Preview of GodNeverSinned.com video project

[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]

Originally Posted by justjo

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]

Originally Posted by justjo

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.



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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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.

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

SbT

[SavedbyTruth]

Originally Posted by 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.

Where do you get this stuff?????

[SavedbyTruth]

Originally Posted by justjo

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[SavedbyTruth]

Originally Posted by Vlad III

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by SavedbyTruth

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]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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.

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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.

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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.

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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?

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Which is even more historiographically irrelevant.

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (>>)

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.