not correct.
3. It dismisses the LDS theology that man, who is created by God, is eternal in nature; that we existed before we were born and will exist after we die. Hence, mere mortal is not correct.
4. It dismisses the LDS theology that Jesus Christ, who being the Son of God, who became a man, took on the sins of the world, and then died provides a way for us to follow Him. Hence, what "become God" is not correct."

Now, if you want to actually understand, "they are gods" as in terms of what it means to have eternal life---look to this teaching of Christ.

Mat 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

So, we see that those who follow and obey the Lord will become "ruler" over many things. I believe Alan has argued that the term "gods" in the Bible means ruler.

Here is another Bible verse that backs this:

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And here is Christ telling the 12 apostles that they will sit on 12 thrones and judge. (The term "gods" is also used for judges.)

[BigJulie]

You CONTINUE TO miss the point. It is NOT about upper case/lower case. That is a really STUPID argument.
Instead, the poster is accusing me of fabricating something in the cut-and-paste. THAT IS A ****ABLE LIE.

THEREFORE THE POSTER IS A PROVED LIAR.






Call me all the names you want. The truth is I never accused of tampering with what was cut and paste--but merely repeating the lies told to you (which you got from the site).

Here is a direct quote from you
Quote Originally Posted by John T View Post
Calling a person a liar speaks to the intention of the other, but stating that a person is repeating the lies told to him/her is really a statement of understanding, and is neither an insult nor a condemnation because it is merely a statement of fact. I was pointing out that you were "repeating the lies told to him/her" and was not an insult, but merely a statement of fact.

From this point, you seem so caught up on the fact that you believe I was calling you a liar that you seem to not read for understanding anything I have said since this offense.

But back to Alan's point. The caps do make a difference. Whether or not the Greek was in all caps, in our Bibles today, we distinguish between the meaning of God and gods.

[alanmolstad]

try to play nice....

try to not look for a fight

[John T]

try to play nice....

try to not look for a fight


Is that ALL you can say???????

The moderation stinks here! I nailed the poster with her STUPID AND ****ABLE LIES ABOUT ME.

[BigJulie]

try to play nice....

try to not look for a fight

It's definitely been a strange conversation.

1. I believed he was paraphrasing a quote from Mormon doctrine incorrectly (siting from Mormon Doctrine--and another site I did not recognize.)
2. I pointed out that I recognized that he was just repeating what was told him as he acknowledged happens as times.
3. He insisted he just quoted it directly.
4. I then acknowledged is was not his paraphrasing but instead Bill McKeever, a non-mormon whose take on the Mormon Doctrine quote is incorrect. This seemed a perfect case in point of his acknowledgement that people do not try to lie, but just repeat the untruths they have been told.

From this exchange he:
1. Accused me of calling him a liar.
2. Began calling me a liar.
3. Began swearing, calling me names, and calling me a liar.

At this point, I think the conversation is unhealthy.

[Phoenix]

It's definitely been a strange conversation.

1. I believed he was paraphrasing a quote from Mormon doctrine incorrectly (siting from Mormon Doctrine--and another site I did not recognize.)
2. I pointed out that I recognized that he was just repeating what was told him as he acknowledged happens as times.
3. He insisted he just quoted it directly.
4. I then acknowledged is was not his paraphrasing but instead Bill McKeever, a non-mormon whose take on the Mormon Doctrine quote is incorrect. This seemed a perfect case in point of his acknowledgement that people do not try to lie, but just repeat the untruths they have been told.

From this exchange he:
1. Accused me of calling him a liar.
2. Began calling me a liar.
3. Began swearing, calling me names, and calling me a liar.

At this point, I think the conversation is unhealthy.

true, but the Finger Lakes of New York really are beautiful. :)

[BigJulie]

true, but the Finger Lakes of New York really are beautiful. :)

Yes, and I certainly need to get out more. :)

[alanmolstad]

I had a JW at my door once, and he was also attempting to make a big deal out of the fact that in his New World Translation, the verse we were talking about at John 1:1 said that the Word was "a god" with the word "god" with a little "g".

To him this proved that Jesus was not God Almighty as the Father is called God with a big "G" while Jesus is called a god with a little 'g".



Thats when I pointed out that in the Greek New test its all written in all CAPS.
at first he doubted this fact so I had to show him.



I still remember the look on his face later...



vulnerable.....

[BigJulie]

I still remember the look on his face later...



vulnerable.....

So, to you this verses would read the same regardless:

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.--would read the same if it read "ye are Gods"?

Deu 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:--would read the same if it said "God of Gods"--right?

To you there is no distinction between "God" or "gods" as you read the Bible, they are the same?

[alanmolstad]

So, to you this verses would read the same regardless:

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.--would read the same if it read "ye are Gods"?
.......
To you there is no distinction between "God" or "gods" as you read the Bible, they are the same?


It's not my use of the shift-keY that giVes the things i write their meanings...

Its not the shift-key that gives a verse in the bible its meaning...

Rather its the context.


The context of Psa 82:6 is found in the verses that wrap around it.
"But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler." In this very next verse I see the real contempt that the lord god has toward the rulers of this unjust world's system.

The context shows the lord god mocking the rulers.. .




so in other words,, im sure there are all sorts of different things that people can use if they pull a bible verse out of its context, to teach all matter of evil teachings .

thus im not surprised to see a guest here have some nutty ideas about allowing the use of the shift-key to determine their religious doctrines...

i would not be surprised one day to find a guest to this forum that claimed that the use of punctuation marks in the bible was the most important method in how to determine your personal salvation.....or who god is.....or what team will win the super bowl this year...



if thats your bag?....good luck with it.


but i tend to believe that when the berean jews that listened to the teachings of paul and would then open their scriptures to see if what paul was teaching was true?, were doing bit more that just checking to see if a word was capitalized...








it's not the shift key that makes my (or the bible's) words have their meanings....its their context.

[alanmolstad]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ibVthOVSI





you can turn anything into a god just by worshiping it.
but they are not god by nature.

[BigJulie]

It's not my use of the shift-keY that giVes the things i write their meanings...

Its not the shift-key that gives a verse in the bible its meaning...

Rather its the context.


The context of Psa 82:6 is found in the verses that wrap around it.
"But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler." In this very next verse I see the real contempt that the lord god has toward the rulers of this unjust world's system.

The context shows the lord god mocking the rulers.. .




so in other words,, im sure there are all sorts of different things that people can use if they pull a bible verse out of its context, to teach all matter of evil teachings .

thus im not surprised to see a guest here have some nutty ideas about allowing the use of the shift-key to determine their religious doctrines...Well, it is the shift key that was determined to be used by many translations of the Bible. I guess they must have felt some reason to use it or not.



New International Version
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

New Living Translation
Jesus replied, "It is written in your own Scriptures that God said to certain leaders of the people, 'I say, you are gods!'

English Standard Version
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

Berean Study Bible
Jesus replied, "Is it not written in your Law: 'I have said you are gods' ?

Berean Literal Bible
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law: 'I said you are gods'?

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your scripture, I said, you are gods?

International Standard Version
Jesus replied to them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, "You are gods"'?

NET Bible
Jesus answered, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'?

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Yeshua said to them, “Is it not written in your law, 'I have said, “You are gods”'?”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Jesus said to them, "Don't your Scriptures say, 'I said, "You are gods" '?


i would not be surprised one day to find a guest to this forum that claimed that the use of punctuation marks in the bible was the most important method in how to determine your personal salvation.....or who god is.....or what team will win the super bowl this year...



if thats your bag?....good luck with it.

It doesn't seem to be my bag...and why wait for a guest in the forum to care about punctuation marks. Christ cares or is the "one with the bag" as you state it, as He is the one who states---"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth p***, one jot or one ***tle shall in no wise p*** from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18. (Or For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.)

Christ understood that little changes that were occurring with the translations or understanding were changing the understanding of the Jews as to who He is---but he acknowledged that he understands and His law will be fulfilled as was written, not as we understand.


but i tend to believe that when the berean jews that listened to the teachings of paul and would then open their scriptures to see if what paul was teaching was true?, were doing bit more that just checking to see if a word was capitalized...

Yes. I completely agree--it needs to be understood in context. This was my complaint with JohnT's citation, Bill McKeever does not understand what he is reading and therefore puts his own spin on it which is incorrect.

That said, listen to what is stated "Ye are gods and children of the Most High." So, these unrighteous rulers-they are denoted as children of the Most High. How do you understand that in context?









it's not the shift key that makes my (or the bible's) words have their meanings....its their context. I agree, but the shift key is used to help people understand the context.

I believe this is why Christ stated "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth p***, one jot or one ***tle shall in no wise p*** from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18. (Or For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.)

So, it appears that Christ is the person who makes the claim that commas and the little things that change the meaning of a translation do matter. In other words, He cares about where the commas are placed :)

[alanmolstad]

All of the Greek New Testament originals were written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS with no spaces and probably no punctuation, and all of the earlier m****cripts are in this style, whether on parchment or papyrus.

This is because the Greek alphabet did not have punctuation until at least the II century, and there were no minscule (lower case) letters until much later.



context decides meanings....notthe shift key.


When the Jews put the words of Paul to the test they looked for context of the verse to see if what Paul said was true....
They did not just check the use of the shift key....LOL :)

The Bible Jesus and Paul read from, had no concept of upper and lower case letters...

Therefore any teacher today that attempts to teach that "christian doctrine" is decided by the use of upper and lower case letters in the Bible, is just pulling ideas out of thin air..

Jesus had no such teaching,





http://greek-language.com/grklinguist/?p=657

[alanmolstad]

Dr Walter Martin does address this matter of the big "G" / little "g"

here is a video I found where the point is raised by a CULT believer and answered by Walter.

Go to 52:00 point of the video....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gufxYe1OhWs

[alanmolstad]

In the above video I have posted you see in the words of the lady the thinking of the member of a CULT on the big/little "g" issue.

The lady clearly believes that the difference between the use in her bible of the shift-key is how you determine Christian doctrine,

The lady points out that the Bible in her hands clearly has the word 'god' in small case, and so this proves to her 100% that the teachings of her church are supported by the Bible's text.

Walter Martin points out how silly her way of finding truth is..

Walter points out that you simply cant determine your Christian doctrine by just looking at word to check if it happened to be capitalized or not.


In a real study of the bible and in a real effort to understand the bible's teachings, you can't allow the editor's use or non-use of the shift key on his computer to determine your doctrines.


The context of a verse guide us to the understanding of its meanings......not the shift key....

[BigJulie]

All of the Greek New Testament originals were written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS with no spaces and probably no punctuation, and all of the earlier m****cripts are in this style, whether on parchment or papyrus. That's nice, but I gave you a verse from the Old Testament.






context decides meanings....notthe shift key. I agree, so I asked you to explain this---"Ye are gods and children of the Most High." So, these unrighteous rulers-they are denoted as children of the Most High. How do you understand that in context?

Please explain why "ye are gods' is followed by the qualifier "and children of the Most High"? You are ignoring this. You seem to think this is all about context. Please, explain this why "and children of the Most High" is added. (Especially in light that you believe this should read "YE ARE GODS AND CHILDREN OF THE MOST HIGH"



Therefore any teacher today that attempts to teach that "christian doctrine" is decided by
the use of upper and lower case letters in the Bible, is just pulling ideas out of thin air.. Interesting argument when I have had so many christians argue with me the importance of denoting "gods" from God. But hey, if you state there is no difference, well--that is up to you.


Jesus had no such teaching, Really--I gave you Christ's words from the New Testament that he spoke to the Jews regarding the Old Testament that is written in Hebrew. You seem to be caught up on what is Greek.

[alanmolstad]

Please explain why "ye are gods' is followed by the qualifier "and children of the Most High"? You are ignoring this.



You seem to think this is all about context.



Yes...it always is about the context.....always....always-always-always!

You never want to be guilty of taking a verse out of its context to use in a way that fits in agreement with your views.


That is how CULTS get started...
That is how CULTS maintain their hold over people.

Most of the time the founder of an off-shoot religion has just a little bit more Bible-smarts than his followers.
This means that when he lifts a verse out of it's context there is no one who dares stand up and say, "You just lifted that verse out of it's context!"

After a while, the members of a CULT will come to view the way their teachers lift a verse out of it's context as just being the normal way to read the Bible.

They may come to believe that using the context a verse appears within as our guide in understanding it, to actually be the wrong way to read the Bible.

They may come to see reading a verse in its context as being wrong because when you do that you never come to their conclusions about what they want the verse teach.



The Jehovah's Witnesses do this a lot.
The JWs were started by a Bible teacher that had enough Bible smarts to put on a convincing bible study to his followers.
None of the people that he taught in his growing CULT dared to stand up and tell him that he was lifting a verse out of its context.....and this is why the JW were well-known for their predictions for the date of the end of the world.


The same is true for other CULTS that lift a verse out of the context to support their teachings, Psalm 82:6 is a good example of this being done.

When you look at the verse in its context, and read the verses that surround it,you come away with the good understanding that the lord is warning the judges of this world to act better, as they too are but humans and will die and face their own judgement.

You can see in the words of the Lord that he mocks the unjust judges .

The Lord says that He put them into their positions of power, and that this is not their position by nature...and he reminds them that they will face Him one day at their death.



For further reading on this issue I will post a link in my next post...

[alanmolstad]

What does the Bible mean by “you are gods” / "ye are gods" in Psalm 82:6



http://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html

[alanmolstad]

You seem to be caught up on what is Greek.
well...yes, as its more relevant because Jesus and Paul used the Greek Septuagint as their primary Bible.

[BigJulie]

What does the Bible mean by “you are gods” / "ye are gods" in Psalm 82:6



http://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html

From your site:


It is clear from the next three verses that the word “gods” refers to magistrates, judges, and other people who hold positions of authority and rule. Calling a human magistrate a “god” indicates three things: 1) he has authority over other human beings, 2) the power he wields as a civil authority is to be feared, and 3) he derives his power and authority from God Himself, who is pictured as judging the whole earth in verse 8.

So, two points:

1. Your site uses both upper-case and lower-case g's to denote whether speaking of God or of "judges or rulers".
2. Your site never clarifies "and children of the Most High"--it never really touches on it.

As your site never touches on this point, will you please tell me how you understand the line "and children of the Most High?"

[BigJulie]

well...yes, as its more relevant because Jesus and Paul used the Greek Septuagint as their primary Bible.

Hmmm, I wonder why then Christ used the term "jot and ***tle" which are part of Hebrew writings. You must be right and Christ must have been mistaken.

[MickeyS]

It's definitely been a strange conversation.

1. I believed he was paraphrasing a quote from Mormon doctrine incorrectly (siting from Mormon Doctrine--and another site I did not recognize.)
2. I pointed out that I recognized that he was just repeating what was told him as he acknowledged happens as times.
3. He insisted he just quoted it directly.
4. I then acknowledged is was not his paraphrasing but instead Bill McKeever, a non-mormon whose take on the Mormon Doctrine quote is incorrect. This seemed a perfect case in point of his acknowledgement that people do not try to lie, but just repeat the untruths they have been told.

From this exchange he:
1. Accused me of calling him a liar.
2. Began calling me a liar.
3. Began swearing, calling me names, and calling me a liar.

At this point, I think the conversation is unhealthy.

The web address "mrm" is "Mormon Research Ministry" an anti-Mormonism site. Wherefore the information gleaned from that site can not be qualified as correct Mormon doctrine let alone official Mormon doctrine. It's not your fault he didn't vet his sources. You never once ever called him a liar, and he never pointed out where you did, he just kept pointing to the quote. A quote retrieved from an anti-lds website citing INCORRECT Mormon doctrine. Maybe he should get his info from actual Mormon sources next time. It should be a lesson to him.

[BigJulie]

The web address "mrm" is "Mormon Research Ministry" an anti-Mormonism site. Wherefore the information gleaned from that site can not be qualified as correct Mormon doctrine let alone official Mormon doctrine. It's not your fault he didn't vet his sources. You never once ever called him a liar, and he never pointed out where you did, he just kept pointing to the quote. A quote retrieved from an anti-lds website citing INCORRECT Mormon doctrine. Maybe he should get his info from actual Mormon sources next time. It should be a lesson to him.

This is the sad truth. Often non-Mormons get their information from sites that are not just inaccurate, but rely on sensationalism to make a name for themselves. This is then repeated over and over and over again. This is not unlike the autism/vaccine scare that was promoted by a scientist who falsified his data in order to receive recognition. When he was called out on it, he retracted his information--but not before it was picked up and spread by many, unaware parents. In the end, we are having outbreaks of diseases that should have long been controlled.

Likewise, as people are not familiar with our doctrine, and we keep a plethora of history, we have become a mark for those who wish to portray our beliefs in a way we would not even recognize them.

The irony is we are told to look at the Bible, and we do. But once we began looking at what the Bible actually states, those who disagree with our beliefs will begin going to non-Biblical sources to back their thinking--as was just the case with Alan with his site.

[MichaellS]

This is the sad truth. Often non-Mormons get their information from sites that are not just inaccurate, but rely on sensationalism to make a name for themselves. This is then repeated over and over and over again. This is not unlike the autism/vaccine scare that was promoted by a scientist who falsified his data in order to receive recognition. When he was called out on it, he retracted his information--but not before it was picked up and spread by many, unaware parents. In the end, we are having outbreaks of diseases that should have long been controlled.

Likewise, as people are not familiar with our doctrine, and we keep a plethora of history, we have become a mark for those who wish to portray our beliefs in a way we would not even recognize them.

The irony is we are told to look at the Bible, and we do. But once we began looking at what the Bible actually states, those who disagree with our beliefs will begin going to non-Biblical sources to back their thinking--as was just the case with Alan with his site.

Very good points. Now even within your own defense, you could turn the non-M on it’s ear and entertain him down a tangible outcome.. Or are you also stymied from your own personal discretionary reading?

I don’t know you so many of you, sorry to say. But, if you are known on occasion to help the non-M into a helpful and constructive outcome, would that also resonate from possible sources outside of Mormon literature?

Currious.

[BigJulie]

Very good points. Now even within your own defense, you could turn the non-M on it’s ear and entertain him down a tangible outcome.. Or are you also stymied from your own personal discretionary reading?

I don’t know you so many of you, sorry to say. But, if you are known on occasion to help the non-M into a helpful and constructive outcome, would that also resonate from possible sources outside of Mormon literature?

Currious.


I have read both inside and outside Mormon literature--but if you want to understand our beliefs, that comes from us, from within our own sources. Usually, what I find are flawed attempts to explain our beliefs using marginal sources. (Let's put it this way, I once read a book on William Clinton which portrayed him in a very negative light--and I believed what I read. I then read an article from that same author on Mormons. It was so poorly written and so flawed that I began to realize that this author enjoyed the attention he received from easily exploiting people's fears, rather than on a real attempt to understand and explain.)

Our beliefs are not defined by others, but by ourselves. I have no problem with Alan using his own literature or his own sources. What I struggle with is the argument that truth only comes from the Bible and that Alan or other's beliefs are only defined by what is in the Bible. Yet, when pressed, they are no unlike ourselves in which other sources are a benefit to their understanding.

So, the problem is not using other sources, it is being hypocritical in believing you do not.

[BigJulie]

Very good points. Now even within your own defense, you could turn the non-M on it’s ear and entertain him down a tangible outcome.. Or are you also stymied from your own personal discretionary reading?

I don’t know you so many of you, sorry to say. But, if you are known on occasion to help the non-M into a helpful and constructive outcome, would that also resonate from possible sources outside of Mormon literature?

Currious.


One more thought on this. Here is a question to ask yourself. Let's say you are trying to understand Einstein's theory of relativity and you want to know how Einstein understood it. You can read Einstein's work and study it and you can also read other physicists understanding of it. But if they disagreed--which one would you see as the reliable source? And what is Einstein is alive and well--would you argue with him?

You can read all you want from non-Mormon source, but it is arrogant to think that they have it right and Mormon's have their understanding of their own religion wrong. And here is how Mormon's see it--we have direct access to the source. You can say we can't trust our feelings or it might not be God--but then what do you trust? If I can't trust that I can learn to understand love versus lust or peace versus contention or the spirit versus the flesh, what can I trust? I might as well be thrown to the wind and it just becomes a matter of who argues the best. It is not surprising to me, based on this type of thinking, that so many christians are leaving for atheism.

[MichaellS]

I have read both inside and outside Mormon literature--but if you want to understand our beliefs, that comes from us, from within our own sources. Usually, what I find are flawed attempts to explain our beliefs using marginal sources. (Let's put it this way, I once read a book on William Clinton which portrayed him in a very negative light--and I believed what I read. I then read an article from that same author on Mormons. It was so poorly written and so flawed that I began to realize that this author enjoyed the attention he received from easily exploiting people's fears, rather than on a real attempt to understand and explain.)

Our beliefs are not defined by others, but by ourselves. I have no problem with Alan using his own literature or his own sources. What I struggle with is the argument that truth only comes from the Bible and that Alan or other's beliefs are only defined by what is in the Bible. Yet, when pressed, they are no unlike ourselves in which other sources are a benefit to their understanding.

So, the problem is not using other sources, it is being hypocritical in believing you do not.

----------

One more thought on this. Here is a question to ask yourself. Let's say you are trying to understand Einstein's theory of relativity and you want to know how Einstein understood it. You can read Einstein's work and study it and you can also read other physicists understanding of it. But if they disagreed--which one would you see as the reliable source? And what is Einstein is alive and well--would you argue with him?

You can read all you want from non-Mormon source, but it is arrogant to think that they have it right and Mormon's have their understanding of their own religion wrong. And here is how Mormon's see it--we have direct access to the source. You can say we can't trust our feelings or it might not be God--but then what do you trust? If I can't trust that I can learn to understand love versus lust or peace versus contention or the spirit versus the flesh, what can I trust? I might as well be thrown to the wind and it just becomes a matter of who argues the best. It is not surprising to me, based on this type of thinking, that so many christians are leaving for atheism.

Okay, flawed for unreliable publishing of facts. Is that it? Alright, with so much a flaw being contended over for said number of years, do you have some reference (preferable w-site) that touches on the chief contentions in a side-by-side format or some other comparably explained contention?

An example would have sufficed well here too, but you may not feel is appropriate for the time. Now for what benefit to the discussion may be worth, it may come as a surprise to you, and alarm to others, I am not overly versed in the works of others. A side-by-side would be wonderful for someone who is fairly confident he understands the difference between glorying in the works of others verses being built by church effect, as you may recall in the word on both.

Thanks for re.

[BigJulie]

Okay, flawed for unreliable publishing of facts. Is that it? Alright, with so much a flaw being contended over for said number of years, do you have some reference (preferable w-site) that touches on the chief contentions in a side-by-side format or some other comparably explained contention?

An example would have sufficed well here too, but you may not feel is appropriate for the time. Now for what benefit to the discussion may be worth, it may come as a surprise to you, and alarm to others, I am not overly versed in the works of others. A side-by-side would be wonderful for someone who is fairly confident he understands the difference between glorying in the works of others verses being built by church effect, as you may recall in the word on both.

Thanks for re.


I did not do a side-by-side, but in post #35 of this thread, I just gave one line that Bill McKeever wrote of his understanding of the Snow couplet and showed how it is flawed as follows:


The site you gave me references Mormon Doctrine. If you go to the page referenced, the only thing there is the very last part of what you posted. Therefore, the first part of what you posted and referenced is not in Mormon Doctrine. It is the writing of Bill McKeever.

So, this sentence--"Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God" is misleading and untrue.

"mere mortal" is not true. "become God" is not true. Point blank--trust a Mormon, he has this wrong.

So, let me tell you exactly how it is misleading.

1. It leads the believer to think Mormons believe the God was not God prior to his birth on earth; that he is just like you and me; or in other words, was not God and then was born and then became God. Hence, mere mortal is not correct.
2. It dismisses the LDS theology that Jesus Christ was part of the Godhood prior to his birth and continued that place after his birth. Hence, mere mortal is not correct.
3. It dismisses the LDS theology that man, who is created by God, is eternal in nature; that we existed before we were born and will exist after we die. Hence, mere mortal is not correct.
4. It dismisses the LDS theology that Jesus Christ, who being the Son of God, who became a man, took on the sins of the world, and then died provides a way for us to follow Him. Hence, we "become God" is not correct."

Now, if you want to actually understand, "they are gods" as in terms of what it means to have eternal life---look to this teaching of Christ.

Mat 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

So, we see that those who follow and obey the Lord will become "ruler" over many things. I believe Alan has argued that the term "gods" in the Bible means ruler.

Here is another Bible verse that backs this:

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And here is Christ telling the 12 apostles that they will sit on 12 thrones and judge. (The term "gods" is also used for judges.)

[MichaellS]

I did not do a side-by-side, but in post #35 of this thread, I just gave one line that Bill McKeever wrote of his understanding of the Snow couplet and showed how it is flawed as follows:


The site you gave me references Mormon Doctrine. If you go to the page referenced, the only thing there is the very last part of what you posted. Therefore, the first part of what you posted and referenced is not in Mormon Doctrine. It is the writing of Bill McKeever.

So, this sentence--"Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God" is misleading and untrue.

"mere mortal" is not true. "become God" is not true. Point blank--trust a Mormon, he has this wrong.

So, let me tell you exactly how it is misleading.

1. It leads the believer to think Mormons believe the God was not God prior to his birth on earth; that he is just like you and me; or in other words, was not God and then was born and then became God. Hence, mere mortal is not correct.
2. It dismisses the LDS theology that Jesus Christ was part of the Godhood prior to his birth and continued that place after his birth. Hence, mere mortal is not correct.
3. It dismisses the LDS theology that man, who is created by God, is eternal in nature; that we existed before we were born and will exist after we die. Hence, mere mortal is not correct.
4. It dismisses the LDS theology that Jesus Christ, who being the Son of God, who became a man, took on the sins of the world, and then died provides a way for us to follow Him. Hence, we "become God" is not correct."

Now, if you want to actually understand, "they are gods" as in terms of what it means to have eternal life---look to this teaching of Christ.

Mat 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

So, we see that those who follow and obey the Lord will become "ruler" over many things. I believe Alan has argued that the term "gods" in the Bible means ruler.

Here is another Bible verse that backs this:

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

And here is Christ telling the 12 apostles that they will sit on 12 thrones and judge. (The term "gods" is also used for judges.)

Ah, I might have a question or two on that before replying (short on time for the present). Meanwhile, I would like to hear your position on part B of my second paragraph. But feel free to p*** if you wish and I will drop it.

[BigJulie]

Ah, I might have a question or two on that before replying (short on time for the present). Meanwhile, I would like to hear your position on part B of my second paragraph. But feel free to p*** if you wish and I will drop it.

Are you referring to this comment you made:


A side-by-side would be wonderful for someone who is fairly confident he understands the difference between glorying in the works of others verses being built by church effect, as you may recall in the word on both.

I don't understand what you are asking. I didn't give a side by side, but I gave a "paraphrase" by Bill McKeever and then a step by step breakdown of how it misleads and is inaccurate. The last part of your sentence makes no sense at all--"as you may recall in the word on both."

(And you are asking me to believe you that you understand the difference between glorying in the works of others versus (not verses, right) being built by church effect---if you are trying to state you understand the difference when someone belief's are understood through what they are taught by others versus what is understood through religious tradition.)

[alanmolstad]

I don't understand what you are asking........


All I can say is "Good luck"

I kinda gave up attempting to understand what the guy was saying to me...

[MickeyS]

Are you referring to this comment you made:



I don't understand what you are asking. I didn't give a side by side, but I gave a "paraphrase" by Bill McKeever and then a step by step breakdown of how it misleads and is inaccurate. The last part of your sentence makes no sense at all--"as you may recall in the word on both."

(And you are asking me to believe you that you understand the difference between glorying in the works of others versus (not verses, right) being built by church effect---if you are trying to state you understand the difference when someone belief's are understood through what they are taught by others versus what is understood through religious tradition.)

Wow that's impressive Julie that you were able to decide what he was saying...kudos.

[BigJulie]

Wow that's impressive Julie that you were able to decide what he was saying...kudos.

Doing my best---but true, it is not easy.

[alanmolstad]

I try to be a good example and cut people some slack that might not be very good at communicating their thoughts down into English, as our forum does get guests from other lands where English is not what people speak there, but there also comes a time when even I have to just, "move on" .

[MichaellS]

Ok, I’ll play along. This section, “Part B” of the above second paragraph reads,

“A side-by-side would be wonderful for someone who is fairly confident he understands the difference between
glorying in the works of others verses
being built by church effect,
as you may recall in the word on both.”

For those expressing difficulty on part “B”, it is actually quite obvious I am not attempting to make further statements on how wonderful it would be, how foolish. What I have mentioned here is the resounding difference between these two.

If you find it difficult to be able to put an exact divider between them, and yes from the word, then you are doing yourself a great disservice. For it isn’t some foreign revelation I’m suggesting, but a vast guard to be used when you are confronted by every face of authority, be that cult or even perfection within your own chosen denom.

But just as Paul made it a clear device to use upon that face, I choose not to play along any further nor do your homework, seeing my own entrance of simplicity is pushed into the shadows from the apparent neglect expressed by you in this area would only put me in further contention with you.

Sorry, not interested.

Correction noted and ignored, it's current use; modulate content unlike the friendlier moderated content,

[alanmolstad]

Ok Julie.....tell me what he just said?.......
(I tried follow him, but I lost him at "But just as Paul...")


best of luck there Julie.

[BigJulie]

Ok, I’ll play along. This section, “Part B” of the above second paragraph reads,

“A side-by-side would be wonderful for someone who is fairly confident he understands the difference between
glorying in the works of others verses
being built by church effect,
as you may recall in the word on both.”

For those expressing difficulty on part “B”, it is actually quite obvious I am not attempting to make further statements on how wonderful it would be, how foolish. What I have mentioned here is the resounding difference between these two.

If you find it difficult to be able to put an exact divider between them, and yes from the word, then you are doing yourself a great disservice. For it isn’t some foreign revelation I’m suggesting, but a vast guard to be used when you are confronted by every face of authority, be that cult or even perfection within your own chosen denom.

But just as Paul made it a clear device to use upon that face, I choose not to play along any further nor do your homework, seeing my own entrance of simplicity is pushed into the shadows from the apparent neglect expressed by you in this area would only put me in further contention with you.

Sorry, not interested.

Correction noted and ignored, it's current use; modulate content unlike the friendlier moderated content,



Wow, didn't figure you to be so easily offended.

I did not find it difficult to put a divider, but merely asking for clarification. You explained what you meant "from the word" but you did little to clarify what you meant by "glorying in the works of others, etc."

Truly, it is better to speak simply that all can understand, regardless of the breadth of your vocabulary.

So "from the word" as you put it "Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended." Matthew 13:21

[BigJulie]

Ok Julie.....tell me what he just said?.......
(I tried follow him, but I lost him at "But just as Paul...")


best of luck there Julie.

A breakdown:


k, I’ll play along. This section, “Part B” of the above second paragraph reads,

“A side-by-side would be wonderful for someone who is fairly confident he understands the difference between
glorying in the works of others verses
being built by church effect,
as you may recall in the word on both.”


Part B refers to that in bold Blue.


For those expressing difficulty on part “B”, it is actually quite obvious I am not attempting to make further statements on how wonderful it would be, how foolish. What I have mentioned here is the resounding difference between these two. Here is misunderstood me. For as much as he talks in lofty language, he missed that I got that he understood there was a difference between the two. I tried to clarify what he meant by the two--he chose instead to put me down.


If you find it difficult to be able to put an exact divider between them, and yes from the word, then you are doing yourself a great disservice. For it isn’t some foreign revelation I’m suggesting, but a vast guard to be used when you are confronted by every face of authority, be that cult or even perfection within your own chosen denom. Once again, he thinks I am having a difficult time putting a distinct divider between them rather than understanding I was asking for clarification of what he meant. I gave what I thought he meant and asked for clarification. He finally clarified that he wanted me to explain the difference by using the Bible, and to do anything else is a "great disservice." So, basically he wanted a breakdown--a side by side, with one side using the Bible. (As you will note, I did not set it up side by side, but i did give a break down and did back it up my position with the Bible.)


But just as Paul made it a clear device to use upon that face, I choose not to play along any further nor do your homework, seeing my own entrance of simplicity is pushed into the shadows from the apparent neglect expressed by you in this area would only put me in further contention with you. I believe he is referencing Paul wiping the dust off his feet here when he met a "non-believer."

I find it interesting that he using such humble terminology to express himself and then notes that he does not want to do the work for me (ignoring my own posts and failing to respond to them) and feels that any further discourse would cause nothing but contention with me. Seeing as I only asked him to clarify himself as to what exactly he meant when he chooses to use, as Ann would say "high-highfalutin, mumbo-jumbo", this is quite an amazing attack; regardless of how flowery his words.


Sorry, not interested.

Correction noted and ignored, it's current use; modulate content unlike the friendlier moderated content, An attempt to put me in my place.

[alanmolstad]

Truly, it is better to speak simply that all can understand, regardless of the breadth of your vocabulary.



Your comment reminded me of something Dr Walter Martin once said during his call-in radio show.

I forget the point a caller had raised with Walter , but I know it was a very weird topic and the caller clearly had been to some type of Catholic higher schooling.
There were a lot of terms being tossed back and forth by Walter and the caller that I did not understand.

Then Walter took a moment to tell a story from his own past where he once made a statement to his own Bible teacher (a Mr Barnhouse I believe?) and that his teacher reminded him to always keep the doctrines of the Christian church and their explanations as simple as possible.

The quote I remember Walter gave of what his teacher said was something like - "We need to get the hay out of the loft and put it down on the barn floor where the cows can eat it”

[BigJulie]

Your comment reminded me of something Dr Walter Martin once said during his call-in radio show.

I forget the point a caller had raised with Walter , but I know it was a very weird topic and the caller clearly had been to some type of Catholic higher schooling.
There were a lot of terms being tossed back and forth by Walter and the caller that I did not understand.

Then Walter took a moment to tell a story from his own past where he once made a statement to his own Bible teacher (a Mr Barnhouse I believe?) and that his teacher reminded him to always keep the doctrines of the Christian church and their explanations as simple as possible.

The quote I remember Walter gave of what his teacher said was something like - "We need to get the hay out of the loft and put it down on the barn floor where the cows can eat it”

Well, very simply, what I see is that two men asked me to use the Bible to make a point of what I believed and when I did, both became offended.

Sometimes when you put the hay on the floor of the barn, it doesn't matter--the cows still won't eat.

[MichaellS]

“yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away.” (Mat 13:21)

Was this meant for me?


V21, “when subjected to the testing influence of affliction, abandons his faith and relapses into his former condition.” – Meyer’s NT Commentary

You’re too kind.

Your answer ma’am to divide the two,


“I believe he is referencing Paul wiping the dust off his feet here when he met a "non-believer."- Big Julie

But I’m afraid you are not being very kind to my parameter. For I said it was first a “guard” and “device” even when things point to the perfect ministry, we can still look that authority square in the face and say, ‘you are wrong’ –IF- this feature of God’s will is in place.

“Perfect ministry”?

Now here I thought you would have jumped all over that the first time I mentioned it. Oh well, still no takers? Okay, why should I be the one to spell this out. Again, what could I recognize wrong even when I hear a sound word of instruction to correct a few, or many with precision, that is, precision aside from the correction I am seeking?.

Com’n, , ,warriors.

[BigJulie]

“yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away.” (Mat 13:21)

Was this meant for me?


V21, “when subjected to the testing influence of affliction, abandons his faith and relapses into his former condition.” – Meyer’s NT Commentary

You’re too kind.

Your answer ma’am to divide the two,



But I’m afraid you are not being very kind to my parameter. For I said it was first a “guard” and “device” even when things point to the perfect ministry, we can still look that authority square in the face and say, ‘you are wrong’ –IF- this feature of God’s will is in place.

“Perfect ministry”?

Now here I thought you would have jumped all over that the first time I mentioned it. Oh well, still no takers? Okay, why should I be the one to spell this out. Again, what could I recognize wrong even when I hear a sound word of instruction to correct a few, or many with precision, that is, precision aside from the correction I am seeking?.

Com’n, , ,warriors.


MichaelS. I have to agree with the others. You need to speak plainly.

From the Book of Mormon: "my soul delighteth in plainness unto my people, that they may learn."

[MichaellS]

MichaelS. I have to agree with the others. You need to speak plainly.

From the Book of Mormon: "my soul delighteth in plainness unto my people, that they may learn."

Got - it, thank you for the time spent.