Saintmichaeldefendthem1

I wonder if any study has been done as to how many people were saved after picking up a chick trak left on top of the paper towel dispenser in the men's room. Can you imagine? "Look, a pamphlet somebody left, I wonder what it says. I'm a sinner? This Jesus guy died for me? I'm going to go to hell if I don't repent? Woe is me, I am undone! Chick Trak Jesus, please save me!"

None. I've seen Mormon missionaries that were thrilled at the number of lives they touch going door to door. I've seen Catholics as happy as can be as they serve food to the homeless. I've seen Evangelicals on top of the world as they lead their best friend to Christ. "Yea", Jesus says, "rather happy are those who hear the word of God and do it." (Lk 11:28) Happiness is achieved by getting outside ourselves and escaping the bonds of spiritual lethargy by reaching out to others in the name of Christ. My own happiest moments bear out this truth.

I especially like this paragraph from your citation: Reformation teaching talks about being positionally righteous or having imputed righteousness with little or no import affixed to measuring up on a corporal level. The Catholic Church teaches holiness as something that can be achieved in this life, not perfection, but being centered in perfect harmony with the will of God. Such cloisters as convents and monastaries are expressions of this, not that there is anything unholy about marriage, but rather how it becomes possible to remove all distractions, abstain from the pleasures of this life, and attain the supreme knowledge of Christ by pressing in with unmitigated abandon. Whether or not we are, as Martin Luther put it, "snow covered dung" we ought to strive for holiness, running the race as if to win it.

What a funny thread! I'm amused because right now my wife is in her 1st trimester with our 3rd child and the funny thing is, the quirks of pregnancy always hit her like it's the first time ever. Our 8 year old walks right up to momma's only slightly expanded belly and puts his ear up and says, "I don't hear any kicking". When she was pregnant with our 3 year old, he used to love hearing his little brother kick inside. I pulled up internet pictures and showed him how tiny the baby is right now in the 1st trimester, looking more like a fish than a person. But yes, as a learned husband I'm already preparing for her 3rd trimester by installing a brand new hand-held shower head in the shower and buying several oversized pillows because she has such a hard time finding comfortable sleeping positions in the later stages. I've been through this 2 times before and I think we both get better at it each time.

Yes, I understood Anatess's post but I don't agree there is a parallel between JS and the Pope in any way. Context is everything. When Joseph Smith speaks in a pedagogical manner using words like "yea", he's teaching. These weren't off the cuff remarks nor was it quotidian conversation. What we're actually seeing here is a philosophical freelancer with no check on his flights of theological fancy. He had a number of devoted followers that hung on his every word and he was refuted by nobody, nor taken to task to demonstrate his claims in the Bible. You may, many decades later, dismiss his teaching as thoughtlessly ejaculated opinions, but the Mormons of his day most certainly did not.

Actually Jesus was FULLY human and FULLY God, not a hybrid of the two.

Enter Sandman fer sure. I don't know what that says about me. I'm afraid to psychoanalize myself that deeply. I'm afraid it's just the BEAST under my bed... in my closet.. in my head!!

I actually think you're going about this the right way, with reluctance. The problems don't start until you fall head-over-heels in love with a girl and then your brain shuts off. People in love tend to ignore red flags and the more practical questions that should be asked when considering a life partner. This is how disasterous mistakes are made. 1. Don't be desperate. You have plenty of time to observe before you act. Use that time. 2. Draw clear lines. Don't be ambiguous or send mixed messages. If you're interest at this point is just to be a friend, make sure you state that clearly. 3. Listen to your faith. There is a reason that clear taboos and imperatives have been established by your religion, to protect you from disaster. The feckless fool is the one who thinks they know better than those who have already travelled this road. 4. Be ready to lose a friend. Friendship is a two way economy of give and take. It requires mutual respect and compatible goals. Losing a friend is more profitable than being mired in a one sided friendship. Learn to keep and treasure friendships that build you up as you build others up and dispense with friendships where the other always takes and never gives. I hope this helps.

I'm more in the camp that balks at the notion that Jesus lost anything in regard to omniscience. His question "Who touched me?" is not unlike God's question to Adam in the garden, "Where are you?" These aren't questions born out of a lack of knowing, but rather questions that compell a confession. Jesus prophesied near events, such as Peter's denial of Him, and far events such as the destruction of the temple with detail. I think it's clear that Jesus had supernatural knowledge, not only of the future, but what lay in the hearts of men and what people discussed among themselves in secret. I'm quite certain Jesus knew exactly who touched him and even orchestrated the opportunity for this woman to be healed.

Then Joseph Smith was wrong. This gives rise to the question, what else could he have been wrong about? I've given up trying to get you to defend Joseph Smith's statement in the unambiguous language that he used. Here you seem to be attempting to set a more favorable context for the question to be answered that downplays the radically deviant statement by JS. John Doe thinks I should cite from an LDS doctrine source to back up my claim. I tend to think it's incumbant upon the defenders of the LDS to cite doctrine that clarifies, modifies, or even outright refutes Smith's stark statement.

And I respect that. I respect that more than when somebody starts a thread and then abandons it.

Not only does this help, but I vote it for best riposte.

It is odd isn't it? And I get irritated too when people lecture me on what Catholics believe. I can't testify as to what you believe, but I do know that the LDS church has never categorically rejected this teaching of Joseph Smith, so by default, that belief is still intact. What I think happens is that Mormons get converts from Catholic and evangelical denominations who still hold to certain beliefs they were brought up with and can't imagine that the LDS teaches differently. This is something I gleaned from Mama's Girl's post. Your humorous retort (and yes, I am smiling with you) does not do away with the fact that Joseph Smith taught some outlandish things. And he couldn't be more clear on the issue of progressive godhood.

Your statement is well in line with what Christians believe, but not what Mormons believe. Unfortunately Bytor is engaged in the impossible task of making Joseph Smith's words go away. No matter how it's flowered up, the belief entails God in a diminished state eventually attaining the state he is in today. First to the fact that God, existing outside of time, cannot be subject to the laws of sequence. If time and sequence govern God, then God is not omnipotent. If God were once a mortal man then God is not omnipresent. And if God had to progress in knowledge then he is not omnicient. And finally, if God's plan progresses and is not predetermined from the foundation of the world, then God is not sovereign.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. You should better aquaint yourself with your own faith.