Preview of GodNeverSinned.com video project

[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]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by 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. 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]

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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by theway

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by SavedbyTruth

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]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by Libby

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]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

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]

Originally Posted by Libby

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]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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”

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by maklelan

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]

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?

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.