Preview of GodNeverSinned.com video project

[aaronshaf]

http://godneversinned.com/

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

I hope this video brings Christians to tears.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

http://godneversinned.com/

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

I hope this video brings Christians to tears.

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

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

[Vlad III]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

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

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

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

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

[SavedbyTruth]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

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

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

Fig,

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

1) Faithful saints being asked a seemingly simple question.

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

This allows a few things to take place:

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

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

Here is the Truth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: Deception at its best.

SavedbyTruth

[aaronshaf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now insert these questions

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

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

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

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

Take care,

Aaron
Skype: aaronshaf

[aaronshaf]

Good to see you again too, FBT.

[SavedbyTruth]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Good to see you again too, FBT.

FBT???? what does that mean?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by SavedbyTruth

FBT???? what does that mean?

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

[SavedbyTruth]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

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

Hi Fig,

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

SbT

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

http://godneversinned.com/

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

I hope this video brings Christians to tears.

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

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

[aaronshaf]

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

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

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

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

[SavedbyTruth]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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

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

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

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

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

[aaronshaf]

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

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

[SavedbyTruth]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SavedbyTruth

[aaronshaf]

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

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

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

[SavedbyTruth]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SbT

[aaronshaf]

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

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

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

[SavedbyTruth]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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

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

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

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

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

SavedbyTruth

[aaronshaf]

To quote you,

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

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

[SavedbyTruth]

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?

[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]

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?

[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

[aaronshaf]

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

Are you willing to go on camera?