Preview of GodNeverSinned.com video project

[SavedbyTruth]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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.

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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.

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Libby

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]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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.