Preview of GodNeverSinned.com video project

[aaronshaf]

http://godneversinned.com/

I added a lot more video interviews from General Conference weekend.

I hope this video brings Christians to tears.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

http://godneversinned.com/

I added a lot more video interviews from General Conference weekend.

I hope this video brings Christians to tears.

This gives me an idea. A project I can name "Godisnotaruthlesstyrant".

I can fill it with Evan quotes and put it on the internet, and advertise it here.

[Vlad III]

This gives me an idea. A project I can name "Godisnotaruthlesstyrant".

I can fill it with Evan quotes and put it on the internet, and advertise it here.

Yes, but you have to create a new account and then only post a new thread with a video link. It seems, for Aaron, that this is not a 'discussion' forum but a billboard for his anti-mormonism agenda.

Maybe I will make a video asking Evans when life begins. Or maybe ask them what God was doing before He created everything. Then we can take all the conjecture and speculation, put it to music, and portray all their ideas as the doctrinal beliefs of the Evan churches.

[SavedbyTruth]

This gives me an idea. A project I can name "Godisnotaruthlesstyrant".

I can fill it with Evan quotes and put it on the internet, and advertise it here.

Fig,

The video was very interesting. This is what I saw:

1) Faithful saints being asked a seemingly simple question.

2) A non-LDS appearing to ask a simple question which ties closely to what we understand to concern the nature of Heavenly Father.

This allows a few things to take place:

1) The faithful saint has no idea what just happened.

2) A non-LDS happily distributes his video as "evidence" to "prove" something HE doesn't understand.

Here is the Truth:

1) We have been taught that God was once like us. What does that mean? I personally do not know exactly. I have some ideas: We were all "intelligences". Heavenly Father was the most supreme Intelligence. He was able to organize us in our "intelligence" state of being. This is something we never could have done without Him.

I think this is what God means when He teaches us He was once like us. He is referring to our "intelligence" state. But we will never be the supreme God because He was the first. How this all came about is unknown. This is just supposition on my part. How did God obtain His body? I don't know. Was He also born of a virgin and go through the same process as Jesus - only before Jesus? That does not reconcile in my mind because it creates more questions which I cannot answer. Again, supposition on my part. All I do know is Father and Son are without sin.

Likewise, for example, I don't think any non-LDS Christian can come up with an answer to a question like "where did God come from". So I do not understand what all the hooplah is.

2) We have been taught that we have the potential to become a God like Him. This is not explained exactly either. I do know that He prepared worlds without end. He has also told us that He wants to share all that He has with us. I don't think it is a stretch, therefore, to think that the worlds without end will be shared with us. To become a God, would you expect to be able to be a God over something? The worlds without end come to mind.

3) Most worshipers do not delve into this type of depth in the exact meanings of beliefs and how they are accomplished. Look at Heavenly Father as an example. If you ask 100 people of any denomination to describe who God is and where He came from, you will get 100 different answers as they each struggle to come to grips with verbalizing something that is not even clear to them.

4) Our own Savior, Jesus Christ, who is the Lord and creator of our world came to earth and obtained a physical body. He is the Son of the Father. We have been taught we can become Gods also and share all the Father has--certainly He has the worlds without end which He created. We have also been taught God was once as we were (but the typical worshiper has not even tried to figure out what that looks like). Now insert these questions: "Do you think God went through the same process we are going through/is it possible God sinned?"

I am not surprised at the answers. Nor was the person who asked them while he cheered silently to himself "gotchya!". I would also like to add, most people stopped like that, untrained in what is really happening when they are asked questions like that, are not going to give an answer that even is a complete or thought-out depiction of what they believe...especially while on their way someplace when stopped and quickly asked this seemingly simple question. They are briefly familiar with the knowledge that they have the potential to become Gods....not with what that has to do with how Heavenly Father may or may not have become the Supreme Almighty God that He is. They were not able to easily come up with a way to explain God possibly could have sinned. They are also more focused on worshiping, keeping the commandments, and following the example of their Savior, Jesus Christ. Father is perfect, just as the Son is perfect. They are without sin.

Conclusion: Deception at its best.

SavedbyTruth

[aaronshaf]

Good to see you again too, FBT.

[SavedbyTruth]

Good to see you again too, FBT.

FBT???? what does that mean?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

FBT???? what does that mean?

Fig-bearing Thistle. We're pretty close. FbT SbT.

[SavedbyTruth]

Fig-bearing Thistle. We're pretty close. FbT SbT.

Hi Fig,

I am soooo glad I didn't run with that......

SbT

[maklelan]

http://godneversinned.com/

I added a lot more video interviews from General Conference weekend.

I hope this video brings Christians to tears.

You start off with the No True Scotsman fallacy and then proceed to take advantage of well-meaning people with a slimy little trick. It's all an appeal to emotion, which is another fallacy, and betrays absolutely abject ignorance of the religious and socio-political contexts within which the theology of the Old and New Testaments was developed and transmitted. You're not at all showing any conflict between Mormonism and the Bible, or Mormonism and absolute truth, but rather between Mormonism and contemporary fundamental Christian theology, which is demonstrably alien to the theologies of both the Old and New Testaments.

You can't defend yourself against someone who knows better, which is why you won't at all engage my statements, but you're not concerned with the truth so much as impacting as many people as possible with your fallacious rhetoric, irrespective of the truth. I find your video abominable not only as a Latter-day Saint, but as a person who loves God and my neighbor.

[aaronshaf]

maklelan, thanks for chiming in. The video project certainly isn't done. But for now, I think the material is sufficient to engage the conscience---and I believe everyone's conscience knows at some level that it is wrong to suppose that God could have been a sinner. Appealing to God's testimony (scripture) is absolutely important, and I have that planned.

I'm a little confused at how you can really attack my rhetoric, as the video is almost entirely Latter-day Saints speaking their own beliefs.

Can you tell us how "religious and socio-political contexts within which the theology of the Old and New Testaments" would give us the notion that God could have been a sinner?

If you'd like to audibly dialogue with me over Skype, I am aaronshaf. I am also willing (if you are) to record our conversation for others to hear, unedited, via an MP3.

[SavedbyTruth]

maklelan, thanks for chiming in. The video project certainly isn't done. But for now, I think the material is sufficient to engage the conscience---and I believe everyone's conscience knows at some level that it is wrong to suppose that God could have been a sinner. Appealing to God's testimony (scripture) is absolutely important, and I have that planned.

I'm a little confused at how you can really attack my rhetoric, as the video is almost entirely Latter-day Saints speaking their own beliefs.

Can you tell us how "religious and socio-political contexts within which the theology of the Old and New Testaments" would give us the notion that God could have been a sinner?

If you'd like to audibly dialogue with me over Skype, I am aaronshaf. I am also willing (if you are) to record our conversation for others to hear, unedited, via an MP3.

Do you have the permission of those you questioned to use them in your video?

[aaronshaf]

Yes, they all were informed that the interview was part of a video project. But even if I didn't have permission, it'd be legally fine, since it's on public property, and it's ethically praiseworthy to expose this kind of thing.

I usually find that Mormon defenders deflect in these kinds of directions over this issue. The material is very embarr***ing. They don't want the public to see what members generally believe about this kind of issue.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Do you have the permission of those you questioned to use them in your video?

Aarons tactic is as follows:

Put on a white shirt, and tie possibly. Shave, get a good hair cut, wear an undershirt, and present yourself as a faithful LDS member. (But never really say so).

Then pose questions to the interview-ee that seem like a questions that an LDS person would ask. Then take those answers, and craftily ***emble them in a video that is in a completely different context than what the interview-ee was lead to believe would be presented.

Then go about to different internet sites, and advertise.

[SavedbyTruth]

Yes, they all were informed that the interview was part of a video project. But even if I didn't have permission, it'd be legally fine, since it's on public property, and it's ethically praiseworthy to expose this kind of thing.

I usually find that Mormon defenders deflect in these kinds of directions over this issue. The material is very embarr***ing. They don't want the public to see what members generally believe about this kind of issue.

Actually, it is not embarr***ing. I saw it right away for it was. That is why I exposed you in my response.

I was asking about getting their permission because it could prove startling to come across themselves on the Internet.

I was mistaken to think you would consider that the proper thing to do. It doesn't make any difference that it was on public property. The purpose of your video was not disclosed to them, which is self explanatory.

You speak of conscience as if you knew what that was. That is also self explanatory.

When you are called before God to answer for this video, make sure you have a copy of this thread to show Him. Good luck.

SavedbyTruth

[aaronshaf]

I think this is what God means when He teaches us He was once like us. He is referring to our "intelligence" state

It's nice to hear your personal, unauthoritative opinion, but many Latter-day Saints don't share the ***umption over what is chiefly meant by "as man is God once was". Many LDS I talk to think it chiefly refers to a mortal probationary experience that could have historically included God the Father's sinning.


But we will never be the supreme God because He was the first.

I'm not sure if you mean to communicate Oslterian implications here by "He was the first", as some LDS think this is absolute, while many others (taking the more traditional view of Smith [cf. the Sermon in the Grove] and Young) relativize it to this particular dominion under our particular spirit-father (not precluding that there was an infinite regression of gods).


All I do know is Father and Son are without sin.

Do you mean to ambiguously apply this statement to God's past? If so, thank you for sharing more of your personal, unauthoritative, non-mainstream, minority opinion. It's nice to know what LDS internet armchair apologists believe.


If you ask 100 people of any denomination to describe who God is and where He came from, you will get 100 different answers as they each struggle to come to grips with verbalizing something that is not even clear to them.

All of traditional Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam (i.e. cl***ical theism) teaches and believes that God did not "come from" somewhere, as though he was ever was less than he fully is now in all of his attributes.


Now insert these questions

What do you mean "insert"? Do you want me to ***ume that ins***utional Mormonism and mainstream Mormons all share these personal opinions of yours, including the apparent supposition that God the Father was the very "first"? No thank you. The research and evidence really are yielding that mainstream Mormons generally (but not uniformly) believe that God may have lived a mortal probationary experience in which he sinned.

One of the interviewees is a Mormon apologist who has worked with FAIR. I won't tell you his name out of respect for him and his willingness to participate. But he has thought through this stuff more and (even to my surprise) didn't give a much different answer than the others.

You say that Latter-day Saints are not really familiar with "with how Heavenly Father may or may not have become the Supreme Almighty God that He is", but isn't that the point? Their unfamiliarity with whether God the Father was a sinner or not is precisely what I'm aiming to expose.

Thank you for simply repeating what I've learned and have intended to promulgate.

Take care,

Aaron
Skype: aaronshaf

[aaronshaf]

Actually, I had (depending on the day) jeans or kahkis, and a polo shirt.

Are you afraid of Mormons telling me things they wouldn't normally tell the general public?

THAT is precisely why this video project is so impactful (and infuriating to LDS internet apologists).

[aaronshaf]

Expose me? I'm not sure what there is to expose.

The interviewees knew the clip was being used for an internet project that showed LDS viewpoints in their own words.

Because of crazy Mormons like you making insane and desperate accusations, I have already made the habit of using an MP3 recorder to capture the entirety of my excursions to Temple Square. So now I just chuckle to myself over your dire attempts to discredit me, making appeals to what you know nothing about. :-) Be careful what accusations you make.

[SavedbyTruth]

Expose me? I'm not sure what there is to expose. It's all in the open already.

The interviewees knew the clip was being used for an internet project that showed LDS viewpoints in their own words.

Because of crazy Mormons like you making insane and desperate accusations, I have already made the habit of using an MP3 record to capture the entirety of my excursions to Temple Square. So now I just chuckle to myself over your dire attempts to discredit me making appeals to what you know nothing about.

You may not feel exposed, but I am not surprised about that either.

Did you give the interviewees the information on where they could see the finished project?

Crazy Mormons? I didn't think Mormons had exclusive ownership of common human decency. But, maybe we DO.

Regardless, it is YOU who will be called to task on this. Not me. Again, good luck. And you may as well have fun with it. You sure won't be laughing later.

SbT

[aaronshaf]

Did you give the interviewees the information on where they could see the finished project?

Yep, if they asked for it. I even gave my card out to a lot of them so they could e-mail me.

So tell us SBT, how would you have answered the question I asked in under a minute or so? You seem to have already expressed uncertainty over whether God was once a sinner, and hence have opened yourself to the possibility that he could have been a sinner.

[maklelan]

maklelan, thanks for chiming in. The video project certainly isn't done. But for now, I think the material is sufficient to engage the conscience---and I believe everyone's conscience knows at some level that it is wrong to suppose that God could have been a sinner. Appealing to God's testimony (scripture) is absolutely important, and I have that planned.

I'm a little confused at how you can really attack my rhetoric, as the video is almost entirely Latter-day Saints speaking their own beliefs.

Rhetoric has just as much to do with how something is presented as what is said. You're trying to make an emotive argument, which requires rhetoric. A while ago you made the ***ertion that Mormonism doesn't preclude the belief that God was a ****sexual transves***e. You even included a picture of a transves***e just to hammer the point home. That was emotive rhetoric, and quite juvenile at that. Bill Maher's film Religulous is also rhetoric, even though it claims to do nothing more than show religionists doing what religionists do.


Can you tell us how "religious and socio-political contexts within which the theology of the Old and New Testaments" would give us the notion that God could have been a sinner?

It won't give you that notion, but a correct understanding of the development of Israelite theology clearly does not preclude God having once been a sinner. Your perspective is a monolithic one of a normative and consistent theology, which is an absolutely untenable ***ertion in light of a decent grasp of the history.

Originally, Israelites held to a four-tiered polytheistic pantheon like their neighbors. El and Yahweh were perceived as father and son, and only when the top tiers of this pantheon were collapsed into one, and the bottom tiers relegated to secretarial responsibilities (angels, seraphim, etc.), were El and Yahweh conflated. Before that Yahweh was a local deity over Israel (see original text of Deuteronomy 32:8-9) who sat in council with other deities over their respective nations. In Psalm 82 this council is described, but the inep***ude of the other deities causes El to destroy them all and promote Yahweh to a position of universal authority. At this point in Israelite theology Yahweh is exalted far above the other top-tier local deities, which end up (as the result of the collapse) in the biblical text as elements of nature over which Yahweh has power (the sea "Yam," death "Mot," the depths "Tiamat," etc.).

Since religion in Judaism and even Christianity was primarily orthopraxic, there was no real normative theology, and a variety of ideologies (many of them conflicting) are present in the text. The idea that the Bible is purely monotheistic is absolutely ludicrous, since it is full of characters that inhabit the heavens (angels, seraphim, etc., as before). The dualism introduced around the beginning of the Second Temple Period also creates problems with the notion of strict monotheism. Your theology ignorantly ignores all this, which is at the root of your misunderstanding of the early Jewish concept of eternity and God's nature. The Hebrew never had a conception of philosophical eternity. 'olam, the word usually translated "everlasting," or "eternal," really just means "unknown time." It refers to time outside the immediate perspective of the subject, whether in the future or the past. This is why it usually is translated ancient times. The root is also the source for the Hebrew words for young man and young woman ('alam and 'almah), which mean a person who is not "knowing," or initiated into the practices of adulthood. The Bible leaves open the idea that God was once a man, and that he was once imperfect like the rest of us. Any ***ertion to the contrary is simply ignorant of the history of Judeo-Christian theology and culture. If you're like to show that you understand this reasoning and have a convincing rationale for rejecting it you may be my guest.

For further reading, please see Shaye Cohen's From the Maccabees to the Mishna (http://www.amazon.com/Maccabees-Mishnah-Second-Shaye-Cohen/dp/0664227430/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239078009&sr=1-1) (primarily chapter 3), Mark Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Biblical-Monotheism-Polytheistic-Background/dp/0195167686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239078037&sr=1-1) (primarily chapters 2 and 3), and Esther Hamori's When Gods Were Men (http://www.amazon.com/When-Gods-Were-Men-Alttestamentliche/dp/3110203480/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239078061&sr=1-1).


If you'd like to audibly dialogue with me over Skype, I am aaronshaf. I am also willing (if you are) to record our conversation for others to hear, unedited, via an MP3.

I've dealt with this scenario too many times to believe anything worthwhile will come of it. You show me you can engage me intelligently by responding rationally and fully to the above comments and I'll think about it.

[maklelan]

Yes, they all were informed that the interview was part of a video project. But even if I didn't have permission, it'd be legally fine, since it's on public property, and it's ethically praiseworthy to expose this kind of thing.

"Ethically praiseworthy to expose this kind of thing"? That may be rationalization for you, but if someone gets upset about your little project (about which you've obviously been misleading) that argument's not going to get you anywhere in court. I really hope you don't think perceived heresy is a legitimate cause to violate someone's privacy in this country.


I usually find that Mormon defenders deflect in these kinds of directions over this issue. The material is very embarr***ing. They don't want the public to see what members generally believe about this kind of issue.

That's how you want it to be, anyway.

[aaronshaf]

maklelan, if you had things your way, I'd be somehow putting a positive spin on the fact that so many Mormons believe God may have been a sinner. But that wouldn't be appropriate. Negative reality warrants negative presentation.


a correct understanding of the development of Israelite theology clearly does not preclude God having once been a sinner... The Bible leaves open the idea that God was once a man, and that he was once imperfect like the rest of us

So far you're not convincing on this. All you're doing is arguing for a kind of henotheism. There's nothing in the Bible that would even hint of the possibility that El or Yahweh were ever sinful beings in need of forgiveness from another being.

In fact, you need to demonstrate that the kind of henotheism the Bible supposedly has is a kind where the Most High has a being yet higher than him (since God the Father would need someone higher than himself to deal with his sin). But the Bible has no open door for the Most High having a Higher Most High.

So you're not helping yourself. Maybe you need to consider going the more Ostlerian route.

[aaronshaf]

I really hope you don't think perceived heresy is a legitimate cause to violate someone's privacy in this country.

Privacy rights of adults who volunteered to be interviewed for a video internet project on a public sidewalk?

Sorry, we don't live in Nauvoo anymore, and I'm not publishing the Expositor.

It's 2009, we live in the United States of America, and we take fair use and free speech very seriously.

I am highly confident that some Mormons would criminalize public criticism of Mormonism if they could.

[SavedbyTruth]

Yep, if they asked for it. I even gave my card out to a lot of them so they could e-mail me.

So tell us SBT, how would you have answered the question I asked in under a minute or so? You seem to have already expressed uncertainty over whether God was once a sinner, and hence have opened yourself to the possibility that he could have been a sinner.

Well, aaronshaf, I am definitely going to copy this thread so that I can present to others how you have taken what I have said and come to the conclusion that I have expressed uncertainty over whether God was once a sinner, and hence have opened myself to the possibility that He could have been a sinner. BTW, I did change the lower case "h" to a capital "H" in recognition of God's Deity. I don't know if you have noticed or not, but for the most part, LDS show respect to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by using capital letters. We also pray using Thee, Thy, Thou, rather than you or your, in order to show respect for members of the Godhead.

Since I missed the part where I opened myself for the possibility that God was once a sinner, please be so kind as to point it out for me. Please do NOT use the times I mentioned clearly that the Father and the Son are sinless.

Since I am familiar with Apologetics, I would have recognized what was going on if you had approached me. I would not have bothered to answer your question at all. You would then be able to "prove" that I either believed God had sinned but did not want to admit it, or that I knew nothing about our beliefs. Yet, I still choose silence. You have shown you are quite capable of bringing on God's wrath upon yourself without my helping you to do so.

SavedbyTruth

[aaronshaf]

To quote you,


How this all came about is unknown. This is just supposition on my part. How did God obtain His body? I don't know. Was He also born of a virgin and go through the same process as Jesus - only before Jesus? That does not reconcile in my mind because it creates more questions which I cannot answer. Again, supposition on my part. All I do know is Father and Son are [present tense] without sin.

So given your rejoinder, are you trying to imply you don't believe God could have been a sinner? Be explicit and succinct, or you'll just look like a hedging child of Hinckley. If you don't believe God ever sinned, then how am I now to ***ume you're embarr***ed by your fellow brethren in the video?

[SavedbyTruth]

To quote you,



So given your rejoinder, are you trying to imply you don't believe God could have been a sinner? Be explicit and succinct, or you'll just look like a hedging child of Hinckley. If you don't believe God ever sinned, then how am I now to ***ume you're embarr***ed by your fellow brethren in the video?

You ARE kidding, right??

How this all came about is unknown. This is just supposition on my part. How did God obtain His body? I don't know. Was He also born of a virgin and go through the same process as Jesus - only before Jesus? That does not reconcile in my mind because it creates more questions which I cannot answer. Again, supposition on my part. All I do know is Father and Son are without sin.

BTW, I removed YOUR "present tense" after my "are". Looks like your grasping at straws to me. "All I do know is Father and Son are without sin." Please note I did not need to put any "tense" in my sentence because none was necessary. What part of "are without sin" don't YOU understand? It is no small wonder you have so much trouble reading and interpreting the Bible.

Let's pretend that I am not around to further clarify my words. Hey, just like those who wrote the Bible. Now, study your video, then study my comments. It's okay to review them as much as you need to.

You DO realize you are insulting your own intelligence??

SavedbyTruth

[aaronshaf]

The present tense might entail information about the past for you, but not for all Mormons. Others use the present tense to talk merely about that, the present state of things. Some Mormons I talk to use the present tense alone to deflect questions about the past.

Also, if you had simply said, "All I do know is Father and Son are without sin" on the street in response to the explicit question of whether you believe God was possibly ever a sinner in the past, I would use follow-up questions since it doesn't adequately answer the original question.

I'm still waiting for an explicit and succinct answer from you:

Do you believe God the Father could have been a sinner in the past?

[maklelan]

maklelan, if you had things your way, I'd be somehow putting a positive spin on the fact that so many Mormons believe God may have been a sinner. But that wouldn't be appropriate. Negative reality warrants negative presentation.

No, I don't want you to do that, but I do want you to stop pretending that you have a corner on the truth when you're obviously playing with nothing more than dogmatism and a priori ***umptions. Your ideologies have about as much to do with reality as sharks have to do with hedge funds.


So far you're not convincing on this. All you're doing is arguing for a kind of henotheism. There's nothing in the Bible that would even hint of the possibility that El or Yahweh were ever sinful beings in need of forgiveness from another being.

This doesn't engage my statements, which clearly delineated presenting an ideology from not precluding an ideology. Poor evasion.


In fact, you need to demonstrate that the kind of henotheism the Bible supposedly has is a kind where the Most High has a being yet higher than him (since God the Father would need someone higher than himself to deal with his sin). But the Bible has no open door for the Most High having a Higher Most High.

Again, you're totally ignoring what I've said. Nothing in the Bible precludes that doctrine. Again, you've failed to at all engage my post.


So you're not helping yourself. Maybe you need to consider going the more Ostlerian route.

You've flatly refused to even discuss a single point I made. You simply grasped for what you believed to be a sufficient enough concern (irrespective of the legitimacy of that concern) to merit dismissal of the entire premise, which you did with a glib wave of the hand, ignoring publications that quite literally come from the world's authorities on the subject. That alone makes it clear you're woefully unprepared to engage any intellectual discussion of biblical theology or scholarship. This is why discussion with you is pointless. You have your dogmatic interpretive framework which you refuse to objectively evaluate, and any facts that are incompatible with that framework are flippantly dismissed. It's ignorant and it's dishonest. You are engaging in a monstrously manipulative and infantile smear campaign, and I will not entertain your insincere little attempts at actual discourse. You may continue to feel superior as you take advantage of well meaning lay members who aren't aware of your deception, but you profane the name of Christ by presuming to ***ert that you act in the best interest of a loving God. Your feigned respectability notwithstanding, you have a lot of learning and growing up to do before anyone who knows better is going to take you seriously.

[SavedbyTruth]

The present tense might entail information about the past for you, but not for all Mormons. Others use the present tense to talk merely about that, the present state of things. Some Mormons I talk to use the present tense alone to deflect questions about the past.

Also, if you had simply said, "All I do know is Father and Son are without sin" on the street in response to the explicit question of whether you believe God was possibly ever a sinner in the past, I would use follow-up questions since it doesn't adequately answer the original question.

I'm still waiting for an explicit and succinct answer from you:

Do you believe God the Father could have been a sinner in the past?

He is perfect and has never sinned. Fortunately, I am alive and able to answer this question, although if you had read and studied your video and my original response, it would have been clear. Hence my comment on the trouble you have interpreting the Bible. Unlike those who were posed your questions on the street, you had the opportunity, as did I, to take the time necessary to answer your question. As pointed out earlier by me, you could have stopped me, and the fact I wouldn't have given you the time of day could easily be manipulated by you to show evidence you have basically set up a Catch 22 video game.

I just keep reminding myself it is you who will pay the price.

SbT

[aaronshaf]

maklelan, bloviating won't get you off the hook here.

God being a sinner in any various Mormon belief I know requires a spirit-father over God the Father. If you can think of an alternative to this, then suggest it.

Otherwise, if you can't show that the Bible allows for a Higher Most High over the Most High, then you're pushing irrelevant information that doesn't help your argument for a potentially sin pre-exalted God.

[aaronshaf]

if you had read and studied your video and my original response, it would have been clear

I'm already aware that some of the interviewees shared your position. I posted all my video files to show the LDS contradictory diversity of belief on the issue. Did you think I thought all the Mormons were giving the same answer?

[Libby]

Aaron, I was curious about how many, if any, LDS answered that question differently. I think you did show one person who didn't believe God had ever sinned, but were there more and did you selectively leave those people out?

[aaronshaf]

Libby, thanks for asking. I didn't leave any interviewee out, not even one. All my interviews are posted to the site. And of those videos, I would roughly say (off the top of my head) around 2/3 affirmed God could have been a sinner, while 1/3 denied that he could have been a sinner. Most of those Mormons who took this minority position (that God never sinned) were very direct and shortspoken about it.

[SavedbyTruth]

I'm already aware that some of the interviewees shared your position. I posted all my video files to show the LDS contradictory diversity of belief on the issue. Did you think I thought all the Mormons were giving the same answer?

Are you willing to also include my responses to your video? And Maklelan's?? So far, you have not acknowledged the logical explanation for diversity in the answers you received. You thereby are not presenting the entire picture and leave your video subject to the flawed premise it is being created upon. However, I doubt you will present the whole picture, because then you would not be able to sensationalize your subject matter.

I am quite familiar with the shock-value tactics used by non-LDS because it serves your purpose so much better than the truth does.

To each his own. That is what free choice is all about. Free choice can help us or hinder us. It is truth that sets us free.

SavedbyTruth

[Richard]

Privacy rights of adults who volunteered to be interviewed for a video internet project on a public sidewalk?

Sorry, we don't live in Nauvoo anymore, and I'm not publishing the Expositor.

It's 2009, we live in the United States of America, and we take fair use and free speech very seriously.

I am highly confident that some Mormons would criminalize public criticism of Mormonism if they could.

Up to your old sensationalism tricks again Aaron. I'm still grinning from the time Libby got your thread removed or closed down for some pretty ugly stuff you were saying. She convinced Bob Betts you were over the top, and as usual here you are again, just being Aaron.

My favorite part Aaron was the Mormon Missionary Warriors who kind of brought closure to a very evil and Satanic sponsored attack by you or your henchmen. Wonder what Capt.Moroni the great and fearce warrior would have done, join or be slain maybe? He is perhaps best known for raising the "***le of Liberty" as a call to arms for his people to defend their country, family and religion.:D

[Libby]

Libby, thanks for asking. I didn't leave any interviewee out, not even one. All my interviews are posted to the site. And of those videos, I would roughly say (off the top of my head) around 2/3 affirmed God could have been a sinner, while 1/3 denied that he could have been a sinner. Most of those Mormons who took this minority position (that God never sinned) were very direct and shortspoken about it.

Thanks, Aaron.

I guess I would be surprised if, church wide, that were really a minority position, because I don't think I have ever known anyone in the church who believes that God was once a sinner. The more typical view is that he (Heavenly Father) may have once been like Christ (a perfect and sinless man).

Maybe you need to interview more Latter-day Saints...and somewhere besides just Utah. :)

[aaronshaf]

Are you willing to also include my responses to your video?

Are you willing to go on camera?

[aaronshaf]

I guess I would be surprised if, church wide, that were really a minority position, because I don't think I have ever known anyone in the church who believes that God was once a sinner. The more typical view is that he (Heavenly Father) may have once been like Christ (a perfect and sinless man).

I think you overlook something important. P**** my language very carefully here: I am not asking Mormons if they believe God the Father was a sinner. I am asking Mormons if they believe God the Father could have been a sinner. My question encomp***es those who have certainty and uncertainty over the issue. It encomp***es who believe the Father may have been sinless like Jesus, because they are still uncertain over it, still allowing for the possibility that God was once a sinner. So it's not 2/3 that I find believe God was a sinner. It's 2/3 that believe God the Father could very well have been a sinner. See the difference?

The data I am collecting is very real. It has never, ever been my experience among lay Mormons in any context throughout the country that they in majority believe God the Father was definitely always sinless like Jesus. The only group that seems to be a majority view among is LDS internet apologists.

[Richard]

Thanks, Aaron.

I guess I would be surprised if, church wide, that were really a minority position, because I don't think I have ever known anyone in the church who believes that God was once a sinner. The more typical view is that he (Heavenly Father) may have once been like Christ (a perfect and sinless man).

Maybe you need to interview more Latter-day Saints...and somewhere besides just Utah. :)

Don't forget Libby, Aaron or his producer have the right to edit, so he can claim all the percentages he wants, but the study will always be suspect.

What difference is it what a person does or does not believe. I have taught many Gospel Essential Cl***es, and many new converts. What I notice is that they hang on to many of their prior beliefs, which to me is not a problem. What is important Aaron, is that the Book of Mormon, "the most perfect Book in the World", when read and followed, will bring one closer to God. Interesting.

R.

[SavedbyTruth]

The data I am collecting is very real. It has never, ever been my experience among lay Mormons in any context throughout the country that they in majority believe God the Father was definitely always sinless like Jesus. The only group that seems to be a majority view among is LDS internet apologists.

Yet we have the revealed the reason to you.

SbT

[aaronshaf]

You have revealed your own reasons, not others' reasons.

SbT, these people really, really do believe that God the Father could have been a sinner. They are not figments of your imagination. They are real.

[SavedbyTruth]

Are you willing to go on camera?

If I were not disabled, I would be happy to. If there is some other way we can show my comments and Maklelan's, I would be happy to participate.

Just message me with your proposal.

SavedbyTruth

[maklelan]

maklelan, bloviating won't get you off the hook here.

God being a sinner in any various Mormon belief I know requires a spirit-father over God the Father. If you can think of an alternative to this, then suggest it.

Otherwise, if you can't show that the Bible allows for a Higher Most High over the Most High, then you're pushing irrelevant information that doesn't help your argument for a potentially sin pre-exalted God.

I've very clearly satisfied your silly little inquiry, and showed how unprepared you are to actually engage someone in intelligent discourse about biblical theology. You continue to pretend I never said a word. You're acting like a child. Are you a bigger person than that, or is my ***essment right on?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Actually, I had (depending on the day) jeans or kahkis, and a polo shirt.

Are you afraid of Mormons telling me things they wouldn't normally tell the general public?

THAT is precisely why this video project is so impactful (and infuriating to LDS internet apologists).

I think your little video will serve two purposes. Stir the fires of hell, hatred, bigotry, and misunderstanding, while driving the truly penitent, humble follower of God away from yourself.

So, it doesn't infuriate me, as I see it as an honor to be persecuted for Jesus' sake. And I look forward to receiving those sheep you will be driving from the flock you run with.

[Paul]

I think your little video will serve two purposes. Stir the fires of hell, hatred, bigotry, and misunderstanding, while driving the truly penitent, humble follower of God away from yourself.

So, it doesn't infuriate me, as I see it as an honor to be persecuted for Jesus' sake. And I look forward to receiving those sheep you will be driving from the flock you run with.

The Figster plays the persecution card again.:rolleyes:

[Novato]

Aaron:

Why don't you just move out of God's beloved State, Utah, and live in California or Nevada. You would be right at home there amongst the decieved and misled.

Novato.

[aaronshaf]

maklelan, are you understanding my point about the Most High? It's like you've argued for the existence of the first Hill Cumorah, but found it in Antarcica. It doesn't fit.

Arguing that the Most High and Yahweh are separate God-beings doesn't help your cause, because to argue for the notion that God the Father (the Most High in your breakdown) could have been a sinner requires demonstrating that the Most High had a Higher Most High above him.

[maklelan]

maklelan, are you understanding my point about the Most High? It's like you've argued for the existence of the first Hill Cumorah, but found it in Antarcica. It doesn't fit.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's an incorrect point, and it's nothing more than an evasion of my evidence.


Arguing that the Most High and Yahweh are separate God-beings doesn't help your cause, because to argue for the notion that God the Father (the Most High in your breakdown) could have been a sinner requires demonstrating that the Most High had a Higher Most High above him.

As I already stated, and as you have yet to recognize, I am pointing out that these doctrines are not precluded by the Bible, not necessarily that they are explicit in it. This is now the third time I've had to make that clear, but I have no doubt you will still refuse to engage that fact.

By the way, I'm interested in what you have to say about the original text of Deuteronomy 32:8.

[Father_JD]

...I am pointing out that these doctrines are not precluded by the Bible, not necessarily that they are explicit in it.

Ri-i-i-i-i-ight. God rhetorically asks in Isaiah, "Is there another God besides Me? I KNOW NOT OF ANY".

God declares that He is God, there IS NONE OTHER. This precludes your polytheistic garbage doctrine of Mormonism, M. :eek:

[Libby]

I think you overlook something important. P**** my language very carefully here: I am not asking Mormons if they believe God the Father was a sinner. I am asking Mormons if they believe God the Father could have been a sinner. My question encomp***es those who have certainty and uncertainty over the issue. It encomp***es who believe the Father may have been sinless like Jesus, because they are still uncertain over it, still allowing for the possibility that God was once a sinner. So it's not 2/3 that I find believe God was a sinner. It's 2/3 that believe God the Father could very well have been a sinner. See the difference?

Yes, I see the difference. Two-thirds of how many, in total? How many LDS out of several million have you interviewed?


The data I am collecting is very real. It has never, ever been my experience among lay Mormons in any context throughout the country that they in majority believe God the Father was definitely always sinless like Jesus. The only group that seems to be a majority view among is LDS internet apologists.

Well, that hasn't been my experience..and this has been discussed in Gospel Doctrine cl***es I have attended. The concensus has always been that Heavenly Father "may have" been like Jesus at some point, but never that he was possibly a sinner. I've never heard anyone say that.

[nrajeff]

Aaron, in the interest of full disclosure, did you inform your prey, er, I mean "interviewees" of what a certain scholar thought of your "techniques" after he found out what you were doing with his responses? Or are you choosing to hide that whole story, to keep people in the dark in order to increase the probability that they will give answers that you can exploit for fame and fortune?

[justjo]

http://godneversinned.com/

I added a lot more video interviews from General Conference weekend.

I hope this video brings Christians to tears.

I see something very interesting here.

In all my posting on debate boards of Christianity vs Mormonism (no, I am not any where near a pro)... I have observed the LDS to continually say that if one wants to know what mormons believe, "ASK THE MORMONS".

So, we have a Christian who went out with a microphone and a video camera, asks a direct question to mormons, get direct answers. Said person publishes video and now the mormons are upset...

Aaron you just didn't ask the right question! Next time post a poll to the LDS and ask them what question you should ask before you go out. In fact, I think that is a great idea!

[nrajeff]

Aaron you just didn't ask the right question!

---"The right question" will probably not be defined the same way by an objective, unbiased person, and by a zealot with some supposed "calling" to do yellow-journalism-based "investigative reporting" on a group of people he feels he must target and ridicule. I laugh when I think of the reaction you antis would have, if a pro-LDS person grabbed a camcorder and headed over to the nearest Calvary Chapel, and asked a pre-crafted, inflammatory-hoping question with only "yes or no" as an allowable answer, and then posted links to the "interview" wherever possible. you guys would hit the ceiling, with denouncements of "unethical" and "deceptive" and "un-Christian."


Next time post a poll to the LDS and ask them what question you should ask before you go out.
---Aaron did something like that on CC when he tried to poll LDS people there, and they made no effort to hide what they thought of his ethics. They at least told him what kind of question he should NOT, if he wanted to act like a Christian, ask.

[aaronshaf]

Libby, in Mormonism, if the Father was not like Jesus in a sacrificial mortal experience, but was still always sinless, how does that work? Within the scope of a sinless past, I haven't heard an alternative to the royal line of saviors conjecture.

[Libby]

Libby, in Mormonism, if the Father was not like Jesus in a sacrificial mortal experience, but was still always sinless, how does that work? Within the scope of a sinless past, I haven't heard an alternative to the royal line of saviors conjecture.

I honestly don't know. I don't speculate about those kinds of things. I figure I have enough to do in studying and doing those things God has revealed. The other will be revealed when the time is right, and I just don't worry about it right now.

[justjo]

---"The right question" will probably not be defined the same way by an objective, unbiased person, and by a zealot with some supposed "calling" to do yellow-journalism-based "investigative reporting" on a group of people he feels he must target and ridicule. I laugh when I think of the reaction you antis would have, if a pro-LDS person grabbed a camcorder and headed over to the nearest Calvary Chapel, and asked a pre-crafted, inflammatory-hoping question with only "yes or no" as an allowable answer, and then posted links to the "interview" wherever possible. you guys would hit the ceiling, with denouncements of "unethical" and "deceptive" and "un-Christian."


---Aaron did something like that on CC when he tried to poll LDS people there, and they made no effort to hide what they thought of his ethics. They at least told him what kind of question he should NOT, if he wanted to act like a Christian, ask.

I listened to the video a few times Jeff... can you tell me where Aaron was deceptive in his questions? It doesn't matter what people say or think, what matters is getting to the truth of the matter and some people aren't going to like that exposure. Which most of you are proving here.

The fact is, Aaron went to the LDS people to get answers, just as all of you here suggest Christians do... so if the answers make you uncomfortable, look to your religion there lies the problem.

[Libby]

The deception is not in what is portrayed, but rather in how it's portrayed and the impression that is given. There is an overall perception given that this is a common belief among Latter-day Saints (which I don't, personally, believe is true...not from my own experience). I don't think Aaron has enough of a sampling to generalize this to the larger LDS population (not even nearly). Also, regardless of what these five or six people say they believe is "possible", this is not LDS doctrine and it is not taught in the church.

[HickPreacher]

Libby notes--

The deception is not in what is portrayed, but rather in how it's portrayed and the impression that is given. There is an overall perception given that this is a common belief among Latter-day Saints (which I don't, personally, believe is true...not from my own experience). I don't think Aaron has enough of a sampling to generalize this to the larger LDS population (not even nearly). Also, regardless of what these five or six people say they believe is "possible", this is not LDS doctrine and it is not taught in the church.

It is true that this is not a scientific study of overall LDS opinion. In the latest version there are more than five or six people.

Also because the LDS Population has various levels of understanding on LDS Ultimate teachings, a general opinion may or may not reflect what the LDS Church ultimately wishes to claim about God within its inner circle of endowed members.

The idea that God was once a mortal man, and that humans to become creator Gods -- and are thus Gods in Embryo --- has indeed been taught in LDS Sunday School from official LDS endorsed materials. Online documentation exists shows this is factual.

YouTube documentation pic of this teaching from official LDS Sunday School Manual

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTDe3CdaWkM&feature=channel_page

[justjo]

The deception is not in what is portrayed, but rather in how it's portrayed and the impression that is given. There is an overall perception given that this is a common belief among Latter-day Saints (which I don't, personally, believe is true...not from my own experience). I don't think Aaron has enough of a sampling to generalize this to the larger LDS population (not even nearly). Also, regardless of what these five or six people say they believe is "possible", this is not LDS doctrine and it is not taught in the church.

Hi Libby! I agree, I would also say that as a former LDS, this is exactly as I was taught. God was once a man, it is all part of the eternal round, or eternal progression. It is also taught that man will become gods, just as our god did. Some took it to mean God was just like us, a sinner, who worked his way into godhood, others thought that the LDS god was like our Jesus, who didn't sin, but came to receive his mortal probation, his body of flesh and bone, to move on to be a god of his own creations.

That is exactly what I saw in the video.

[aaronshaf]

I honestly don't know. I don't speculate about those kinds of things. I figure I have enough to do in studying and doing those things God has revealed. The other will be revealed when the time is right, and I just don't worry about it right now.

Libby, do you personally believe it is a historical possibility that God could have been a sinner? If yes, then don't you fear the wrath of God for believing that possibility? Can you honestly be OK with having to account for believing in that possibility in front of an all-holy God?

If you don't believe it is a historical possibility, are you OK being spiritually plugged into a religious organization where such a belief is at least so prominent among young adult members around Temple Square? If I learned that large pockets of people in my religion believed God could have been a sinner, I would raise hell for heavenly purposes.


I don't think Aaron has enough of a sampling to generalize this to the larger LDS population (not even nearly).

At the very least I have a sampling to generalize the beliefs of active Mormon young adults that visit Temple Square.


regardless of what these five or six people say they believe is "possible", this is not LDS doctrine and it is not taught in the church.

That the Mormon Church doesn't have an official position on this precluding the sinful past of God the Father is exactly and precisely the problem. Pointing out that the Mormon Church doesn't have an official position serves as a form of deflection from the real issue of what real beliefs are fostered among members within the LDS Church as natural extensions of the ins***utionally fostered Mormon worldview.

[maklelan]

Pointing out that the Mormon Church doesn't have an official position serves as a form of deflection from the real issue of what real beliefs are fostered among members within the LDS Church as natural extensions of the ins***utionally fostered Mormon worldview.

And since God is more concerned with how we live and how much we love Christ rather than theological minutiae, we're not concerned. I'll point out again that you have been clumsily "deflecting" dealing with the fact that your entire premise is based on a rather uneducated perspective on biblical theology. Do you care to readdress that inadequacy, or have you swept it under the rug and moved on?

[aaronshaf]

Whether God was perhaps once an addicted, filthy sinner is "theological minutiae"?

Such a statement cannot come from a person with a Christian value system.

[Russ]

The deception is not in what is portrayed, but rather in how it's portrayed and the impression that is given. There is an overall perception given that this is a common belief among Latter-day Saints (which I don't, personally, believe is true...not from my own experience). I don't think Aaron has enough of a sampling to generalize this to the larger LDS population (not even nearly). Also, regardless of what these five or six people say they believe is "possible", this is not LDS doctrine and it is not taught in the church.


Libby, if it's not taught in LDS churches then where are they getting their ideas?

The LDS church would indeed have us believe that God was once "something else" and then became something else by obedience to LDS laws, ordinances and principles.

How Did God Become God? (http://www.mormondoctrine.net/articles/God_became_God.htm)

He did it, the LDS religion sezs, by being obedient.

That leaves the door wide open for LDS to think about how God did that.

Psalm 90:2 puts LDS theology to bed.

[Vlad III]

Libby, if it's not taught in LDS churches then where are they getting their ideas?

Pssst....Russ......Mormons actually think/opine/speculate/conjecture outside of the church. We think and wonder and try to connect dots. That is normal.

LOL....on one hand you Mormon-antagonists criticize LDS for being blindly led and brainwashed and being non-thinkers. Then on the other hand you criticize LDS for thinking too much!

[maklelan]

Whether God was perhaps once an addicted, filthy sinner is "theological minutiae"?

It is ultimately as irrelevant as whether the pearly gates swing or slide. Salvation is based on faith, not on a specific perspective of God's ontology. Your prioritization of orthodoxy over faith and orthopraxy is a testament of your apostasy and ignorance of biblical theology.


Such a statement cannot come from a person with a Christian value system.

It cannot come from someone with your value system. Christ, however, scolded his apostles for turning away believers just because they didn't follow them. You've subjugated Christ and his gospel to middle-platonic ontological axioms, and you're not even aware of it.

In the end, however, you remain completely unable to engage the history of the the Bible and Israelite and Christian theology. For that reason your endeavors are nothing more than the impotent posturing of a naive and misguided soul.

[Vlad III]

It is ultimately as irrelevant as whether the pearly gates swing or slide. Salvation is based on faith, not on a specific perspective of God's ontology. Your prioritization of orthodoxy over faith and orthopraxy is a testament of your apostasy and ignorance of biblical theology.



It cannot come from someone with your value system. Christ, however, scolded his apostles for turning away believers just because they didn't follow them. You've subjugated Christ and his gospel to middle-platonic ontological axioms, and you're not even aware of it.

In the end, however, you remain completely unable to engage the history of the the Bible and Israelite and Christian theology. For that reason your endeavors are nothing more than the impotent posturing of a naive and misguided soul.

Mak,
You have a way with words. Nice post!

[Libby]

Libby, do you personally believe it is a historical possibility that God could have been a sinner?

I don't believe that, no.


If you don't believe it is a historical possibility, are you OK being spiritually plugged into a religious organization where such a belief is at least so prominent among young adult members around Temple Square? If I learned that large pockets of people in my religion believed God could have been a sinner, I would raise hell for heavenly purposes.

I have no control over what other people believe. I have already said that I doubt that that belief is prevalent, and I think as these young people become more seasoned, most of them will rethink many of their beliefs. (That goes for you, as well).

Asking your question in the reverse, how can you belong to a religious group that includes people who believe it's possible that babies go to hell, if they are not chosen of God? Or even the whole idea that God chooses strictly for his own unknown purposes and sends the rest to eternal torment, all at his discretion, with no rhyme or reason that we can know? I find these kinds of seemingly nonsensical beliefs much more offensive than I do the idea that God may have, in some far distance of the eternities, been a sinner.


At the very least I have a sampling to generalize the beliefs of active Mormon young adults that visit Temple Square.

I doubt that, unless you have hundreds more interviews that you haven't shown.


That the Mormon Church doesn't have an official position on this precluding the sinful past of God the Father is exactly and precisely the problem. Why is this a problem? Pointing out that the Mormon Church doesn't have an official position serves as a form of deflection from the real issue of what real beliefs are fostered among members within the LDS Church as natural extensions of the ins***utionally fostered Mormon worldview.

I think anyone who has read further than just the snippets from Gospel Essentials will probably not come to that conclusion. Learning is a process (for the eternities, actually). What you are doing is taking some opinions of young people, as if they are written in stone and will forever be their beliefs. I can almost guarantee you that will not be so...not anymore than what YOU believe, right now, about Mormons or anything else, including your perception of God, is the final be-all, end-all of what you will believe and know in the eternities ahead. It's going to be quite a trip. :)

[Libby]

Hi Libby! I agree, I would also say that as a former LDS, this is exactly as I was taught. God was once a man, it is all part of the eternal round, or eternal progression. It is also taught that man will become gods, just as our god did. Some took it to mean God was just like us, a sinner, who worked his way into godhood, others thought that the LDS god was like our Jesus, who didn't sin, but came to receive his mortal probation, his body of flesh and bone, to move on to be a god of his own creations.

That is exactly what I saw in the video.

Hi Jo. :)

Eternal progression is definitely a part of LDS theology, I agree. But, do we know or understand everything about it? Not at all. Very little, in fact. And really what these young people were expressing was purely speculation on their part...and not anything conclusive...just that it was "possible", from what they understood at present.

[Libby]

Libby, if it's not taught in LDS churches then where are they getting their ideas?

The LDS church would indeed have us believe that God was once "something else" and then became something else by obedience to LDS laws, ordinances and principles.

How Did God Become God? (http://www.mormondoctrine.net/articles/God_became_God.htm)

He did it, the LDS religion sezs, by being obedient.

That leaves the door wide open for LDS to think about how God did that.

Psalm 90:2 puts LDS theology to bed.

Hi Russ. :) I don't think LDS theology really does point to God being "something else". I have always been told that God was always God.

[aaronshaf]

I have always been told that God was always God.

Libby, my heart aches for you, but this is downright disingenuous. You have been around long enough to know that Joseph Smith taught,


[W]e should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. (>> (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d 82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1a79945bd384b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1))

This is a heart issue. I will pray for you tonight specifically. I believe your heart has grown callous to spiritual things, and you have surrendered your struggling heart to lesser joys because you believe that's all you can have.

[Vlad III]

This is a heart issue. I will pray for you tonight specifically. I believe your heart has grown callous to spiritual things, and you have surrendered your struggling heart to lesser joys because you believe that's all you can have.

This is rich. A guy who makes the most use of his time by trying to tear down a church and making videos to show them in a negative light, claiming someone else has grown callous to spiritual things.

This contrasted with someone who has a genuine yearning for truth and is searching the path that she feels God is leading her down.

Who is the one who is really callous to the spirit? The one who asks God to lead them down the path of God and beckons the call, or the one who feels God has called him to tear down and diminish rather than build up and witness.

[Libby]

Libby, my heart aches for you, but this is downright disingenuous. You have been around long enough to know that Joseph Smith taught,

Aaron, I'm kind of disappointed that you could believe I am being disingenuous. It's a very common belief among LDS today that God has always been God, in the very basic sense, and that He increases in dominion, but not in power and knowledge (which He has always had). That is what I believe.


This is a heart issue. I will pray for you tonight specifically. I believe your heart has grown callous to spiritual things, and you have surrendered your struggling heart to lesser joys because you believe that's all you can have.

Prayers are always welcome and I'm certainly not above being callous to spiritual things....so, I will just say thank you. But, I ***ure you my heart belongs to God and to His Son, Jesus Christ.

You have my prayers, as well...and my deepest prayer for you would be that you continue to seek with a loving heart. I do believe you are a caring and thoughtful individual...still seeking and learning, which is good. Continue to examine all sides of things. There are many dimensions to every question.

[Russ]

Hi Russ. :) I don't think LDS theology really does point to God being "something else". I have always been told that God was always God.

Like Aaron, my heart breaks for you. You're being disingenuous.

I know you've read:



Milton R. Hunter, a member of Mormonism's First Council of the Seventy, wrote in The Gospel Through the Ages, p 104:

"Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who p***ed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now p***ing. He became God - an exalted being - through obedience to the same eternal Gospel truths that we are given opportunity today to obey."

"Here, then, is eternal life -- to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,... To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God.... " (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 346, 347)

Don't you believe them either?

Do you really expect me to believe you've never heard such things?

Give me a break.

[Russ]

Aaron, I'm kind of disappointed that you could believe I am being disingenuous. It's a very common belief among LDS today that God has always been God, in the very basic sense, and that He increases in dominion, but not in power and knowledge (which He has always had). That is what I believe.



Prayers are always welcome and I'm certainly not above being callous to spiritual things....so, I will just say thank you. But, I ***ure you my heart belongs to God and to His Son, Jesus Christ.

You have my prayers, as well...and my deepest prayer for you would be that you continue to seek with a loving heart. I do believe you are a caring and thoughtful individual...still seeking and learning, which is good. Continue to examine all sides of things. There are many dimensions to every question.

Indeed there are many dimensions to every question.

To the question "Would LDSism have me believe that God was once a man?" we know that he was.

To the question "Would LDSism have me believe that God once wasn't God?" we know the answer to that one too.

Or would LDSism have us reject former prophets?

[Vlad III]

Libs, you must be doing something right to have 2 people in this thread call you a liar.

[aaronshaf]

Libby, you're conflating two issues: What you have "always been told", and what you personally believe. I responded to your sentence, "I have always been told that God was always God." Do you see the difference? See above where I quoted what I was responding to.


It's a very common belief among LDS today that God has always been God, in the very basic sense

Can you explain what you mean by "in the very basic sense"? Does that imply that God was always fully God, and that he never had to progress unto deification?

Some Mormons say that God has always been God, but merely mean by that that God has always been of the divine species. But in that case, the same could be said for us (that we are gods and always have been so), since in Mormonism we are always, and always have been, of the divine species. But if that is what is meant by "has always been God", yet no qualification is given, then language is being manipulated and misused.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I see something very interesting here.

In all my posting on debate boards of Christianity vs Mormonism (no, I am not any where near a pro)... I have observed the LDS to continually say that if one wants to know what mormons believe, "ASK THE MORMONS".

So, we have a Christian who went out with a microphone and a video camera, asks a direct question to mormons, get direct answers. Said person publishes video and now the mormons are upset...

Aaron you just didn't ask the right question! Next time post a poll to the LDS and ask them what question you should ask before you go out. In fact, I think that is a great idea!

Justjo, If a person portraying himself/herself as a sincere seeker of truth were to approach you with a cleverly crafted question about your own faith, and then took your sincere answer and placed into a different context such as an anti-Christian film that made your faith look bad, would you feel the same way that you seem to feel in this instance?

[aaronshaf]

If someone asked me if God could have been a sinner, I'd answer:

No.

It's not rocket science. And I'd be happy for them to show that clip anywhere.

The problem is that LDS beliefs can be downright embarr***ing for Mormons. Many want a layer of soft secrecy to shield them from scrutiny. The problem isn't that the LDS answers are made to look bad. The problem is that they ARE bad and are presented for what they are.

[maklelan]

I see something very interesting here.

In all my posting on debate boards of Christianity vs Mormonism (no, I am not any where near a pro)... I have observed the LDS to continually say that if one wants to know what mormons believe, "ASK THE MORMONS".

So, we have a Christian who went out with a microphone and a video camera, asks a direct question to mormons, get direct answers. Said person publishes video and now the mormons are upset...

Aaron you just didn't ask the right question! Next time post a poll to the LDS and ask them what question you should ask before you go out. In fact, I think that is a great idea!

The problem is that the suggestion isn't to deceive others and ask leading questions that are only efficacious in that context of deception. Aaron is the one, remember, who begged someone to please deceive numerous temple workers and obtain for him an ill-gotten recording of the temple ceremony. You can believe what you want about the Mormons he is recording, but don't for a single second presume to insist he's being anything other than dishonest and manipulative. That ***ertion is absolutely without foundation, and you're well aware of that.

[maklelan]

If someone asked me if God could have been a sinner, I'd answer:

No.

It's not rocket science. And I'd be happy for them to show that clip anywhere.

The problem is that LDS beliefs can be downright embarr***ing for Mormons. Many want a layer of soft secrecy to shield them from scrutiny. The problem isn't that the LDS answers are made to look bad. The problem is that they ARE bad and are presented for what they are.

Aaron, you're still in the hole with the facts regarding early Israelite and Christian beliefs. Until you're willing to engage the Bible's actual theology you're just being juvenile and cowardly.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Libby, you're conflating two issues: What you have "always been told", and what you personally believe. I responded to your sentence, "I have always been told that God was always God." Do you see the difference? See above where I quoted what I was responding to.



Can you explain what you mean by "in the very basic sense"? Does that imply that God was always fully God, and that he never had to progress unto deification?

Some Mormons say that God has always been God, but merely mean by that that God has always been of the divine species. But in that case, the same could be said for us (that we are gods and always have been so), since in Mormonism we are always, and always have been, of the divine species. But if that is what is meant by "has always been God", yet no qualification is given, then language is being manipulated and misused.

God the Father has not revealed details of His mortal experience.

Aaron, you really don't care what we believe do you. This pet topic has been explained to you continually for 2 years + now. You are still trying to hone and tune it and perfect your little craft. You didn't care when Alonzo Gaskill disavowed your deceiving tactics, and you don't care now. Your agenda drives you, and whatever you learn about our beliefs will only be twisted to fit your agenda.

If I wanted to, I could make your own faith look very, very bad, sick, and wrong. But that is not the approach of a Christian--to destroy faith.

If I were you, I would try to present your own faith in a better light, so as to make it look more inviting, instead of trying to destroy the faith of another.

[aaronshaf]

maklelan, I won't be successfully goaded by your childish bloviating. You're still in the hole regarding the irrelevance of your appeals to earth-centric, geographic, non-cosmic henotheism.

FBT, if you think it is deceiving to ask people questions about theology, then that says more about the embarr***ing nature of Mormon theology than anything. True Christians aren't embarr***ed about their theology. We don't have to sign social contracts to keep parts of embarr***ing theology secret and hush hush. Being a true Christian is freeing for many reasons. It means you don't have to be embarr***ed anymore about theology. Come on over, it feels liberating :-)

If you'd like to have a unedited, recorded, audible conversation over Skype for all to hear over these topics, I'd LOVE to participate with you. I am aaronshaf on Skype.

[nrajeff]

I think Vlad and Mak have made an important point--Extremist activists on "a mission from God" to denounce and denigrate their targeted group will attack no matter what the target does, whether it's refrain from speculating on something ("you blindly follow your leaders!") or indulge in speculation ("God will eternally torture you for that speculation!")

[maklelan]

maklelan, I won't be successfully goaded by your childish bloviating. You're still in the hole regarding the irrelevance of your appeals to earth-centric, geographic, non-cosmic henotheism.

Utterly irrelevant. You made a claim and when I showed the facts conflicted with that claim you abandoned the discussion. It's as simple as that, and you have been unable to deny that, despite numerous attempts to change the subject and flat out ignore it. You've failed to uphold your ***ertion. You've lost this argument, and no amount of impotent posturing is ever going to change that.


FBT, if you think it is deceiving to ask people questions about theology, then that says more about the embarr***ing nature of Mormon theology than anything. True Christians aren't embarr***ed about their theology. We don't have to sign social contracts to keep parts of embarr***ing theology secret and hush hush. Being a true Christian is freeing for many reasons. It means you don't have to be embarr***ed anymore about theology. Come on over, it feels liberating :-)

I'm not embarr***ed at all. All the embarr***ment resides inside your head, since it makes you feel like a bigger man to feel you're embarr***ing people you look down upon. As I made quite clear earlier, I really don't care at all what you think about those Latter-day Saints you interviewed. They're not remarkably bright, but you're still just a naive con-artist and absolutely nothing more. Even now you're trying to manipulate the conversation away from your ignorant ***umptions about biblical theology. You may be fooling some people, but you know very well you're far too naive to fool me.


If you'd like to have a unedited, recorded, audible conversation over Skype for all to hear over these topics, I'd LOVE to participate with you. I am aaronshaf on Skype.

We've been over this, and once you recognized you were incapable of dealing with the facts in this conversation you abandoned it. A live conversation would only differ in the inclusion on your part of juvenile attempts to corner and manipulate. I'm not interested in wasting my time, and you're obviously not well enough ***ociated with the subject matter to hold any kind of intelligent conversation.

[SavedbyTruth]

You have revealed your own reasons, not others' reasons.

SbT, these people really, really do believe that God the Father could have been a sinner. They are not figments of your imagination. They are real.

What I saw and what you describe are not the same video.

SbT

[SavedbyTruth]

Libby, in Mormonism, if the Father was not like Jesus in a sacrificial mortal experience, but was still always sinless, how does that work? Within the scope of a sinless past, I haven't heard an alternative to the royal line of saviors conjecture.

Where do you get this stuff?????

[SavedbyTruth]

I listened to the video a few times Jeff... can you tell me where Aaron was deceptive in his questions? It doesn't matter what people say or think, what matters is getting to the truth of the matter and some people aren't going to like that exposure. Which most of you are proving here.

The fact is, Aaron went to the LDS people to get answers, just as all of you here suggest Christians do... so if the answers make you uncomfortable, look to your religion there lies the problem.

LOL Please, make sure you stick to your excellent reasoning skills. You and Aaron are doing a great *** in reducing your credibility all by yourselves.

[SavedbyTruth]

Whether God was perhaps once an addicted, filthy sinner is "theological minutiae"?

Such a statement cannot come from a person with a Christian value system.

And there we have it folks. Aaron has just confirmed he has no value system.

[SavedbyTruth]

Pssst....Russ......Mormons actually think/opine/speculate/conjecture outside of the church. We think and wonder and try to connect dots. That is normal.

LOL....on one hand you Mormon-antagonists criticize LDS for being blindly led and brainwashed and being non-thinkers. Then on the other hand you criticize LDS for thinking too much!

I would also like to add that Russ does not have a single original thought he will share. Perhaps he does not have any original thoughts.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You have revealed your own reasons, not others' reasons.

SbT, these people really, really do believe that God the Father could have been a sinner. They are not figments of your imagination. They are real.

What does it matter to you, Aaron? Some people in your own congregation may have some views that may not be in line with actuality. Some may say that churches should not get involved in the issue of Gay Marriage.

What would people in your congregation say to that question: "Does God want Christians to actively and vigorously oppose Gay Marriage?" I wonder what responses I would get.

What if I crafted a question about free will and asked them. They would respond based upon their own understanding of Bible teaching. Do you think each one of them would be completely accurate in their responses?

[Vlad III]

I would also like to add that Russ does not have a single original thought he will share. Perhaps he does not have any original thoughts.

I know. I've known Russ in a virtual way for about 4-5 years. There is nothing new under the sun for him.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

FBT, if you think it is deceiving to ask people questions about theology,

I think it is deceiving to ask deceitful questions about a person's theology. The fact that you think deceitful questions are acceptable, tells me that you are working for the wrong spirit.



then that says more about the embarr***ing nature of Mormon theology than anything.

It tells me that you are clever, crafty, and desperately trying to rationalize your deceitful behavior. Deceit in the name of Jesus. Shame on you.



True Christians aren't embarr***ed about their theology.

Please don't slander True Christianity. Since you aren't embarr***ed by your deceitful behavior, that leads me to an obvious conclusion.



We don't have to sign social contracts to keep parts of embarr***ing theology secret and hush hush. Being a true Christian is freeing for many reasons. It means you don't have to be embarr***ed anymore about theology. Come on over, it feels liberating :-)

Naa. I like a religion that teaches and demands integrity from its members.

[SavedbyTruth]

If someone asked me if God could have been a sinner, I'd answer:

No.

It's not rocket science. And I'd be happy for them to show that clip anywhere.

The problem is that LDS beliefs can be downright embarr***ing for Mormons. Many want a layer of soft secrecy to shield them from scrutiny. The problem isn't that the LDS answers are made to look bad. The problem is that they ARE bad and are presented for what they are.

It's also not rocket science to see what you are doing with this video.

We are not arguing with you because this is embarr***ing for Mormons....although it is because YOU think it is embar***ing for us that you are getting such a kick out of it.

We are arguing because you are yet one more individual living in a cloud of hate. I hope someday you place your hate aside, and with a broken heart and contrite spirit, experience joy instead.

SbT

[aaronshaf]

FBT, do you think it's deceitful for a conservative pollster to ask Democrats about the rate of their charitable giving, already knowing ahead of time that the percentages will be embarr***ing when published?

You only interpret the simple theological questions as deceitful because they make your religion look bad. That is the definitive issue here. If they made your religion look good, you would love them.

Unfortunately for the ardent Mormon internet apologists, I have asked other questions in those interviews as well that will serve as the content for other video projects. I also asked, among other things, if the interviewee believed that the Three Witnesses saw the Gold Plates with plain and natural eyes, such that a random p***erby would have also seen them. Even most Mormon apologists know that is not the case. http://www.mrm.org/eleven-witnesses But the Mormon Church refuses to correct the general false belief among members, obviously to their advantage since plain eyewitnesses gives apparent credibility.

[maklelan]

FBT, do you think it's deceitful for a conservative pollster to ask Democrats about the rate of their charitable giving, already knowing ahead of time that the percentages will be embarr***ing when published?

Totally unrelated. This is a joke of an attempt to tie your deception to something respectful. This has nothing to do with an antagonist looking for information they can use. This has to do with intentionally omitting your motivations and your intentions so you can exploit people. Stop trying to validate what you do. You're a bumbling con-artist, pure and simple.


You only interpret the simple theological questions as deceitful because they make your religion look bad.

Aaron, I've already explained why it doesn't make our religion look bad. Remember, when I showed you facts you just couldn't deal with so you scuttled away like a little squirrel and have been hiding in your little tree since then tossing acorns at people?


Unfortunately for the ardent Mormon internet apologists, I have asked other questions in those interviews as well that would serve as the content for other video projects. I also asked, among other things, if the interviewee believed that the Three Witnesses saw the Gold Plates with plain and natural eyes, such that a random p***erby would have also seen them.

And then when they answered yes you would have produced a 50 years ad hoc third hand account of a single statement that may or may not have come from David Whitmer that conflicts with every other statement he and the other witnesses ever made. That doesn't stand up to any historiographical standards. This is a joke, Aaron. Is this seriously where you would have gone with this line of questioning?

[aaronshaf]

maklelan, it sounds like you need to read some more pro-LDS material on the Three Witnesses. The LDS historian B.H. Roberts made it crystal clear that he did not believe the Three saw the plates with plain and natural eyes either. That's not so much of a controversy as it is with the 11 (where there is far less evidence to talk over).

I recommend that you actually read the article at: http://www.mrm.org/eleven-witnesses -- at least focus on reading the quotes from Mormon history.

[maklelan]

maklelan, it sounds like you need to read some more pro-LDS material on the Three Witnesses. The LDS historian B.H. Roberts made it crystal clear that he did not believe the Three saw the plates with plain and natural eyes either.

Which is even more historiographically irrelevant.


That's not so much of a controversy as it is with the 11 (where there is far less evidence to talk over).

I recommend that you actually read the article at: http://www.mrm.org/eleven-witnesses -- at least focus on reading the quotes from Mormon history.

I've read far more on the subject than you Aaron. That article is as much a joke as your childish little game. When are you going to address my original argument, Aaron? All this diversion is getting boring. Shall I plan on you responding or not?

[Bat-Man]

The LDS historian B.H. Roberts made it crystal clear that he did not believe the Three saw the plates with plain and natural eyes...
Until I see a statement from B.H. Roberts to confirm that he said what you say he made crystal clear, along with a credible reference to make it crystal clear that the statement actually came from B.H. Roberts, I will consider your statement to be a misrepresentation and/or a misunderstanding of what B.H. Roberts actually said or made crystal clear regarding him not believing that the 3 witnesses actually saw the plates with plain and natural eyes.

From that link you provided, I found the following statement, and if I could find it and I can believe it I don't see any reason why B.H. Roberts would not have also found this statement and believed it.


...we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates which we had been praying for these to have a view of. He turned over the leaves one by one, so that we could see them, and discern the engravings theron distinctly.

[Bat-Man]

If someone asked me if God could have been a sinner, I'd answer:

No.

It's not rocket science. And I'd be happy for them to show that clip anywhere.
If someone asked me if God could have been a sinner, I'd answer:

Yes, it is possible, and I have some good reasons to believe he might have been before he (God) became our Father in heaven.

It's not rocket science. And I'd be happy for them to quote me or show a video clip of me saying that, anywhere.


The problem is that LDS beliefs can be downright embarr***ing for Mormons.
I don't see any good reason for that.

I'm certainly not embar***ed by any of my (LDS) beliefs.

It's very common for people to have beliefs that other people don't have, so why should it be embar***ing for me or anyone else to have beliefs that other people don't agree with ?

That would be silly.

[aaronshaf]

"The difference between the testimony given the Three Witnesses and that given to the Eight is that the former was attended by a splendid display of the glory and power of God and the ministration of an angel, while the latter was attended by no such display, but was a plain, matter-of-fact exhibition of teh plates by the Prophet to his friends; and they not only saw the plates, but handled them and examined the engravings upon them." Annotation by B. H. Roberts in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (>> (http://books.google.com/books?id=sx3s_H3seGAC&pg=PA56&ei=q8_cScviBJG4kwTKlf3GDg#PPA58,M1))

The difference is a visionary sight-experience, and a supposed plain sight-experience. One with the spiritual eyes of faith after much prayer, the other with the plain and natural eyes.

I'm surprised you guys aren't more familiar with this. I recommend FAIR's material on the matter if you're not willing to seriously look at literature elsewhere.

[aaronshaf]

Yes, it is possible, and I have some good reasons to believe he might have been before he (God) became our Father in heaven.

Libby, what would your theological response to Bat-Man be? Would you be OK worshipping God side-by-side with this man in the spirit of spiritual fellowship?

[Bat-Man]

The difference is a visionary sight-experience, and a supposed plain sight-experience. One with the spiritual eyes of faith after much prayer, the other with the plain and natural eyes.
As I surmised, your perspective is based on a false understanding of what it means to see with an eye of faith.

Try thinking about this for a little while:

If Jesus Christ personally appeared to you and stood in front of you while you had your physical eyes opened, it would be impossible for you to realize that it was Jesus Christ who was standing in front of you while you were looking directly at him if you didn't have faith from God to ***ure you that it was Jesus Christ who had appeared to you and stood in front of you while you had your physical eyes opened and were looking directly at him.

FYI, it was a lack of faith which caused the Jews who actually saw Jesus standing in front of them while they looked at him to not realize that it was Jesus who was the Christ, and without faith anyone and everyone else would also be in the same boat they were in.

You would see him with your physical eyes, but you wouldn't realize who he was even if he were to tell you that it was truly him and that he was the one who is the Christ because you wouldn't have faith to believe him or what he had told you, and without that faith you would likely come up with all sorts of reasons to not believe him or what he had told you.

[aaronshaf]

Apparently you need to read the historical accounts more, Bat-Man. The problem wasn't that they couldn't recognize what was in front of them. The task of the Three with Smith in the woods was to pray for a supernatural visionary experience, which the angel supposedly granted by showing the plates in a vision. It's not the kind of thing a random-p***erby would have even seen (let alone even had the chance to misinterpret). If you disagree with me, then you're also disagreeing with a lot of Mormon apologists. And I think you should take up your disagreement with Mormon apologists in-house before you take the time to take it up with me.

If you're not willing to listen to your own apologists, then why would you be willing to listen to me?

[Bat-Man]

Apparently you need to read the historical accounts more, Bat-Man. The problem wasn't that they couldn't recognize what was in front of them. The task of the Three with Smith in the woods was to pray for a supernatural visionary experience, which the angel supposedly granted by showing the plates in a vision. It's not the kind of thing a random-p***erby would have even seen. If you disagree with me, then you're also disagreeing with a lot of Mormon apologists. And I think you should take up your disagreement with Mormon apologists in-house before you take the time to take it up with me.

If you're not willing to listen to your own apologists, then how would you be willing to listen to me?
I am willing to listen to my own apologists, and I actually do, and I am also willing to listen to you if you can give me any good reason to believe that I should believe you.

[aaronshaf]

I'd be glad to talk with you about it, but first I'd like to know that you've read enough historical accounts to know the actual story of the Three "seeing" the plates. Can you describe for me the immediately preceding and succeeding events of the story? Which of the Three had to separate himself and pray with Smith alone in order to see the plates? Were the plates carried from where the other two were? What D&C section talks about what was required before the Three could see the plates? I'm not trying to be ****y, but without these basic starting points we can't have a conversation about it. I'm not convinced you have the basic facts yet (facts that even Mormon apologists don't dispute).


“Not many days after the above commandment was given, we four, viz., Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and myself, agreed to retire into the woods, and try to obtain, by fervent and humble prayer, the fulfilment of the promises given in the above revelation-that they should have a view of the plates. We accordingly made choice of a piece of woods convenient to Mr. Whitmer's house, to which we retired, and having knelt down, we began to pray in much faith to Almighty God to bestow upon us a realization of these promises.

“According to previous arrangement, I commenced prayer to our Heavenly Father, and was followed by each of the others in succession. We did not at the first trial, however, obtain any answer or manifestation of divine favor in our behalf. We again observed the same order of prayer, each calling on and praying fervently to God in rotation, but with the same result as before.

“Upon this, our second failure, Martin Harris proposed that he should withdraw himself from us, believing, as he expressed himself, that his presence was the cause of our not obtaining what we wished for. He accordingly with drew from us, and we knelt down again, and had not been many minutes engaged in prayer, when presently we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates which we had been praying for these to have a view of. He turned over the leaves one by one, so that we could see them, and discern the engravings theron distinctly.”

- Joseph Smith

[theway]

I see something very interesting here.

In all my posting on debate boards of Christianity vs Mormonism (no, I am not any where near a pro)... I have observed the LDS to continually say that if one wants to know what mormons believe, "ASK THE MORMONS".

So, we have a Christian who went out with a microphone and a video camera, asks a direct question to mormons, get direct answers. Said person publishes video and now the mormons are upset...

Aaron you just didn't ask the right question! Next time post a poll to the LDS and ask them what question you should ask before you go out. In fact, I think that is a great idea!It is quite OK to ask sincere questions, it’s just that, not all questions should be answered without a proper understanding of the issue, or even answered at all. Before I left on my mission, while inside the temple, a general authority of the church sat us down and told us we could ask any question we wanted of him, including temple related questions. At first I was excited but than became disheartened to find that most of his answers were “I don’t know”. But later on I realized that as a representative of the Lord or the church, one needs to be careful about trying to answer a question that no one knows the answer to. I can speculate, but only with some one who understands that it is only speculation or a personal opinion.

This problem is apparent in Aaronshaf’s inability after years of asking the same question and his still not being able to separate the answers, as either doctrine of the LDS church, or merely personal opinion/speculation.

Most members of the church do not interact much with critics and would not recognize the deception. Had I been asked, I probably would not have answered, or I would have answered the question he should have asked (both of which I know critics hate).
Aaronshat doesn’t really care which answer you give. If you answer yes, Aaron will cry over your state of sinfulness, if you answer No, then you are either uneducated, or purposely deceitful about what the church really teaches.

This whole thing reminds me of a certain question asked in the Bible

Matthew 22
15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

It all sounds familiar doesn’t it?

[aaronshaf]

This problem is apparent in Aaronshaf’s inability after years of asking the same question and his still not being able to separate the answers, as either doctrine of the LDS church, or merely personal opinion/speculation.

Straw man. Where have I conflated formal official doctrine with the actual beliefs of lay members here?

You have it not only wrong, but completely backwards. I of all people understand that distinction very well. In fact, I have repeatedly and explicitly pointed out that part of the very problem is that the Mormon Church does NOT have an official position on whether God was once a sinner. This whole topic of discussion started long ago on another board with me engaging a few LDS internet armchair apologists who insisted that the LDS Church's official position was that God absolutely never sinned. They were absolutely wrong, I argued, and it was the case instead that Mormonism had no official position (given popular models of what cons***utes official positions; there are various contradicting LDS models on this, mind you) on whether God could have been a filthy, addicted sinner.


if you answer No, then you are either uneducated, or purposely deceitful about what the church really teaches.

That's not true either. I believe the interviewees who answered "no" really believed what they said (except where they expressed their own uncertainty, etc.). The value in showing their video clips was to show diversity and the lack of unity in LDS thought over the basic issue.

[Bat-Man]

I'd be glad to talk with you about it, but first I'd like to know that you've read enough historical accounts to know the actual story of the Three "seeing" the plates.
To know that I've read enough historical accounts to know the actual story of the Three "seeing" the plates you'll just have to take my word for it, on faith, when I tell you I have.


Can you describe for me the immediately preceding and succeeding events of the story?
Yes. See what you quoted at the end of your post.


Which of the Three had to separate himself and pray with Smith alone in order to see the plates?
Martin Harris


Were the plates carried from where the other two were?
No. The angel took them back each time they were shown.


What D&C section talks about what was required before the Three could see the plates?
Both D&C sections 3 and 10 mention what our Lord said was required.


I'm not trying to be ****y, but without these basic starting points we can't have a conversation about it. I'm not convinced you have the basic facts yet (facts that even Mormon apologists don't dispute).
Please respond to what I wrote in post 102 now.

I can't do anything to convince you of anything other than tell you what I know and believe.

[aaronshaf]

Bat-Man, your proposal suggests that the plates were seen by the Three with physical eyes opened, but with the required spiritual interpretative lenses.

The available evidence shows that it was a visionary experienced prompted by prayer (and in the culture of the 19th century, this was already likely done with eyes closed). If you can show evidence that this experience involved the faculties of the physical eyes opened, I'd like to hear it. if you can likewise show evidence from which we can infer that a random p***erby would have seen something representing the plates (however not spiritually interpreted correctly), please show it.

It takes faith and spiritual lenses to interpret correctly the iden***y of Christ. But it didn't take faith 2000 years ago for those around him to see that he physically existed and walked around and ate food. The plates were supposed to be actual, real physical objects, not merely mystical appearances of spiritual other-worldly realities. So your proposal is misguided.

[SavedbyTruth]

It is quite OK to ask sincere questions, it’s just that, not all questions should be answered without a proper understanding of the issue, or even answered at all. Before I left on my mission, while inside the temple, a general authority of the church sat us down and told us we could ask any question we wanted of him, including temple related questions. At first I was excited but than became disheartened to find that most of his answers were “I don’t know”. But later on I realized that as a representative of the Lord or the church, one needs to be careful about trying to answer a question that no one knows the answer to. I can speculate, but only with some one who understands that it is only speculation or a personal opinion.

This problem is apparent in Aaronshaf’s inability after years of asking the same question and his still not being able to separate the answers, as either doctrine of the LDS church, or merely personal opinion/speculation.

Most members of the church do not interact much with critics and would not recognize the deception. Had I been asked, I probably would not have answered, or I would have answered the question he should have asked (both of which I know critics hate).
Aaronshat doesn’t really care which answer you give. If you answer yes, Aaron will cry over your state of sinfulness, if you answer No, then you are either uneducated, or purposely deceitful about what the church really teaches.

This whole thing reminds me of a certain question asked in the Bible

Matthew 22
15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

It all sounds familiar doesn’t it?

This is an excellent point!

Aaron wants everyone who sees his video which has been carefully planned for two years to believe there is no deception, even though it is asked of individuals who only have seconds to respond.

Look how long this discussion has been going on. Even in the face of all that has been said here he chooses to promote his video in accordance with his own personal agenda. Truth has nothing to do with it.

God will render unto Aaron what He sees fit.

[Bat-Man]

Bat-Man, your proposal suggests that the plates were seen by the Three with physical eyes opened, but with the required spiritual interpretative lenses.
I'm not offering a proposal, aaron. I'm telling you that it takes faith to see something is true even when you can see something with your physical eyes.


The available evidence shows that it was a visionary experienced prompted by prayer (and in the culture of the 19th century, this was already likely done with eyes closed).
I don't see any evidence stating that they had their eyes closed when they saw what they claimed to have seen. If you can show evidence that this experience involved the faculties of the physical eyes closed, I'd like to see it.


If you can show evidence that this experience involved the faculties of the physical eyes opened, I'd like to hear it.
I cited this for you before, from the website you referenced:


...we beheld a light above us in the air, of exceeding brightness; and behold, an angel stood before us. In his hands he held the plates which we had been praying for these to have a view of. He turned over the leaves one by one, so that we could see them, and discern the engravings theron distinctly.
I don't see any good reason to believe they had their physical eyes closed when they beheld what they claimed to have seen at that moment.


It takes faith and spiritual lenses to interpret correctly the iden***y of Christ. But it didn't take faith 2000 years ago for those around him to see that he physically existed and walked around and ate food.
Yes, but to those who didn't have faith 2000 years ago, Jesus appeared just as a man named Jesus from the town of Nazareth who some people regarded as more than a man.


The plates were supposed to be actual, real physical objects, not merely mystical appearances of spiritual other-worldly realities.
The angel they saw who stood before them did show them actual, real physical objects, and in the angel's hands he held the plates which the 3 witnesses had been praying to have a view of. The angel they saw turned over the leaves one by one, so that they could see them and discern the engravings theron distinctly.

Your operating under a false understanding if you think they had their physical eyes closed when they saw all of that. They had their physical eyes opened while they also saw through their eyes of faith, with faith from God to ***ure them that what they saw with their physical eyes was true.

[aaronshaf]

This is an excellent point!

Aaron wants everyone who sees his video which has been carefully planned for two years to believe there is no deception, even though it is asked of individuals who only have seconds to respond.

Look how long this discussion has been going on. Even in the face of all that has been said here he chooses to promote his video in accordance with his own personal agenda. Truth has nothing to do with it.

God will render unto Aaron what He sees fit.

If it takes a person more than a couple of seconds to decide whether he or she thinks God could have been a sinner, he or she is either mentally challenged (and I mean that phrase respectfully to refer to real people) or simply devoid of the Spirit.

[aaronshaf]

Bat-man, they were praying. That's evidence toward the fact that it was visionary, and that they had their eyes closed. In any case, you still have no evidence that a random-p***erby would have also plainly seen the plates (however interpreted).

[Bat-Man]

Bat-man, they were praying. That's evidence toward the fact that it was visionary, and that they had their eyes closed.
Oh, I see now, you're saying that because they probably had their eyes closed when they were praying, that means they must have continued to keep their eyes closed when they beheld a light above them in the air, of exceeding brightness; and beheld an angel standing before them while in his hands the angel held the plates while turning over the leaves one by one, so that they could see them, and discern the engravings theron distinctly.

It now appears that you don't know that a vision is something a person can see while having his or her physical eyes opened, just as Joseph Smith also had his eyes opened when he beheld our Father in heaven and our Lord Jesus Christ standing in front of him.

While you can see what I have written, you don't see with the eyes of faith.

[SavedbyTruth]

If it takes a person more than a couple of seconds to decide whether he or she thinks God could have been a sinner, he or she is either mentally challenged (and I mean that phrase respectfully to refer to real people) or simply devoid of the Spirit.

Oh Aaron,

We have already demonstrated your deception. We see you as you really are.

Just to clarify, did you learn that the mentally challenged are NOT real people by studying the Bible? Or did you pick that up from another source? Please provide either the specific scriptures from the Bible, and/or your other source.

Thank you,

SbT

[Libby]

Libby, what would your theological response to Bat-Man be?

Frankly, that is not something I would discuss here, in a hostile environment. In a private conversation, perhaps.


Would you be OK worshipping God side-by-side with this man in the spirit of spiritual fellowship?

Of course. Why wouldn't I? I have worshipped right along side Calvinists and others with whom I have much more vehemently disagreed.. I don't believe in the exclusionary God who only listens to certain people. I think most of us worship the same God, even though we have different concepts of Him...and I know He hears all of our sincere prayers.

[Bat-Man]

Frankly, that is not something I would discuss here, in a hostile environment. In a private conversation, perhaps.
I'm going to chime in here and speak up for our environment.

People who disagree with other people are not being hostile or creating a hostile environment... not even people like aaron.

Some people are simply speaking out against what is true because they don't have faith from God to know what is really true.

Some people are a little more vociferous than some other people, even using ALL CAPS on occasions, but nobody here is showing any hostility.

If you'd like to know what hostility really looks like, well, I'll find someone else to show you.


Of course. Why wouldn't I? I have worshipped right along side Calvinists and others with whom I have much more vehemently disagreed.. I don't believe in the exclusionary God who only listens to certain people. I think most of us worship the same God, even though we have different concepts of Him...and I know He hears all of our sincere prayers.
Amen.

[Libby]

I'm going to chime in here and speak up for our environment.

People who disagree with other people are not being hostile or creating a hostile environment... not even people like aaron.

Some people are simply speaking out against what is true because they don't have faith from God to know what is really true.

Some people are a little more vociferous than some other people, even using ALL CAPS on occasions, but nobody here is showing any hostility.

If you'd like to know what hostility really looks like, well, I'll find someone else to show you.

You're right. I have seen much worse, myself. Hostile was probably not a good word to describe this board (although, I have to say, having people call me a liar is not something I would exactly call "friendly"). I just believe some discussions are more fruitful in private. Something about public boards that often make all of us a bit more contentious than we might otherwise be.

[Bat-Man]

You're right. I have seen much worse, myself. Hostile was probably not a good word to describe this board (although, I have to say, having people call me a liar is not something I would exactly call "friendly"). I just believe some discussions are more fruitful in private. Something about public boards that often make all of us a bit more contentious than we might otherwise be.
I try to carry on my conversations here the same way I do in private, but I think I know what you meant. Some people don't, or at least I hope not.

Maybe it would help if we all went to a cl*** before posting on the internet, with the goal of that cl*** being to teach us how we should behave when discussing our perspectives with other people who may not have the same beliefs that we have.

I think it would still come down to a matter of having faith or not, though, but who knows, maybe something like that could help.

[nrajeff]

I'm not trying to be ****y, but...

---Aaron is not trying to be ****y or arrogant, but he claims that his baby daughter knows more correct theology than any LDS person alive.

[theway]

Straw man. Where have I conflated formal official doctrine with the actual beliefs of lay members here?

You have it not only wrong, but completely backwards. I of all people understand that distinction very well. In fact, I have repeatedly and explicitly pointed out that part of the very problem is that the Mormon Church does NOT have an official position on whether God was once a sinner. This whole topic of discussion started long ago on another board with me engaging a few LDS internet armchair apologists who insisted that the LDS Church's official position was that God absolutely never sinned. They were absolutely wrong, I argued, and it was the case instead that Mormonism had no official position (given popular models of what cons***utes official positions; there are various contradicting LDS models on this, mind you) on whether God could have been a filthy, addicted sinner.
I would ***ume then, as a honest reporter of the truth that you put a disclaimer in your video that says something to the effect,
“The opinions expressed in this video are not meant to represent the doctrines or beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or its leaders”





That's not true either. I believe the interviewees who answered "no" really believed what they said (except where they expressed their own uncertainty, etc.). The value in showing their video clips was to show diversity and the lack of unity in LDS thought over the basic issue.Basic issue?
In all my years in the LDS church, overseas and at home, the only place I’ve seen this issue raised is by you. The rest of us I guess, are just spinning our wheels in such unimportant things as our relationship with God, prayer, love, family, charity, work etc…

[maklelan]

I'd be glad to talk with you about it, but first I'd like to know that you've read enough historical accounts to know the actual story of the Three "seeing" the plates.

Aaron, I've read far more on it than you and I understand the historical context far better than you. Why are you unwilling to engage me in conversation? It seems you're intentionally hunting down people who don't know it very well at all. Maybe that's the only way you can get away with vomiting up this garbage. Care to respond, or are you still afraid to engage someone who's better read than you?

[Bat-Man]

Aaron, I've read far more on it than you and I understand the historical context far better than you. Why are you unwilling to engage me in conversation? It seems you're intentionally hunting down people who don't know it very well at all. Maybe that's the only way you can get away with vomiting up this garbage. Care to respond, or are you still afraid to engage someone who's better read than you?
Wolves in sheep's clothing, and even wolves who aren't wearing sheep's clothing, generally go after the weakest members of a group, maklelan.

To draw a wolf in, if you want to do that, you'll need to present yourself as one of the weakest members and then let the shepherd take care of the wolves when they come within range of his staff.

Try telling everyone how stupid you are and see if that works any better.

[aaronshaf]

theway, the nature and worship and enjoyment of God is the most fundamental and basic issue of Christianity. When I mean "basic", I mean basic to Biblical Christianity.

[Richard]

The present tense might entail information about the past for you, but not for all Mormons. Others use the present tense to talk merely about that, the present state of things. Some Mormons I talk to use the present tense alone to deflect questions about the past.

Also, if you had simply said, "All I do know is Father and Son are without sin" on the street in response to the explicit question of whether you believe God was possibly ever a sinner in the past, I would use follow-up questions since it doesn't adequately answer the original question.

I'm still waiting for an explicit and succinct answer from you:

Do you believe God the Father could have been a sinner in the past?

Aaron, no matter what you ask and what anyone responds with, you have set the trap and have as you say, a back up question, which will seem to make the believer unsure of themselves. The question is worded in such a way as to show that the response makes the sensationalized question seem normal, when in fact the Church has no such doctrine you can turn to that the General Authorities ever discussed, except for the snippets you love to cite.

God was once a man.
We can become Gods and Goddesses.
God had a Father and a Mother, etc, etc.


Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."


So you see my friend, if Hinckley does not understand all the circumstances, why should we know any more then the Prophet of the Church. I would suggest to all, that the question is irrelevant, since there is no authoritative answer. You are mocking and trying to ridicule with some kind of false justification that you're only trying to open the eyes of the Believers. What you have succeeded in doing Aaron, is contending and kicking against the *****s, you loose when it come to debating against the Holy Ghost. Nice try, but as usual you miss the mark, and fall prey to the deceit Satan uses, false, pretentious, and condescending rhetoric.

Regards, Richard.

[aaronshaf]

The question is worded in such a way as to show that the response makes the sensationalized question seem normal, when in fact the Church has no such doctrine you can turn to that the General Authorities ever discussed, except for the snippets you love to cite.

I've already answered this misguided objection when I responded to,


This problem is apparent in Aaronshaf’s inability after years of asking the same question and his still not being able to separate the answers, as either doctrine of the LDS church, or merely personal opinion/speculation.

I said,


Where have I conflated formal official doctrine with the actual beliefs of lay members?

You have it not only wrong, but completely backwards. I of all people understand that distinction very well. In fact, I have repeatedly and explicitly pointed out that part of the very problem is that the Mormon Church does NOT have an official position on whether God was once a sinner.

Appealing to the issue of formal doctrine when challenged with the frequency of beliefs of lay members is often a method of deflection by Mormons. They want to conflate the two when convenient, yet point out the distinction as a means of deflecting when the two haven't even been inappropriately conflated.

[Richard]

[QUOTE=aaronshaf;11328]I've already answered this misguided objection when I responded to,

Not misguided at all Aaron, only to you. You took and sensationalized a snippet knowingly, just to make members seem confused and not sure of a question that was not asked properly. It's easy to do Aaron, I could just as easily have taken my video with my talking points, and stated that the Nicene Creed is part of your Christian Belief, but where can you show me in the Bible that Bishops and a Sun Worshipping Emperor had the authority to change scripture. If they answered that they did not believe it came from Mans interpretations, but it was the word of God as we find in the Bible, I would say where is the ***le, "Triune Trinity" found in the Scriptures? Interesting that possibly many have never even heard of the Nicene Creed, or how it ever had major influence on the nature of God.


I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.



Appealing to the issue of formal doctrine when challenged with the frequency of beliefs of lay members is often a method of deflection by Mormons. They want to conflate the two when convenient, yet point out the distinction as a means of deflecting when the two haven't even been inappropriately conflated.

Why do you suppose the members are not fully aware of all the Doctrine Aaron? Why would you think all Evangelicals were on the same page scripturally? Why would you ask a question in a specific way? Who did you think you were kidding with your supposed poll? You know and those of us who post here are very aware of your deceit, we have seen it on Utube when you rightessly proclamed that the Temple re-enactment was only to help lost member, not to mock or ridicule. Your whole mission and platform is to sensationalize with tabloid ridicule, gossip, and quoting enemies of the church. You and Russ use snippets of our Doctrine, yet never fully explain in full context Gods Gospel as we proclaim it.

Interesting that you pretend to be only a sevant of God in helping lost sheep, when in reality you're no better than those who crucified our Saviour.

Regards, Richard.

[theway]

theway, the nature and worship and enjoyment of God is the most fundamental and basic issue of Christianity. When I mean "basic", I mean basic to Biblical Christianity.The basics about the nature of God is important, and I find your response strange coming from a group whose theology makes knowing the basic nature of the Triune Trinity God impossible to comprehend.

In any case, not everything about God’s nature is necessary for us know, nor would it be good for our spiritual growth to know everything, especially if one is not willing to accept the answer.

However upon more than just a few seconds contemplation (I am spiritually and mentally challenged
after all) I realized that there was more than just a simple yes or no answer, but there exists a more appropriate response. Maybe there’s a reason that God has chosen not to reveal such things to man, It’s possibly the same response I give when my kids ask me whether I ever smoked, drank, made out, etc.. and that is “It’s none of your business “. Even if I had never done any of them it’s still not something that they need a response to.

[Richard]

Bat-man, they were praying. That's evidence toward the fact that it was visionary, and that they had their eyes closed. In any case, you still have no evidence that a random-p***erby would have also plainly seen the plates (however interpreted).

Aaron, how do you explain the testimony of the eight witnesses. You have stated that the first three saw with their spiritual eyes, so that leaves the eight who actually did handle with their hands the Br*** Plates. Did any of these eight witness ever deny what they saw and felt? I would say that the Three witnesses also saw physically the plates. Just my opinion.


Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

[aaronshaf]

Most Mormons apologists argue that the Three saw them with spiritual eyes in a vision, but that the Eight saw and held them with plain and natural eyes. But there are problems with the Eight too. Bill writes,


Later comments that could clarify the language used in the testimony of the eight witnesses are scarce, but several historians and researchers recount a statement made by John Whitmer that makes their experience sound similar to the three witnesses. Whitmer was excommunicated from the LDS Church on March 10, 1838 along with W.W. Phelps. Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer would also be excommunicated a month later. On April 5, 1839 Theodore Turley challenged John Whitmer to either affirm or deny his testimony regarding the gold plates. Whitmer responded by saying the plates ‘were shown to me by a supernatural power” (History of the Church 3:307). Why would supernatural power be necessary if the plates actually existed?

Hill commented on a letter written by Hiram Page to the Ensign of Liberty in 1848. In it Page defended his belief that the Book of Mormon was a work of the Lord. However, Hill conceded that Page did not actually say he saw the plates:

“With only a veiled reference to ‘what I saw,’ Page does not say he saw the plates but that angels confirmed him in his faith. Neither does he say that any coercion was placed upon him to secure his testimony. Despite Page's inconsistencies, it is difficult to know what to make of Harris' affirmation that the eight saw no plates in the face of John Whitmer's testimony. The original testimony of these eight men in the Book of Mormon reads somewhat ambiguously, not making clear whether they handled the plates or the ‘leaves’ of the translated m****cript. Thus there are some puzzling aspects to the testimonies of the witnesses. If Burnett's statement is given credence it would appear that Joseph Smith extorted a deceptive testimony from the eight witnesses. But why should John Whitmer and Hiram Page adhere to Mormonism and the Book of Mormon so long if they only gave their testimony reluctantly? It may be that like the three witnesses they expressed a genuine religious conviction. The particulars may not have seemed as important as the ultimate truth of the work” (Dialogue, Vol.7, No.4, pp.84-85).

Richard L. Anderson, in his faith-promoting book ***led Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, insists that readers must take the testimony of the eleven witnesses at “face value.” William D. Russell, a member of the Community of Christ and professor of history of the LDS movement at Graceland University, strongly disagrees.

“Perhaps one should not expect that a book about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon published by Deseret Book Company would be anything other than an attempt to strengthen the reader's faith in the Book of Mormon. This book will be convincing to those already certain that the gold plates actually existed and that the eleven witnesses saw them. And even the detached reader will probably be convinced by Anderson's research that the witnesses were honest men who sincerely believed their signed testimony and probably stuck by their story as long as they lived. But Anderson is really trying to have us conclude more than this. He would have the reader be convinced that because these men were honest and reaffirmed their testimony when asked, they actually saw and handled plates which contained the records of an ancient people. I believe that Anderson-- like the eleven witnesses--is an honest and sincere man when he writes: ‘After years of working with their lives and their words, I am deeply convinced that their printed testimonies must be taken at face value’ (p. xii). But I don't believe that his research by itself requires this conclusion. As he admits, ‘spiritual truths must be spiritually verified’ (p. 82). Believers must make a ‘leap of faith,’ apprehending with their ‘spiritual eyes’ rather than their ‘natural eyes’ (“Investigating the Investigation,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.16, No.2, pp.132-133).

It seems foolish to take the testimony of the witnesses at face value if there is further information available that helps us to understand how certain key words were understood and used by the writer/speaker. For example, if a person took the stand in a court room and said he saw the defendant use a gun to steal another person’s wallet, such an account would tend to carry significant weight with the jury. However, if the same person said he saw the defendant “in a vision” using a gun to steal a wallet, the strength of the testimony is incredibly weakened. Why? Because rational people do not equate visionary experiences with tangible, physical objects.

You can read more about the issue here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=16961

and here:

http://irr.org/mit/bom-wit-pt1.html

http://irr.org/mit/bom-wit-pt2.html

[Bat-Man]

Most Mormons apologists argue that the Three saw them with spiritual eyes in a vision, but that the Eight saw and held them with plain and natural eyes.
No, most Mormon apologists do not argue that the 3 witnesses saw the plates with spiritual eyes in a vision, if by "spiritual eyes in a vision" you are saying the 3 witnesses had their physical eyes closed when they saw the plates and a bright light and an angel of God who showed them the plates.

You are operating under a misunderstanding, as I've already explained to you in a previous post.

The main thing that sets what the 3 witnesses saw apart from what the 8 witnesses saw is that the 3 witnesses saw a bright light from heaven (with their physical eyes) while then seeing (with their physical eyes) an angel of God who physically showed (with their physical eyes) the plates... while the 8 witnesses saw no bright light from heaven nor an angel and instead only had Joseph to show them the plates (with their physical eyes).

In other words, the 3 witnesses saw the plates (with their physical eyes) accompanied by physical manifestations from God which they also saw with their physical eyes (such as a bright light and an angel of God), while the 8 witnesses saw the plates (with their physical eyes) but what they saw was not accompanied by physical manifestations from God.

That's the truth, aaron. Please stop misrepresenting us and our (LDS) beliefs.

[Richard]

Richard L. Anderson, in his faith-promoting book ***led Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, insists that readers must take the testimony of the eleven witnesses at “face value.” William D. Russell, a member of the Community of Christ and professor of history of the LDS movement at Graceland University, strongly disagrees.




Explaining Away the Book of Mormon Witnesses

by Richard Lloyd Anderson

I'll unload my briefcase before I unload on you. I visited with Matt Brown and heard that he did an incredible PowerPoint presentation and I simply pray for the Spirit of the Lord so I'll have the power behind the PowerPoint.

You can tell I'm a faithful Latter-day Saint because I'm going to start with an apology. I did hear early but prepared late so I've got an outline and I wish I had decided to speak on "explaining the witnesses" instead of "explaining away the witnesses" so my topic is what other people are doing "explaining away" and I'm trying to get behind that and try to understand about where they're coming from and what needs to be said.

The problem as I see it... I had a law school professor that said "I'll win any argument if you'll let me define the problem."

I have in my files, over the years, about fifty so-called interviews with Oliver Cowdery. "Interview" is a contact, basically, where they said something about The Book of Mormon, it might be detailed; it might be a speech; it might be something he wrote, and so on. And, in the case of David Whitmer, a long interview.

So, here are the statistics about... did I say fifty? Thirty for Oliver Cowdery; a minimum of seventy for David Whitmer; about fifty for Martin Harris; and a minimum of forty--probably one and a half times that much.

So I've got about two hundred times when one of the witnesses said, "I did sign the statement." "The statement means what it says." "I saw the angel." "I saw the plates." Or in the case of the eight witnesses, "I handled the plates." So two hundred very positive and specific statements in many cases and I'm dealing today with about eight or ten documents, in other words, five percent. And the question is: "Do you believe the 95 percent or do you believe the five?"

There's a paradox of this and that is the people that are attacking the witnesses and have in the past are basically saying, "well, they just dreamed it up; it's a matter of their exerting too much faith." And that's the paradox because I never would've set out this morning if I hadn't believed the Special Events Center was here, hadn't had faith that there was a crowd to speak to, et cetera.

Columbus started on faith, Edison started on faith, and it's that faith that is called a hypothesis in this scientific method. You have to conceive of something in terms of imagination and logical extension, extrapolation, before you ever really verify something beyond your little reality and so we're really dealing with that basic issue below.

Apologetics and the "Reasons Below"

I was talking with Scott Gordon this morning and I was explaining that Socrates got up and defended himself before they asked him to take the hemlock and two disciples, Xenophon and also Plato, wrote their approximation reconstruction of what he said and they're both called--in Greek--apologia and I said to Scott "not only does apologia really mean to answer or defend (transitioning to a verb) but it... in the case of Socrates he tried to distinguish between the charges that were the verbal attacks upon him and the real reasons below.

And if I wanted to work with that, I would just make an ****ogy which could be quick: That I spent about forty years talking about the New Testament, collecting books on the New Testament, I'm doing total Church History right now, I have faith that I'll make the circle and come back and use many of those books but I can't tell you how many books I have bought in terms of the reality of the resurrection. You know, is there really a intellectual argument or is there empirical proof that would establish the resurrection?

Well if I go into a courtroom and watch testimony and see a jury believe or not believe the various witnesses, I don't really distinguish between the evidence for the resurrection or the evidence for the witnesses.

But basically the field of New Testament studies is in the throes of this self-reappraising agony "Can we really believe?" and so many people write books about the resurrection ignoring the miracles of Jesus' life. Scores of them ignoring the personal testimonies of the gospel writers--two of those who had seen and felt Jesus in the resurrection--ignoring the speeches in the Book of Acts of Peter and John who had been there in the resurrection and Paul who had seen Jesus in a vision afterward.

And so, what is driving this is really not evidence at all. What's driving it is skepticism and the playing out of that skepticism by picking pieces of evidence, for instance, very quickly, one verse in Matthew said that Jesus appeared on the mount and... but some doubted. And you pick that out and think well, you know, there's a resurrection appearance so they weren't really sure of it but then you read the next verse and then it says literally (in Greek) "And Jesus walked toward them." Well if that was their initial fright, which other resurrection accounts describe and document, but the verification of the reality of Jesus physically is afterward but that one little thing, that one little tail wags a big dog.

And so, I apologize for the topic in a way, because you can really read the 95% and that is such consistent and powerful evidence and I just want to go on record saying that I think it isn't the evidence that I'm really talking about, there's a motivation of lack of faith underneath or lack of open-mindedness.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Richard]

All right, if you go back to the first reaction to the witnesses of the Book of Mormon in The Palmyra Reflector, ridicule is pretty standard; character ******ination; you can't take these people seriously and their claim to be liars or really stupid; easy to convince people and supers***ious.

And if you've read anti-Mormon approaches to the witnesses in the last five years, many of them are saying--they're not really many and I'm not... I'll be glad in questions to name people and so on but I'm really trying to work with issues--but the issue here is that people work with this idea that my approach in the little red book or the big blue book before that, the first edition, Investigating The Book of Mormon Witnesses, that approach says honesty and credibility was the hallmark of these people in their community.

Now I have to back off and say in the case of Martin Harris people said that he was terribly gullible because he believed the Bible and took literally the prophecies. So, credibility had a religious exception: he was credible in business but he wasn't credible in his religious at***udes.

And, so, anyway I'm told that credibility and character and honesty are all irrelevant, if you're going to be deceived you can be an honest person and be deceived so we don't even talk about that.

Well, if Mark Hofmann somehow got out and offered us a new set of documents, credibility might be an issue. If somebody is a known liar, you're not even going to get to first base in taking it seriously and so I say that these are really big issues and if you've crossed that huge chasm of having believable people who are saying "we saw the plates," "we saw the angel," or "we handled the plates," then you've really come a long way.

Oliver Cowdery's law partner said that he had never met anybody that was so well informed and this man went on to have a career in politics, a successful career in law. He did a really fine county history that's not a bunch of blurbs but real history and wrote two paragraphs on early pioneer lawyers in his county. His name is William Lang, he apprenticed in Oliver Cowdery's law office, and he said he had never met a person that was so well informed on so many different subjects. He sincerely admired the man's mind and his capabilities.

Well if I tell you that I've seen the northern lights in Utah that's a fairly improbable statement but it might be true sometime. You might say, "well does Anderson know the difference between the appearance of northern lights and the appearance of Salt Lake City in the distance?" And intelligence, perception is a great issue too. And these are really defined as, out of the way, that's irrelevant. It's certainly not irrelevant. We have substantial people bearing substantial testimonies.

A variation of this, their bad character, is quoting Joseph Smith on their bad character. And Joseph Smith has, I have to smile at it because we've all been in this mood and some of us have acted on it and others have had better judgment but anyway Joseph Smith says basically judgment for judgment, I mean he puts this at the beginning of this editorial in the Elder's Journal in 1838 and he's just had it with people that want to leave the Church and give him a bad time and all Missourians conspiring to throw the Mormons out and he is in a defensive mood and mode for sure. But he calls David Whitmer a dumb *** but he's talking about Balaam's *** in the Old Testament speaking the truth in spite of himself and he has an epithet for Martin Harris. I don't really recall that he says anything about Oliver Cowdery except he does feel betrayed.

And so Joseph Smith did label the witnesses with those labels and so if you quote Joseph Smith it looks pretty impressive: "These people weren't to be believed, and Joseph Smith said so, so don't believe their testimony of the Book of Mormon." Well that's a neat reversal of reality, just based on circumstances, but that plays into the whole issue.

I'm told in some books that they are impostors; they are part of a conspiracy. Well Joseph Smith went out of his way to alienate them as they left the Church. The Church in Far West went out of their way to alienate John Whitmer, Lyman Johnson as an ex-apostle was along for the ride out, and David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery and they were told you're not welcome in town--get out! (It happens in many frontier communities, and Latter-day Saints are not insulated from emotions trying to explain instead of justify.)

If you're run out of town and told that the people that you were with don't want you around anymore and some rather extreme charges are made about your honesty on the way out, you would have a pretty strong reaction and so you get into this set and subset of somebody accusing, counter-accusing and escalating a whole argument and these emotions actually went on.

The witnesses are victimized by this and Oliver Cowdery stayed out of the Church partly because he waited for an apology which never came. But in spite of that, he said "I know." So quoting Joseph Smith negatively is only to highlight the conflict that these witnesses bridged themselves and said for sure they had seen the plates in spite of all that.

Cultural Dismissal of the Witnesses

Basically they're saying these people couldn't help themselves, they were culturally impaired. In other words, everybody around them believed in ghosts, apparitions and the whole communities were out money digging.

Alan Greenspan wouldn't have had a very good projection if all that were true. Somebody had to keep the economy going and that's such an exaggeration to say, as one author does, lumping all the witnesses together. I wish I had somebody that had a basic college logic course to diagram this but you can see the holes in the argument: Some people in the community did money-digging, some people in the community saw ghosts and apparitions, therefore all the witnesses who came from that community are tainted. I mean there's the jump, with that apparition and money-digging tag, and therefore you couldn't believe them because they were all supers***ious.

It's a huge jump and a really stupid approach. I mean you've got to look at the people individually and all I can say is that every one of these witnesses--Matt Brown may have done something of this this morning--but every one of these witnesses responded to that.

In my red book is a documentation of David Whitmer being present because he wouldn't let the m****cript of the Book of Mormon go out of his hands when the RLDS committee came and was trying to do an edition of the Book of Mormon corrected by what they thought was the original m****cript--it was the printer's.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Richard]

Deceiving the Witnesses

A man who was pretty secular and skeptical said to David Whitmer to his face, "well, you might believe that you saw the plates and the angel, but you were probably deceived." And Joseph III said David Whitmer stood up to his full height which was nearly six feet and said, "No sir. I was not deceived. I saw, I heard." And he said it with such force that the man was uncomfortable and left the room and Joseph III left the room with him and said "Mr. Smith, this is preposterous that somebody could believe that, but one thing is sure and that is that David Whitmer is certain that he saw and he heard."

Every one of those men had that experience. David H. Cannon, brother to George Q. and president of the St. George Temple in his later years, told in his recollections of his life of visiting Martin Harris in Kirtland about 1860. He said "I asked him is there any possibility that you were deceived?"

For David Whitmer the best interview for you to go to is James H. Moyle, many of us know Henry D.; he was the father of Henry D. Moyle our First Councilor in the First Presidency to President McKay, and James H. Moyle was just out of law school in Michigan and he said that he just really worked David Whitmer over to try to see anything that would beat holes in the story. And he was candid; he wrote in his journal, I expected him to be more physical.

That's the nub of what we're talking about. David always said he did not handle the plates and for Oliver and for Martin you can get statements where they said they did handle the plates. Those two were translators; that's interesting, I can't go beyond that statement. But David simply said the angel was there, he described the various kinds of plates on the table, he described the Urim and Thummim, sword of Laban, etc. And he did so very specifically in interview after interview, very freely responding to people's questions and often writing the newspaper or making a comment in a letter afterwards saying they got most of it straight but these are the things that were wrong.

He had a very settled and detailed picture of what he saw and described and said "no, he was not deceived." Well, you might say that's simplistic; the man, if he's going to be deceived isn't going to know it. I don't think that's true.

I have a brother-in-law that I've talked to over the years until he's tired of the conversation, as am I. But he says anybody that is hypnotized--he's in clinical psych--certainly knows that he was in and out of that experience. I've been deceived in business plenty of times, sheriff of Soda Springs, Idaho, sent $20 back to two stupid missionaries that believed a guy's hard luck story and he was really a con man.

But in terms of perceptions when you really think about things, if you're careful, ****ytical--these people were--they knew whether they were deceived or not. So what we're doing now is really working with this concept of how current literature on Mormonism is trying to transfer the experience of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon into a subjective experience; they call it a "visionary experience."

David Whitmer would've agreed. That's what he told James H. Moyle, that it was a visionary experience. He had a vision. And then the dichotomy is set up, you know in terms of definitions right at the outset, do you have a vision or do you see a real experience? Well, you've answered the question right there. If you want to set up that dichotomy you don't need to discuss anything further; you've already defined yourself out of a real experience.

So somebody really has to believe that there is a hereafter, that there is a possibility of that hereafter speaking to us, there is indeed a possibility of a world beyond this world which isn't really very hard for me to imagine when I know so many worlds and sub-worlds of biology, astronomy, bacteriology and so on that are not apparent to me. There are worlds beyond mine. And these people come to tell us something about that, but the explanation is that they just talked themselves into the experience. So, let's deal with that.

Martin Harris and the "Eye of Faith"

Martin Harris is probably the first person to start with. He talked about his experience in terms of "the eye of faith." I have to believe that people remembered that accurately, but John H. Gilbert is the person that says most about this and I'd like to deal with Gilbert just a bit.

He was the compositor of the Book of Mormon and he said he asked Martin Harris, "did you really see the plates with your natural eyes as you're talking to me?" He said Martin Harris looked down at the floor--Joseph Smith looked down at the floor very often in contemplation I don't know that that means that he was ashamed--but he thought about his answers to the point and then he said "I saw this with the eye of faith."

Martin Harris had to have faith in the experience; he separated himself from the other two. That was his Achilles' heel--that he didn't have enough faith and maybe he was trying to explain to Gilbert how it happened and Gilbert took that in more simplistic terms.

All I can say is that when I deal with Martin Harris and his own statement, I want to make a comment on that in a moment, this is what he actually wrote to a person who inquired: "I received your favor. In reply I will say concerning the plates, I do say that the angel did show to me the plates containing the Book of Mormon.1" He saw the angel, he saw the plates; so whether you talk about "eye of faith" or not, if you take what Martin Harris actually said and then start to measure all these other things by that and see how consistent they are; sometimes witnesses are getting misquoted, sometimes they're quoted accurately but not with a realization of their whole experience and I feel that this fits within that dimension.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Richard]

Physical Evidence and the Witnesses

I just want to say something about the witnesses of the Book of Mormon in terms of evidence. When Lyndon Cook came out with his book on the David Whitmer interviews I was sad because I didn't do it--I'll have to admit that, you know it was in my files for twenty-five years and I was going to do it next year--so Lyndon at least really got something out, 80% maybe of the interviews, but then the other problem that I had was that what are people going to do with these interviews? Now they'll see David Whitmer saying "I handled the plates" in some interviews and "I didn't handle the plates" in other interviews. That's not David Whitmer's problem because he wrote letters making that absolutely clear where he stood.

But there is a problem of transmission of information and then, you know, just simple matters of copying. He wrote a letter to the Kansas City Journal in 1881 after they published an interview saying, "no, I did not say..." (Oh, what is it? He's talking about the seer stone and they goofed on something.) He said "what I really said was 'sunstone.'" Well, they got it wrong twice and so all I can say is that you need to control every interview with one of the witnesses by firsthand personal statements if you've got them and then the correlation of the body of evidence in secondhand statements. If you get something that is really atypical, it doesn't blend with what other evidence is coming from the witness, be skeptical of that.

We really do need to deal with firsthand evidence as much as possible and we've got many statements where the witnesses actually wrote their experience or commented on it directly.

Here is a man who has just written a book experimenting with how Joseph Smith projected all of these experiences in the Book of Mormon which is a key to his psychology insteanesses. He works with two things: they might have had--and these are his words--"They might have had a hallucination." And he has some statistic that some psychologist says 90% of the people in the world have had a hallucination. Well, just take that for granted; what did they see? Did they see a deer in the headlights instead of a cat when they were driving and tired at night?

This is a unique type of hallucination. To be in broad daylight and have a conversation with an angel, to hear the voice of God and the whole thing is too complex for that type of explanation. But the man that advances this says of his own theory "It is easier to explain the phenomenon generally than it is to discover principles that are in play in specific cases due to the subtlety of the unconscious coordination of experience." In other words, "I'm just guessing." And he says "probably," "might have," and so on with hypnotism and that theory too.

Stephen Burnett's Letter

Now let's go to some hard documents here. I'm going to go to a letter that is typically quoted and I say this is one of my 5% documents. The letter is by a man who left the Church, the letter is dated 1838, about May. Dan Vogel has put out a five-volume collection of documents, his commentary often is very good on a document, if you keep him on the facts instead of the interpretation of the facts. It's very worth looking at his documents and this is a letter from Stephen Burnett and it is in one of his five volumes.

Stephen Burnett is on his way out of the Church, he's concluded the Book of Mormon isn't true, he's writing to Lyman Johnson who is his business partner. They both lost money and he starts to gripe and complain about that to begin with, so you know the motivation is basically hostility. Then he said "I went to the Stone Church," which is the temple in Kirtland, "but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in a public congregation that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination." Now really that's the jump there. He only saw the plates in a vision. Well, David Whitmer said he only saw the plates in a vision. Does a vision comprehend the reality of an angel being there in the midst of glory? An angel putting his hands on your head and ordaining you to the Aaronic Priesthood as Joseph and Oliver said? That's a dimension of reality we don't know.

Christ coming in a closed room--"vision" doesn't automatically mean a subjective, non-objective, non-real experience. And so, Martin Harris does stand up and say (I have to believe he said something like this) that he saw the plates in a vision.

But then Burnett said "or imagination," now that's 1838 and that's not a new discovery. There's a man named Ezra Booth who left the Church in 1831 after he went to Missouri. He has his issues with Joseph Smith, some of them are more serious than this one, but he says that Joseph said Missouri was the promised land and he had a better farm in Ohio than any land he found in Missouri. If you live either in Ohio or Missouri you can laugh at it, but anyway, Ezra Booth says there is such things as witnesses of the Book of Mormon. This is his 1831 letters to his pastor or a pastor, and they're published in the Ohio Star and then they're picked up in 1834 by E.D. Howe writing his Mormonism Unvailed, so that's the easiest place to get them. He says these witnesses stand up in the midst of large congregations and testify that they saw the plates, but he said "I had the privilege of finding the revelation that told them they could see the plates."

Oddly enough, that was not published in the Book of Commandments, but it was published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, and it is also in the Kirtland Revelation Book, so we know that the m****cript was there early and for some reason it didn't get into the Book of Commandments. Booth says, "when I looked at this revelation," this is Section 17, "it tells the witnesses that if they have faith they can see the plates," and so he says that's the secret. I'm going to read his words: "They were informed that they should see and hear these things by faith, and then they should testify to the world, as though they had seen and heard."2 Okay, if they're going to see them by faith, then they have to testify as though they had seen. So he switches reality on them and then he said "after all, it amounts simply to this--that by faith or imagination, they saw the plates."

There you are defining yourself out of pursuing the witnesses further because Booth says, in 1831, faith equals imagination or non-reality, and Burnett says Martin Harris said he saw in a vision, which means imagination. Well so much for that if you don't want to hear the evidence stop at that point. I'm going to go to another document, I'm going to come back to this document and maybe deal with it a little bit more.

I'm going to switch the subject to the eight witnesses. And the eight witnesses of the Book of Mormon said that they had handled--the word is "hefted." That's interesting because in 1828 it probably has the connotation of measuring a weight, in other words, estimating the weight of something you're lifting. They saw the curious characters--that had a connotation in a generation that knew Latin better than we do--curae in Latin is "care," and curious actually has, as one of its senses in the nineteenth or eighteenth century, of being "carefully made" or "made with care." So they said "we saw those engravings, we looked at them carefully, saw that they were made with care, lifted the plates, turned over the leaves," etc.

This is what Burnett says about that experience, and I want you to keep in mind what I said about first and second-hand. He says "Martin Harris said that he saw the plates only with his natural eyes in vision...never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination, and that the eight witnesses never saw them and hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but they were persuaded to do it."

There's a lot of ways to interpret that. One of them is that they never saw the plates the at all; others that they saw the plates in a vision and didn't really handle them and they were persuaded to make that statement.

I'm not sure that the eight witnesses made that statement. All eight of them never made that statement, I've got something like sixty times when those witnesses say essentially, "yes, what I wrote in the Book of Mormon was true."



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Richard]

And I'm told by some of the books on this subject now, "oh, well, those statements are just pro forma public statements and we have to go find what really happened." Well you know that's like telling your teenage kid "what part of no do you not understand?" What part of 'hefted' and 'seeing the curious characters' don't you understand?

And John Whitmer one time when he was asked, Joseph III did this, wrote to him and said "I want you to reiterate your testimony of seeing the plates." According to the family John Whitmer wrote back and said "I'm not going to reiterate my testimony because I never quit bearing it," in other words, "go see what I've said before." Another missionary came to John Whitmer and he wrote this, that "what I have said in my testimony was true, is true and will be true for eternities to come."

So those men said they stood by their testimony and so the testimony said they saw and handled, and I'm supposed to believe on this secondhand statement of a very hostile and angry man in Kirtland that Martin Harris said the eight witnesses admitted that they didn't see or they only saw in a vision?

This latest book that I mentioned that is doing a subjective *** of reducing the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith's personal experience, and so he's translating the Book of Mormon, that book says "well, the eight witnesses, while this is hearsay, nevertheless Martin Harris knew the eight witnesses, knew them well."

What an irrelevant statement! I mean, the question is whether you can look at that statement and believe that it came from the eight witnesses and if you said "well, nevertheless Martin Harris knew the eight witnesses well," what does that have to do with it? Can we really believe that anyone of the eight witnesses made this statement? It goes totally contradictory to everything else they said.

All right, so I'm p***ing by the Peter Burnett letter and I hope I've given it a decent funeral.

Theodore Turley's Statement

Let me take the other biggie that is used by both Vogel in his ****ysis and Palmer in his book.

I just want to say something about Palmer, I wasn't going to make this personal. It's still an issue; I'm not. I don't know him; he's probably a fine person, etc. Palmer does about twenty pages and then he has a statement saying "now let's look at the firsthand statement," and he quotes what the eight witnesses said. In the meantime, in those twenty pages, he's given you a script of what they saw, they somehow go into a cave in the Book of Mormon and see the plates. It has nothing to do with their statements, and so this is absolutely developing a counterfeit story and telling you that that is history.

Okay, now back of all this is a statement of John Whitmer and he is talking to Theodore Turley, and Theodore Turley is one of the Church agents left in Far West, Missouri, in 1838. He goes into a home to transact some business and there's several people that are leaders of the old settlers' party. They're ridiculing him and abusing him verbally and John Whitmer comes in and does the same and Turley says, "well, I don't know about this because he said some of you here say that you saw and then you apparently say you didn't see," and John Whitmer picked it up and said, "do you hint at me?"

And then this is what Turley reports--now this is a memoir in Nauvoo that Turley writes down four years after the fact. You're trusting his memory, but this is what he says. He said "I call on you, John Whitmer, you say Corrill is a moral and good man." I want to quote Corrill in a minute. "Do you believe him when he says the Book of Mormon is true, or when he says it is not true?" And he said Whitmer asked "Do you hint at me?" Turley replied, "If the cap fits you, wear it; all I, know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith."

Well, I open the Book of Mormon, and that it isn't what it reads. It reads that he saw the characters and hefted the plates. So Turley thinks that John Whitmer has testified to an angel. That's got to get into the mix here some way.

Whitmer replied, "I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them." Well that is exactly what Whitmer said in a dozen other very well recorded statements that he saw, handled, and lifted. And then he said, "they were shown me by a supernatural power." If you want to be a good prooftexter--and these people are--they pull out "supernatural power" and say, "Aha! That's the subjective experience. They weren't really handling...that's the giveaway." Again, do you believe the 95% or the 5%?

Now Turley, in reporting that, may be reporting John Whitmer's language because John Whitmer had been a scribe for the Book of Mormon and it's so interesting to me that in one other interview--it's by Myron Bond--John Whitmer said as we were translating I felt a supernatural power. When John Whitmer wrote his editorial farewell, in The Messenger and Advocate, in 1836 he said "I handled the plates, I want the readers to know I lifted the plates, I handled the plates and I know they're translated by the power of God."

He felt the power of God, which was a supernatural power, and that may be John Whitmer's language and that may be the issue: That he felt such a spiritual force when he was translating the Book of Mormon and when he actually had the privilege of lifting the plates that he would say that. But it's not an either/or; it's a both/and. I mean it's silly to even talk about that in terms of the evidence we have.

But you do have in John Whitmer's statement the misconception of the interviewer that he'd seen the plates and obviously the tendency of the interviewer to want to make seeing the plates something more. I mean, I didn't restate that correctly, the interviewer said he had seen an angel and the plates--misconception. And some of that misconception may be creeping into that interview. It's the only one we've got where he says that there was a supernatural power because the interviewer wants there to be more than just handling the plates.

Well, I did a little article, I'm not asking you to read it but I'm just using it as an exhibit called Personal Writings of the Witnesses of The Book of Mormon and those personal writings are impressive. Whether it's Hyrum Smith; whether it's John Whitmer; whether it's Martin Harris; whether it's David Whitmer; they say, "We saw. It was not an illusion."

David Whitmer's most famous statement about that is his so-called interview with John Murphy from a nearby town in Missouri called Polo. John Murphy had been a Protestant missionary and he came in with some sophistication to try to take David Whitmer apart on this. And he published his statement saying that David Whitmer said "well, it was like the Methodists." John Murphy asked him a series of questions and got him to say, "yes, it was similar to the experience of the Methodists when they get up in a testimony meeting and say they know that Christ is the Savior." And he said, "so that's all it is."

Of course, that's the trap because something is like something else doesn't mean that it should be reduced to something else. Because something was a vision doesn't mean that it is less than reality; it's a vision of greater reality. And every one of these witnesses of the Book of Mormon whether the three or eight are consistent.

Summary

A lady asked me this morning "Did they really substantiate their testimony?" There is not one reliable record where they denied that testimony, all three of the witnesses bore that testimony on their deathbeds. And in this case of John Murphy, David Whitmer issued his own statement in 1881, published it in the newspaper, issued it as a pamphlet, incorporated it in his 1887 An Address to All Believers in Christ, saying "if you didn't understand me then, I hope you'll understand me now--it was no deception, it was real."

So I don't dislike David Whitmer and the other witnesses to respond to those criticisms, they do that very well.

And so I would say these witnesses are capable, they're perceptive, they're intelligent enough to know whether they were the victims of deception; they were motivated to expose if there was a conspiracy. They did not. And I think the whole issue is an issue of speculation versus documentation and if you don't believe that I will just show you the counter-explanations that are laced with 'possibly', and it 'perhaps' happened this way and if somebody isn't any more sure of his ground than that, I'd like to stay with the witnesses that are sure of their ground.

I'd like to come back to Section 17, which Ezra Booth said was the giveaway. They were supposed to have faith to see these objects and the first verse in Section 17 names the objects, five of them: plates, sword of Laban, interpreters, etc.

David Whitmer was cross-examined and examined and even though Joseph Smith, in his record, doesn't say that all those objects appear; you get any one of the witnesses in terms of detail and they go into that detail and they verify the revelation in a remarkable way. And the revelation includes this statement saying, they will testify that "my servant Joseph will not be destroyed."3 I feel these witnesses are a powerful support to the prophet Joseph.

Not only did Joseph have visions, they had similar verification physically and spiritually and there is nothing that I have found that would make me feel a bit to the contrary intellectually or spiritually. And I guess I should bear that testimony of my whole personality involved in this, and I have looked for whatever contradictions--I made up my mind early if they were there I'd find them--I haven't found them. I say that in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

[HickPreacher]

Richard, when I cut and pasted your last message in a series unbroken posts for Aaron it took 18 pages of MS Word space in a single file. That is an excessive amount of material to post. What kind of communication strategy do you think you are using?

It appears to me that the "God Never Sinned" Video has gotten you upset.

I have shared this video's link to number of people who have Evangelical Seminary connections and ***ociations who are very shocked at what these people interviewed say about God once being a mortal man that could have been a sinner. I am sure that Graduate Students at various Evangelical Colleges will be viewing the video and this board in the coming days.

It is shocking to me to see this video, and I was a Mormon for 17 years of my young adult life. The content of this video is incredible-- it is not a scientific study-- and does not say that it is such. Nevertheless, what the LDS on the video say is shocking, incredible and significant.

This video could turn out to be significant to the general public, so what is posted here on this board related to the video may be viewed with a very critical eye. You should be aware of this so that you can stand as a good example of who you want you represent.

[Richard]

Richard, when I cut and pasted your last message in a series unbroken posts for Aaron it took 18 pages of MS Word space in a single file. That is an excessive amount of material to post. What kind of communication strategy do you think you are using?

It appears to me that the "God Never Sinned" Video has gotten you upset.

I have shared this video's link to number of people who have Evangelical Seminary connections and ***ociations who are very shocked at what these people interviewed say about God once being a mortal man that could have been a sinner. I am sure that Graduate Students at various Evangelical Colleges will be viewing the video and this board in the coming days.

It is shocking to me to see this video, and I was a Mormon for 17 years of my young adult life. The content of this video is incredible-- it is not a scientific study-- and does not say that it is such. Nevertheless, what the LDS on the video say is shocking, incredible and significant.

This video could turn out to be significant to the general public, so what is posted here on this board related to the video may be viewed with a very critical eye. You should be aware of this so that you can stand as a good example of who you want you represent.

Apparently your not following the thread:


Aaron posted the following:
Richard L. Anderson, in his faith-promoting book ***led Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, insists that readers must take the testimony of the eleven witnesses at “face value.” William D. Russell, a member of the Community of Christ and professor of history of the LDS movement at Graceland University, strongly disagrees.

It was a re****al good buddy. It was a answer about the witnesses. Sorry to hear you quit the Church, the doors are always open, and your more than welcome to check in once in awhile.
Not being sarcastic, it was meant with sincerity.

R.


Post Script:


Am I upset? not really for Aaron is only using duplicity and is knowingly asking a question that is not Doctrinal.
The question is worded in such a way as to show that the response makes the sensationalized question seem normal, when in fact the Church has no such doctrine you can turn to that the General Authorities ever discussed, except for the snippets you love to cite.

God was once a man.
We can become Gods and Goddesses.
God had a Father and a Mother, etc, etc.

Quote:
Question: "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Hinckley: "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don't know a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it."
So you see my friend, if Hinckley does not understand all the circumstances, why should we know any more then the Prophet of the Church. I would suggest to all, that the question is irrelevant, since there is no authoritative answer. You are mocking and trying to ridicule with some kind of false justification that you're only trying to open the eyes of the Believers. What you have succeeded in doing Aaron, is contending and kicking against the *****s, you loose when it come to debating against the Holy Ghost. Nice try, but as usual you miss the mark, and fall prey to the deceit Satan uses, false, pretentious, and condescending rhetoric.

[aaronshaf]

Am I upset? not really for Aaron is only using duplicity and is knowingly asking a question that is not Doctrinal.

I'm going to start an FAQ, because this silly objection has been addressed multiple times.



This problem is apparent in Aaronshaf’s inability after years of asking the same question and his still not being able to separate the answers, as either doctrine of the LDS church, or merely personal opinion/speculation.

Where have I conflated formal official doctrine with the actual beliefs of lay members?

You have it not only wrong, but completely backwards. I of all people understand that distinction very well. In fact, I have repeatedly and explicitly pointed out that part of the very problem is that the Mormon Church does NOT have an official position on whether God was once a sinner.

I also posted a blog post this morning on this very issue:

http://blog.mrm.org/2009/04/responding-to-the-thats-not-official-doctrine-deflection/


If a majority of church members believe something bad, and it happens to be fostered or implied by the rest of the traditional Mormon worldview, the LDS Church leadership still has a responsibility not to acquiesce to it. Otherwise they are complicit to a degree in the continuance of the belief among lay members, all the while having the ability to reverse the popular belief.

Also, what matters to outsiders like me is not merely abstract official doctrine (whichever of the varying standards you use to define that; Mormons themselves simply disagree over what cons***utes official doctrine), but also what beliefs are actually held among members. I know it is embarr***ing that many Mormon members believe that God the Father could have been a sinner, but the Mormon worldview and historic leadership have something to account for that. They are not off the hook just because they haven’t put it in a recent First Presidency statement, etc.,

[Russ]

Pssst....Russ......Mormons actually think/opine/speculate/conjecture outside of the church. We think and wonder and try to connect dots. That is normal.

LOL....on one hand you Mormon-antagonists criticize LDS for being blindly led and brainwashed and being non-thinkers. Then on the other hand you criticize LDS for thinking too much!

Vlad, sure, thinking, pondering and trying to connect the dots is what we all do. As you say, it's normal.

To consider/think/opine/wonder/ponder/pray that God was once a sinner is foreign to Christian concepts and theology.

When we consider that God is omniscient, we just don't wonder if he ever sinned.

[Libby]

I'm going to start an FAQ, because this silly objection has been addressed multiple times.



I also posted a blog post this morning on this very issue:

http://blog.mrm.org/2009/04/responding-to-the-thats-not-official-doctrine-deflection/

Aaron, I was thinking (while reading your blog) that you could interview many Christians (Catholics, Protestants, etc) who believe abortion should be legal. If you found a hundred Catholics who held this belief, what exactly would you gleen from that? Would you believe that was something taught in the Catholic Church? Or even a commonly held belief (if say you only interviewed a 100 people...out of how many millions of Catholics?). What have you really learned from that kind of exercise?

[aaronshaf]

Libby, fair question, but it's a particularly poor example.

Roman Catholicism has an explicit, strong official doctrine denouncing abortion and any attempts to legalize it.

Mormonism has no official doctrine that gives explicit rock-solid ***urance that God the Father never sinned. That's a big part of the problem.

One can reasonably infer from the pattern of interviews that Mormonism simply doesn't give clarity on the issue. But it of all issues should be clear.

God. Never. Sinned.

[Libby]

Libby, fair question, but it's a particularly poor example.

Roman Catholicism has an explicit, strong official doctrine denouncing abortion and any attempts to legalize it.

Mormonism has no official doctrine that gives explicit rock-solid ***urance that God the Father never sinned. That's a big part of the problem.

One can reasonably infer from the pattern of interviews that Mormonism simply doesn't give clarity on the issue. But it of all issues should be clear.

God. Never. Sinned.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. That probably wasn't a good example. But, I am sure there must be erroneous beliefs held by people of other religions, for lack of explicit teaching/understanding.

I'll throw one out there that I, particularly, had trouble with, and that was the idea that babies possibly go to hell (if they are non-elect). I realize only a relatively small group probably hold that opinion, but (IMHO) it's a horribly, distorted characterization of a loving and just God.

But, we're only human, and these kinds of erroneous beliefs are bound to pop up, in any given Christian group. IMO, it simply means we (none of us) have perfect understanding. I think God is big enough and gracious enough to forgive that, if we are sincerely seeking understanding of Him..and mainly seeking His Will.

[maklelan]

Libby, fair question, but it's a particularly poor example.

Roman Catholicism has an explicit, strong official doctrine denouncing abortion and any attempts to legalize it.

Mormonism has no official doctrine that gives explicit rock-solid ***urance that God the Father never sinned. That's a big part of the problem.

One can reasonably infer from the pattern of interviews that Mormonism simply doesn't give clarity on the issue. But it of all issues should be clear.

God. Never. Sinned.

Aaron, I've already shown you that this isn't precluded, and you've never been able to come up with an intelligent response. Quit pretending you're right in spite of that.

[Richard]

I'm going to start an FAQ, because this silly objection has been addressed multiple times.
I also posted a blog post this morning on this very issue:

[QUOTE]Aaron stated, "If a majority of church members believe something bad, and it happens to be fostered or implied by the rest of the traditional Mormon worldview, the LDS Church leadership still has a responsibility not to acquiesce to it. Otherwise they are complicit to a degree in the continuance of the belief among lay members, all the while having the ability to reverse the popular belief.
Also, what matters to outsiders like me is not merely abstract official doctrine (whichever of the varying standards you use to define that; Mormons themselves simply disagree over what cons***utes official doctrine), but also what beliefs are actually held among members. I know it is embarr***ing that many Mormon members believe that God the Father could have been a sinner, but the Mormon worldview and historic leadership have something to account for that. They are not off the hook just because they haven’t put it in a recent First Presidency statement, etc.,


In Moses 5 of the Pearl of Great Price we read that after Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden, “Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden…

And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.
And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.”

“with an eye single to the glory of God,” as stated in the fourth section, fifth verse, of the Doctrine and Covenants–not for what we want to do, but rather for what the Lord wants us to do, when he wants us to do it, and in the way his work needs to be carried out. There will be times when we shall not understand why.

“Nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted” and “I know not, save the Lord commanded me”.”


In 1831 the Lord said this to his Church:

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for be that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore be receiveth no reward.

"Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to p*** much righteousness;

"For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

"But he that does not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is ****ed." (D&C 58:26-29)


Aaron accuses, "They are not off the hook just because they haven’t put it in a recent First Presidency statement, etc.

If the First Presidency has not received revelation concerning the nature of God in all things, then as Adam and Even, "I know not, save the Lord commanded me." Members, General Authorities, all walk by Faith, many things revealed in partiality, have never been explained in fullness. What one member believes, or many members believe is not going to change what has been revealed, and is the Word of God, we Aaron are not all on the same plain, some are more committed then others, some more studious, some more spiritual, some more faithful, some more active and some less active, wonderful is the agency of man.

Your criteria and expectations are the precepts and theories of man, but as we all know:
"My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord.
'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9

[aaronshaf]

But, I am sure there must be erroneous beliefs held by people of other religions, for lack of explicit teaching/understanding.

The problem with the God-was-a-sinner-possibility-belief is that it is a natural extension of the Mormon worldview for many Mormons, and there is no official position in ins***utional Mormonism which deems it erroneous. If it is so erroneous, the LDS leadership have a responsibility to put out an official First Presidency statement STRONGLY denouncing any notions that God as ever possibly a sinner. Of all issues they consider, I guarantee you, this is the most important. I have talked to a General Authority about this issue and he simply didn't care enough about it. He blew it off. As it is, the LDS leadership just allows its members go to on believing this kind of tragic thing. They won't play the role of true spiritual shepherds like they claim to be. They are instead wolves who acquiesce to millions of Mormons believing God could have been a sinner.

That is shameful.

God does not forgive the persistently unrepentant. Those who do not repent of believing God could have been a sinner will go to everlasting punishment.

[maklelan]

God does not forgive the unrepentant. Those who do not repent of believing God could have been a sinner will go to everlasting punishment.

It's not your *** to condemn people to hell, Aaron, but your accusations are still meaningless in light of that fact that you were shown that the Bible absolutely does not preclude that belief and you were unable to even respond. Isn't it all about the Bible for you? Why don't you believe it?

[Richard]

The problem with the God-was-a-sinner-possibility-belief is that it is a natural extension of the Mormon worldview for many Mormons, and there is no official position in ins***utional Mormonism which deems it erroneous. If it is so erroneous, the LDS leadership have a responsibility to put out an official First Presidency statement STRONGLY denouncing any notions that God as ever possibly a sinner. Of all issues they consider, I guarantee you, this is the most important. I have talked to a General Authority about this issue and he simply didn't care enough about it. He blew it off. As it is, the LDS leadership just allows its members go to on believing this kind of tragic thing. They won't play the role of true spiritual shepherds like they claim to be. They are instead wolves who acquiesce to millions of Mormons believing God could have been a sinner.

That is shameful.

God does not forgive the persistently unrepentant. Those who do not repent of believing God could have been a sinner will go to everlasting punishment.

The question is irrelevant to what is so much more important Aaron, Christ when preaching to the disciples kept a pretty focused sermon dialogue. Faith, Repentance, Baptism and Confirmation. Testing ones faith comes first, Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. If Joe or Mary have one idea of the Gospel, I have another, and the new convert is still holding on to old beliefs, is it up to the General authorities to force them to change their beliefs, hardly, they will emphatically state, Take it to the Lord, and ask for Wisdom. If they receive no clarity then I imagine that the Lord will reveal it when He so desires to reveal even more of his Doctrine or principles. This is a huge stumbling block for Evangelicals, for there Faith is in the Word and not the witness of the Holy Ghost.

[nrajeff]

AARON, where is YOUR denomination's Official Statement on the Question of Whether or Not it is Possible that Jesus could have Sinned at Some Point in His Existence? I want to see that statement, now, or I will have to conclude that your church is "shameful" for not having a statement prepared.

[JDErickson]

AARON, where is YOUR denomination's Official Statement on the Question of Whether or Not it is Possible that Jesus could have Sinned at Some Point in His Existence? I want to see that statement, now, or I will have to conclude that your church is "shameful" for not having a statement prepared.


Hi Jeff,
What do you personally believe in regards to God possibly being a sinner in a past mortal probation?

[Richard]

Hi Jeff,
What do you personally believe in regards to God possibly being a sinner in a past mortal probation?

Personally, this is Richard's opinion, Christ stated that he could only do what he saw the Father do. Christ was sinless, I believe God the Eternal Father is sinless, speculation is not doctrinal.

R.

[nrajeff]

Personally, this is Richard's opinion, Christ stated that he could only do what he saw the Father do. Christ was sinless, I believe God the Eternal Father is sinless, speculation is not doctrinal.

R.

---I agree with Richard. He is exactly right, and virtually every LDS I know who has made a statement on the issue, has said the same. Jesus is JUST LIKE His Father, and Jesus never sinned, ergo His Father never did either. Thus, there is more support for LDS believing the Father never sinned, than there is for some forced "speculation" to the contrary. Sorry, Aaron, but someday your little daughter is gonna ask "Daddy, why did you try to create controversy where there really was none? Why are you a fabricator, Daddy? Is that how you paid for my college education--making money by making up accusations against people?"

[aaronshaf]

nrajeff, thanks for sharing your speculative LDS internet apologist opinion. Perhaps you can go on a campaign to help other LDS members entirely reject the idea that God was possibly a sinner, replacing their speculation with your own speculation?

Or you can become a Christian, where no one believes God could have been a sinner, and everyone is confident that he never sinned.

[Dante]

I'm a little late commenting on this thread but I would have to agree with the Jesus/Father speculation that they were both sinless and that the majority of LDS who give this any thought to this degree would too. In fact, I asked a few LDS friends of mine this very question just as Aaron did, and they all said the same. Certainly not a "scientific poll", but neither was his. And they certainly were no "internet apologists". In fact they were surprised that I would even waste my time on a site like this.

I question why there were no older, more seasoned LDS asked same... perhaps they dismissed him for what they knew it was, or that Aaron knew better than to ask...?

I am amused what legs some here try give this video, as if it's going to rock the world of LDS criticism... it's pretty much a yawner.

The only thing that really gives any offense to me is the guy who was mercilessly macking on that gum - I mean really, dude, give that gum a chance! :)

I do admit Maklelan's recent comments have piqued my interest and would like to hear more about what he's understood from the Hebrew texts accordingly.

[JDErickson]

---I agree with Richard. He is exactly right, and virtually every LDS I know who has made a statement on the issue, has said the same. Jesus is JUST LIKE His Father, and Jesus never sinned, ergo His Father never did either. Thus, there is more support for LDS believing the Father never sinned, than there is for some forced "speculation" to the contrary.


Jeff,
Why would so many Mormons believe it then? THese aren't some wacko Mormons from Maklelans home town. These are "This is the place" Mormons who have close direct support from Mormon leaders.

[Libby]

Jeff,
Why would so many Mormons believe it then? THese aren't some wacko Mormons from Maklelans home town. These are "This is the place" Mormons who have close direct support from Mormon leaders.

I don't believe there really are very many LDS who believe that. I haven't known even one (in real life...not just from the internet). Whenever this is discussed in church, the idea that Christ and God were both sinless (now and always) has always been the presumption.

Even the LDS who were interviewed in Aaron's video were only speculating about a "possibility"...not that they believed that was a "fact".

[Bat-Man]

I'm a little late commenting on this thread but I would have to agree with the Jesus/Father speculation that they were both sinless and that the majority of LDS who give this any thought to this degree would too.
Are you LDS, Dante ?

Do you understand our doctrine concerning how we (LDS) can become sinless through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and thereby become just like our Father ?

If we can become like our Father as we accept the atonement of Jesus Christ, even though we have sinned before and our sins are now or will be removed from our account through the atonement of Jesus Christ), what makes you think our Father wasn't also like one of us, as we are now ?

I believe most LDS understand our (LDS) doctrine more than you realize.

[Richard]

nrajeff, thanks for sharing your speculative LDS internet apologist opinion. Perhaps you can go on a campaign to help other LDS members entirely reject the idea that God was possibly a sinner, replacing their speculation with your own speculation?

Or you can become a Christian, where no one believes God could have been a sinner, and everyone is confident that he never sinned.

What does it matter if another member does not believe exactly like me or Jeff. A loving Heavenly Father would never embarr*** another, and would patiently wait for one to choose correctly, but never would He force his doctrine on another. Think about that Aaron, and what you are pretending to do is only justification for what is actually mocking and ridiculing, something a Christian who believes and follows Christ, would never do.

R.

[Dante]

Are you LDS, Dante ?

I am.


Do you understand our doctrine concerning how we (LDS) can become sinless through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and thereby become just like our Father ?

I'd like to think I've got a decent handle on it, but every time I make such ***umptions the Lord sees fit to let me know I've a lot more to learn. :)


If we can become like our Father as we accept the atonement of Jesus Christ, even though we have sinned before and our sins are now or will be removed from our account through the atonement of Jesus Christ), what makes you think our Father wasn't also like one of us, as we are now ?

Therein lies the real miracle, don't you think? God has promised He will blot out our sins and remember them no more. The hardest part of repentance IMO is us forgiving ourselves and forgetting them. Can an All-Knowing God really forget our sins as if they never happened? He says He can so I am compelled to believe it.

Can Atonement via a sacrificial Savior so completely wipe away sin that if God were more like us than Christ in His mortal probation that He could be exalted to the level of worshipped Deity? Sure, it is possible (even if it is 0.00001% as Jeff iterated earlier, and is why Aaron asked the question the way he did in his video interviews) but that brings me to this introspective; Do I take Christ at face value when He stated that He can do nothing that He has not seen the Father do? I am more inclined to than the concept that the Father was more like us and a sinner, but it's not out of the realm of possibility IMO. It's just without more definitive revelation on the matter rather than speculation I'm just not compelled to believe it at present.

If you have further info you feel is pertinent, I am certainly open to it! :)

[nrajeff]

I think Dante has said it well in the above post. Question I might ask the folks heading into Aaron's church, as I point my camcorder at them and ask them, without warning: "Do you believe it's possible--even if the possibility is only 1 in a trillion--that God could look like a big red lizard? The Bible doesn't rule out the possibility, right?" And then, after I get a few of the more reasonable of Aaron's fellow Calvary Chapelites (or whatever) to answer that such a thing is not impossible, I can post my "shocking findings" on YouTube, and let the mocking comments flow, as they invariably do under any YouTube video. Then I can advertise my "research" about the members of Aaron's church far and wide, and make myself famous among a certain circle of people, and I can think that I have done God's work. (John 16:2)

[aaronshaf]

question i might ask the folks heading into aaron's church, as i point my camcorder at them and ask them, without warning: "do you believe it's possible--even if the possibility is only 1 in a trillion--that god could look like a big red lizard? The bible doesn't rule out the possibility, right?"

PLEASE DO THIS! Pllleeeeease...

[Libby]

I am.



I'd like to think I've got a decent handle on it, but every time I make such ***umptions the Lord sees fit to let me know I've a lot more to learn. :)

Amen to that.


Therein lies the real miracle, don't you think? God has promised He will blot out our sins and remember them no more. The hardest part of repentance IMO is us forgiving ourselves and forgetting them. Can an All-Knowing God really forget our sins as if they never happened? He says He can so I am compelled to believe it.

Can Atonement via a sacrificial Savior so completely wipe away sin that if God were more like us than Christ in His mortal probation that He could be exalted to the level of worshipped Deity? Sure, it is possible (even if it is 0.00001% as Jeff iterated earlier, and is why Aaron asked the question the way he did in his video interviews) but that brings me to this introspective; Do I take Christ at face value when He stated that He can do nothing that He has not seen the Father do? I am more inclined to than the concept that the Father was more like us and a sinner, but it's not out of the realm of possibility IMO. It's just without more definitive revelation on the matter rather than speculation I'm just not compelled to believe it at present.

If you have further info you feel is pertinent, I am certainly open to it! :)

These are excellent observations, Dante. I'm embarr***ed to admit the idea of Jesus wiping the slate clean (as if the sin never occurred)..did not come to mind, in regards to this issue. That is really something worth pondering.

[nrajeff]

PLEASE DO THIS! Pllleeeeease...

--Yeah, and then if I am REAL lucky, one of them will get sick and tired of my badgering, and will do me the mini-martydom of throwing some water on me, which I can ALSO use to further my anti-Aaron's-church agenda...oh, wait, I misspoke...I mean, my "critic-of-Aaron's-church agenda..."

[aaronshaf]

That is really something worth pondering.

Isn't it sad, Libby, that now you're going to consider adopting the idea that God could have sinned and then could have been atoned for and forgiven? Do you see where the spirit behind Mormonism is taking you?

Satan is behind that. He is the one who wants you to believe God could have been a sinner.

[Libby]

I don't know, Aaron. I think, perhaps, it's more sad that you cannot see the profoundness of the gift of Christ....to remove sin so completely that it is as if it never was.

Don't you believe that's possible?

[aaronshaf]

I don't believe it's possible that God the Father needed a savior.

Part of what makes the Savior so awesome in Christianity is that he and his Father absolutely never sinned.

[Libby]

I don't believe it's possible that God the Father needed a savior.

Part of what makes the Savior so awesome in Christianity is that he and his Father absolutely never sinned.

Yes, I understand your pov.

[Dante]

I think what is even more awesome is the thought that Christ's Atonement is so broad, sweeping and complete that even sinners will be viewed in His eyes as having never done so. So whether having never sinned or having the sin mercifully and graciously blotted out is the same in His eyes. He doesn't differentiate.

I find it difficult to wrap my mind around such a concept when thinking what He went thru for us especially since He still carries those marks in His hands and feet as reminders, yet He promises to forget.

I do indeed stand all amazed.

With that in mind, Happy Easter everyone, regardless of your religious affiliation!

[SavedbyTruth]

I don't believe there really are very many LDS who believe that. I haven't known even one (in real life...not just from the internet). Whenever this is discussed in church, the idea that Christ and God were both sinless (now and always) has always been the presumption.

Even the LDS who were interviewed in Aaron's video were only speculating about a "possibility"...not that they believed that was a "fact".

Hi Libby,

Unfortunately, the non-LDS posters ALL live by and exercise the same philosophy: Never let the facts get in the way of good story.

SbT

[Vlad III]

Hi Libby,

Unfortunately, the non-LDS posters ALL live by and exercise the same philosophy: Never let the facts get in the way of good story.

SbT

That sounds like the 'Joe Biden Philosophy'....:p

[SavedbyTruth]

That sounds like the 'Joe Biden Philosophy'....:p

It's so funny you should mention that! Watching Fox news today, the liberals saw nothing wrong with what he had done. As more news stories unfolded I continued to be amazed at what people will say to ignore reason. I felt like I was watching a televised version of one of our threads in dealing with the non-LDS posters.

[alanmolstad]

I clicked on the link at the start of this topic....and was reading until I got to this sentence made by what I guess is a good Mormon - "Do I think that it is possible that God was a practicing ****sexual on another world? No. But that's just a personal response, that's not a Church response."


So there is a bit of uncertainty it seems in the guy's mind as to the official church position on the question, "Was God gay....on Mars?".......


What a sad religion....