My best post so far on my views of Smith and the Mormons who defend him....

[alanmolstad]

When finally confronted by the fact that President Clinton was in fact guilty of adultery with a young girl, the Democrat supporters of Clinton came up with a defense whereby they bring up the sins of other past Presidents in an effort to make the sins of Clinton "look smaller"

I heard many of my liberal friends start talking about how President Jefferson actually had children by some of his slaves.


I used to think abut what the supporters were actually doing...

Rather than admitting, "The guy sinned" they would try to wrap Clinton in the flag of Jefferson.
They did this because the common view of most Americans is that President Jefferson is the greatest President we ever had, and so if you say that Clinton and Jefferson were much alike its got to make the adultery of Clinton seem like a very small issue and not worth talking about.

I notice the same type of defense today too when I confront the supporters of Joe Smith and the fact that he was both an adulterer and child molester..
They no longer really try to tell us "It never happened" like the Mormon lady did with Jim and Billy here on the forum,
Rather what they do is attempt to wrap their guy in the flag of some other person that they believe has the reputation of being the- "Greatest person to ever live"


Its not something that works with me however.





Pointing to some other person and saying, "But that person did it before me!" is not a excuse .

Actually it sounds like something a little kid comes up with when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

[Phoenix]

My best post so far...

If one's best post is still pretty bad, is it something to boast about?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by childofgod

In other words its ok for abraham and jacob to be polygamists because its in the bible but not joseph smith. Your view is obviously this: the only true prophet to you is a dead prophet

Its like your argument is this..."Adam got away with sinning,so why cant Joe Smith?"


That is the heart of your argument.

I mean you are attempting to put a better "spin" on what Smith clearly was guity of by bring up some outer guy from the distant past who you paint as also having got away with doing the same thing.
So fine, lets just do that!
Lets trace back man's misbehavior back to the very beginning...right to the "source" as it were to see if this line of reasoning stands up?

Adam pointed at his wife and informed God that Eve had actually done that very same sin before he did...
and if Eve can get away with it so should he right?


Thats the heart of what you are saying...




and I have already given my response to that type of thinking...

(Let me quote what I said)

"When finally confronted by the fact that President Clinton was in fact guilty of adultery with a young girl, the Democrat supporters of Clinton came up with a defense whereby they bring up the sins of other past Presidents in an effort to make the sins of Clinton "look smaller"

I heard many of my liberal friends start talking about how President Jefferson actually had children by some of his slaves.


I used to think abut what the supporters were actually doing...

Rather than admitting, "The guy sinned" they would try to wrap Clinton in the flag of Jefferson.
They did this because the common view of most Americans is that President Jefferson is the greatest President we ever had, and so if you say that Clinton and Jefferson were much alike its got to make the adultery of Clinton seem like a very small issue and not worth talking about.

I notice the same type of defense today too when I confront the supporters of Joe Smith and the fact that he was both an adulterer and child molester..
They no longer really try to tell us "It never happened" like the Mormon lady did with Jim and Billy here on the forum,
Rather what they do is attempt to wrap their guy in the flag of some other person that they believe has the reputation of being the- "Greatest person to ever live"


Its not something that works with me however.





Pointing to some other person and saying, "But that person did it before me!" is not a excuse .

Actually it sounds like something a little kid comes up with when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. "











(and by the way, that is still one of the best comments I have yet posted on the forum)

[theway]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

When finally confronted by the fact that President Clinton was in fact guilty of adultery with a young girl, the Democrat supporters of Clinton came up with a defense whereby they bring up the sins of other past Presidents in an effort to make the sins of Clinton "look smaller"

I heard many of my liberal friends start talking about how President Jefferson actually had children by some of his slaves.


I used to think abut what the supporters were actually doing...

Rather than admitting, "The guy sinned" they would try to wrap Clinton in the flag of Jefferson.
They did this because the common view of most Americans is that President Jefferson is the greatest President we ever had, and so if you say that Clinton and Jefferson were much alike its got to make the adultery of Clinton seem like a very small issue and not worth talking about.

I notice the same type of defense today too when I confront the supporters of Joe Smith and the fact that he was both an adulterer and child molester..
They no longer really try to tell us "It never happened" like the Mormon lady did with Jim and Billy here on the forum,
Rather what they do is attempt to wrap their guy in the flag of some other person that they believe has the reputation of being the- "Greatest person to ever live"


Its not something that works with me however.



Pointing to some other person and saying, "But that person did it before me!" is not a excuse .

Actually it sounds like something a little kid comes up with when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Hmmm. I was unaware that it was a "fact" that Joseph Smith was either an adulterer or a child molester???

Simply rewording a false statement or premise will not make it a fact, a true post, or even a good post. Although if you want it to be your "best post" that is not saying much.
All it tells me is the fact that you are not a very creative or convincing Critic, and the fact that you can not learn from your mistakes.

[Christian]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

If one's best post is still pretty bad, is it something to boast about?

I wouldn't know. HIS post was very GOOD. If it got past you or if you couldn't understand it, or if your apriori beliefs got in your way, I can understand how you might THINK it was not good. Especially in light of your apriori beliefs and your own methods of dealing with the arguments. . .

[Christian]

cog posted:

You completely ignore everything members of the church say. I am a Mormon and I'm grateful for it.

I'm sorry. I hope you get over it soon.

As much as Jesus loves us, just believing He exists isn't enough to return to live with God and Christ. You refuse to read the Book of Mormon, the very book of scripture that is evidence that this is Jesus Christ's church.

I have read TWO VERSIONS of it, the original printing (a photocopy) and the printing that was current in 1974. I have also read the book of commandments which later became the D&C, and I read the d&c as well (of course their 'revelations' had changed quite a bit. . .) Smith's writings have nothing to do with the church the REAL Jesus Christ built, you know. . .about 2,000 years ago. All smith's has to do with is the religion HE started, less than 200 years ago.

In another post you made a mockery of God when you rambled about "Mormon God", " Mormon Jesus, " etc when we worship the same God you claim to worship, we just actually worship Him.

No, we CHRISTIANS do not worship a god who was once a man, but became exhalted into godhood, but never changed from eternity to eternity. We do not follow a 'jesus' who was supposedly a spirit-baby from the same father as your 'satan' either. No, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME GOD we CHRISTIANS SERVE.

You go on and on about something that isn't important nor immoral.

A pedophile is a pedophile. . .and when he is YOUR 'prophet' THAT IS IMPORTANT, and CERTAINLY it is immoral.

The moment you're ready to talk about the gospel of Jesus Christ in a respectful way, let Latter-Day Saints know. We will be glad to help you come unto Christ. Until you've read the Book of Mormon you have not studied our religion.

Until YOU have read the BIBLE from cover to cover, YOU have not studied OUR belief system then. HAVE you read the BIBLE from cover to cover? I DOUBT IT.

UNTIL you are willing to honestly ADDRESS THE ISSUES you seem to have no legitimate complaint. All you can do is whine "Golly-gee, yur disrespekful!"

[Christian]

way posted:
Hmmm. I was unaware that it was a "fact" that Joseph Smith was either an adulterer or a child molester???

Does not the lds religion itself acknowledge the fact that joe smith was 'married' to several wives, some of whom who were still married to their living husbands? And that at least one of those 'other wives' was 14 years old, just a kid?

Simply rewording a false statement or premise will not make it a fact, a true post, or even a good post. Although if you want it to be your "best post" that is not saying much.

Neither does PRETENDING his statement is false make it false.

All it tells me is the fact that you are not a very creative or convincing Critic, and the fact that you can not learn from your mistakes.

So far (other than your spurious CLAIMS) we have no evidence that he has MADE any mistakes here.

[theway]

Originally Posted by Christian

way posted:

All it tells me is the fact that you are not a very creative or convincing Critic, and the fact that you can not learn from your mistakes.

So far (other than your spurious CLAIMS) we have no evidence that he has MADE any mistakes here.

We don't need any evidence, because I already declared it a "fact" that he made mistakes.

Nuf said...

[Phoenix]

If one's best post is still pretty bad, is it something to boast about?

Originally Posted by Christian

I wouldn't know. . .

maybe that's part of the problem here.

[Grandma]

The Triune God I worship is not married to a "heavenly mother," the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants don't mention a "heavenly mother," so why do Mormons ever mention such a person?

I don't worship the Mormon gods or goddesses.

[Grandma]

This was an accidental double post. I'm sorry. Please deleat.

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Grandma

This was an accidental double post. I'm sorry. Please deleat.

there is no need to delete the additional post if you are a trinitarian. you can just believe that the two posts are one, even though there are obviously two of them...

[Grandma]

Two are less than the number of Mormon gods and goddesses, don't you think?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Grandma

Two are less than the number of Mormon gods and goddesses, don't you think?

yes, definitely. 2 is also less than the number of anti-mormon gods in the anti-mormon trinity, but the anti-mormons don't realize it.

anyway, 2 is less than the number of gods that the great theologians such as st. athanasius believed there would be:

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. 130–202) said that God "became what we are in order to make us what he is himself."[2] Irenaeus also wrote, "If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods."[3] He added: "Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods?

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215), wrote: "Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god."... His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. ... Clement of Alexandria also stated that "he who obeys the Lord and follows the prophecy given through him ... becomes a god while still moving about in the flesh."[7]

Justin Martyr c. 100–165) insisted that in the beginning men "were made like God, free from suffering and death," and that they are thus "deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest."[8]

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (c. 296–373), stated his belief in literal deification:"The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. ... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life."[9] Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."[10][11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divini...28Christian%29

[Grandma]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

yes, definitely. 2 is also less than the number of anti-mormon gods in the anti-mormon trinity, but the anti-mormons don't realize it.

anyway, 2 is less than the number of gods that the great theologians such as st. athanasius believed there would be:

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. 130–202) said that God "became what we are in order to make us what he is himself."[2] Irenaeus also wrote, "If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods."[3] He added: "Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods?

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215), wrote: "Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god."... His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. ... Clement of Alexandria also stated that "he who obeys the Lord and follows the prophecy given through him ... becomes a god while still moving about in the flesh."[7]

Justin Martyr c. 100–165) insisted that in the beginning men "were made like God, free from suffering and death," and that they are thus "deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest."[8]

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (c. 296–373), stated his belief in literal deification:"The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. ... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life."[9] Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."[10][11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divini...28Christian%29

Try reading the Bible:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Isaiah 43:10-11 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God... 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

In Christian love,

Grandma

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Grandma

Try reading the Bible

are you saying that all those early christians who i quoted--some of them bishops--did NOT try reading the bible?

if the person who studies it most has the best understanding of what it teaches, are you saying you have studied it more than those bishops did?

[Grandma]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

are you saying that all those early christians who i quoted--some of them bishops--did NOT try reading the bible?

if the person who studies it most has the best understanding of what it teaches, are you saying you have studied it more than those bishops did?

Did they have the Melchizedek priesthood?

Doctrine and Covenants 84

19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

You're not making sense.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

When finally confronted by the fact that President Clinton was in fact guilty of adultery with a young girl, the Democrat supporters of Clinton came up with a defense whereby they bring up the sins of other past Presidents in an effort to make the sins of Clinton "look smaller"

I heard many of my liberal friends start talking about how President Jefferson actually had children by some of his slaves.


I used to think abut what the supporters were actually doing...

Rather than admitting, "The guy sinned" they would try to wrap Clinton in the flag of Jefferson.
They did this because the common view of most Americans is that President Jefferson is the greatest President we ever had, and so if you say that Clinton and Jefferson were much alike its got to make the adultery of Clinton seem like a very small issue and not worth talking about.

I notice the same type of defense today too when I confront the supporters of Joe Smith and the fact that he was both an adulterer and child molester..
They no longer really try to tell us "It never happened" like the Mormon lady did with Jim and Billy here on the forum,
Rather what they do is attempt to wrap their guy in the flag of some other person that they believe has the reputation of being the- "Greatest person to ever live"


Its not something that works with me however.





Pointing to some other person and saying, "But that person did it before me!" is not a excuse .

Actually it sounds like something a little kid comes up with when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

I very much enjoy reading what I posted on this issue.
Thanks for keeping this topic going and reminding me of my past work on this forum!

[theway]

Originally Posted by Grandma

Try reading the Bible:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Isaiah 43:10-11 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God... 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

In Christian love,

Grandma

I read and study the Bible, and I am at a loss as to how the scriptures you posted were supposed to help your argument any?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Grandma

Did they have the Melchizedek priesthood?

how is that relevant to your implication that only people who haven't tried reading the Bible would agree with St. Athanasius' statement that "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods" ??

Doctrine and Covenants 84
19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.
20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

How does that scripture help your denial of the historical reality that St. Athanasius stated that "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods" ??

You're not making sense.

what part of this lesson on the history of Christianity is not making sense to you? does YOUR claim make sense? your claim that only people who haven't tried reading the Bible would agree with St. Athanasius' statement that "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods" ??

[Grandma]

Originally Posted by theway

I read and study the Bible, and I am at a loss as to how the scriptures you posted were supposed to help your argument any?

Read the Bible more.

[Grandma]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

how is that relevant to your implication that only people who haven't tried reading the Bible would agree with St. Athanasius' statement that "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods" ??


How does that scripture help your denial of the historical reality that St. Athanasius stated that "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods" ??


what part of this lesson on the history of Christianity is not making sense to you? does YOUR claim make sense? your claim that only people who haven't tried reading the Bible would agree with St. Athanasius' statement that "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods" ??

Are you instructed to learn about God from those who don't have the Melchizedek Priesthood?

[theway]

Originally Posted by Grandma

Read the Bible more.

I have read it more... However that does not answer my question.
Please explain how the scriptures you posted prove your point?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Grandma

Are you instructed to learn about God from those who don't have the Melchizedek Priesthood?

of course--i learn about God from the women leaders of the church, every 6 months, for example.

and now that i have answered your irrelevant question, why won't you answer my relevant one? is that a trick they taught you in anti-mormon school--"if they ask you to back up a questionable ***ertion you have made, don't answer it--instead, ask them an irrelevant question to create a diversion in the hope that it will distract them from your failure to answer" ?

why won't you defend and substantiate your claim that a person's rejection of the early Christian doctrine of theosis is directly proportional to the person's amount of bible study?