The Goal Of Our Faith

[Red]

Snow: "I guess this means you are refusing to justify making this statement (despite having been challenged on it a number of times:

'And if you exceed all the others in righteousness you will go on to become a God of your own world and populate it with countless children. But the cycle repeats again doesn't it?'"

Excuse me your highness for not asking how high when you say jump! nah, just kidding. Anyhoo, reread the quotes I laid down last time, those are the primary reasons for why I understand LDS Prophets and scriptures to teach what they teach. Let's go through them, shall we...

Joseph Smith, King Follet Sermon:

"The scriptures inform us that "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

Being the founder of your religion and called a prophet by every mormon I talk to, I have to assume his words spoken in public sermons have some considerable wieght. Reading through this particular sermon, Joseph Smith never flinches saying, "Now here's a theory of mine, hope y'all humor me for a sec..." No. He refers to himself throughout the sermon as a prophet who is bringing the word of God. Now in this quote he says something I highly agree with, even quoting scripture. "Knowing God = eternal life," of course I believe that--we all do, but then he goes on to define God in an entirely different way than (and in purposeful contrast to) traditional Christian doctrine:

"...it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . . He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did..."

Would Joseph Smith have bothered to explain all this if everyone gets to the top of the mountain anyway? No, he would not have, instead he makes it clear that knowing this God who was not always God is necessary for attaining eternal life, not that imaginary god of the other christians. We could go off on a tangent from here (and I want to later), but for now, back to the question. Next quote:

"you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you. . . To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before."

The bolded portions tell us that men have been in the proccess of becoming gods before. He gives no implication that this process began at any particular time, and gives no hint that it will ever end, in fact he exhorts us to participate in and continue the process. In essence, he treats the word "God" as a station, we treat the word "God" as refering to the being himself and no other, anywhere, at any other time, on any other world or universe--if its there, God is the God of it. We would say that God is God by nature. He is what He is, He said so Himself (Ex 3:14-15).

I hope you are beginning to see now why I think that the LDS Church is teaching some kind of on-going process or cycle. To add to that, I have had it confirmed by multiple mormons I have witnessed to, and even LDS missionaries. So, I'm thinkin' I'm well within the bounds of your teachings when I say it is a "cycle." And here's more of a reason why:

". . . and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods. . ." (D/C 132:19-20)

I have also had this point confirmed by the testimony LDS missionaries, recently and in the past: if you achieve the utmost of celestial glory (God is the judge of course) you will continue to have children throughout eternity. Now here's the question to ask: will you give them the same opportunity to progress just like you followed your God, or will you not? If you are a fair parent and believe progression to be the right thing to do then you certainly will, or at least you ought to. This verse simply says that part of being a God is to continue to have seed. That is not what we other christians think.

Now it gets more interesting:

Brigham Young--"How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity"

Again, from the quotes from before. Even though I have found many times that mormons do not consider every single word that Young said to be doctrine (that may be an understatement), he is still called an LDS prophet so his words ought to mean something to you. And here I find him in complete agreement with Joseph Smith, stating two things explicitly: 1) that this course or cycle of men becoming gods and having more children to become more gods has been, is, and always will be, and 2) that all these people must go through the same ordeals we all know very well.

However you want to define "ordeal" is irrelevant, the point is that if Adam had not fallen we wouldn't have any ordeals. Both sides agree on this, the only difference is that traditional christians see it as a tragic thing, that redemption is taking us back to a state of unbroken fellowship with God which was lost. But in mormonism the fall was actually a good thing, that disobedience paved the way for a greater blessing than would have otherwise been possible. We christians see this as inconsistent with the character of the God whom we know and love--He would not reward disobedience in this way--He reproves and disciplines us for our trespasses every day!

Now consider these (again, also quoted above):

"And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."

In this LDS scripture it is clear that sin was necessary for the course (cycle) to continue--don't even try to argue that somehow "transgressions" are not, or are not as bad as "sins" and that that somehow makes it "ok!!" Whatever you want to call it, trangression or sin, it leads to death and Christ had to die for us on account of it.

Brigham Young: Sin is upon every earth that ever

was created, and if it was not so, I would like some philosophers to let me

know how people can be exalted to become sons of God, and enjoy a fullness of

glory with the Redeemer. Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and

every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and people thereof, in their

turn and time, receive all that we receive, and pass through all the ordeals

that we are passing through."

If sin is necesarry for us to overcome and attain godhood then the system is evil, because, "sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (James 1:15). Here's the question I ask, how many must die (and/or be sent to outer darkness) before the gods are content in their glory?

[Red]

But here's the alternative:

How about a God who was always what He is now, who did not have overcome anything to get there but simply always was God, is God, and always will be God.

How about a God you passionately loves you, who wants to ignore your sins and bring you back to Himself, who took on flesh, walked in our shoes and gave Himself up for you to make that possible. Who wants to be one spirit with you for the rest of eternity.

How about the God who gave use our own free will, to love Him and each other by choice, and along with that: responsibility for our actions because as Paul explains, "if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) 6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? 7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie [or any sin for that matter] unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come?" (Romans 3:5-8).

Evil is on our heads, not God's. But He took it on Himself for our sakes nonetheless.

How about a God who never intended sin to come but saw it coming and made a plan of redemption; who will be glorified by showing sin and rebellion as pointless, hideous and only resulting in death.

How about a God who loves us so passionately that he condemn those who do not repent, to guard us from them--A God who loves us enough to send the Flood and to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

How about a God who offers a way out of this fate by one single decision? By belief alone? Who gives us eternal life as a free gift if we only believe Him, and with that, the Holy Spirit--he allows us to become one with Him by no effort of ours.

These last few days God has show me one thing as I was out doing some evangelism on SDSU campus nearby, while talking to some LDS Missionaries, and in posting here: There are only two religions in this world.

There is one that says we are essentially good and that there are many good ways to the top of the mountain, some better than others. The one that teaches no true God would ever say, "I am the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the father but through me." The one that says, 'who are we to demand God's grace?'

But then there is the one that says we are nobody, the we are sinners in need of a savior, that its not who we are but its who God is, and He offers his grace freely. This one says, 'who are we to even think that we could climb that mountain?' "for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith" (Romans 3:22-27).

The whole world is trying to get to the top of a mountain that is too high. But how about a God who has picked me up and flown me to the the stars. THe mountain will crumble someday. But this God will pick you up too, no matter where you are on the hill, or in the valley, or even drowning in the ocean, HE will come and get you if you only cry out for Him.

"But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:8-13).

God bless,

-Red

[Snow]

Originally posted by Red@Oct 30 2005, 02:56 PM

Snow: "I guess this means you are refusing to justify making this statement (despite having been challenged on it a number of times:

'And if you exceed all the others in righteousness you will go on to become a God of your own world and populate it with countless children. But the cycle repeats again doesn't it?'"

Excuse me your highness for not asking how high when you say jump!    nah, just kidding.  Anyhoo, reread the quotes I laid down last time, those are the primary reasons for why I understand LDS Prophets and scriptures to teach what they teach.  Let's go through them, shall we...

Joseph Smith, King Follet Sermon:

"The scriptures inform us that "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

Being the founder of your religion and called a prophet by every mormon I talk to, I have to assume his words spoken in public sermons have some considerable wieght.  Reading through this particular sermon, Joseph Smith never flinches saying, "Now here's a theory of mine, hope y'all humor me for a sec..."  No.  He refers to himself throughout the sermon as a prophet who is bringing the word of God.  Now in this quote he says something I highly agree with, even quoting scripture.  "Knowing God = eternal life," of course I believe that--we all do, but then he goes on to define God in an entirely different way than (and in purposeful contrast to) traditional Christian doctrine....

What that, four times you have avoided justifying your claim Red? Could that be because you just invented it and now are embarrassed by it?

I'll try just one more time and then be forced to chalk you up as just another lightweight who slings the hash around but can't support his claims.

You said that righteous Mormons will become Gods of their own worlds and populate them with countless children. Where do get that from?

By the way, the sermons of Brigham Young are not useful for explaining and understanding doctrine but do not, in and of themselves constitute doctrine. Like the teachings of any authority in the Church, they are correct in so far as they are in alignment with our canon. A possible and informal exception to that might be the King Follet Sermon, though not canon or official doctrine, is so widely known and accepted that it has kind of a quasi-official sense to it and so is normative for the Church.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Red@Oct 30 2005, 06:40 PM

Who gives us eternal life as a free gift if we only believe Him, and with that, the Holy Spirit--he allows us to become one with Him by no effort of ours.

←

This has always been the heart of the debate between LDS and non or anti-LDS. LDS claim there is one way to God's presence, and one way only, and we believe that is through the church we believe His Son Jesus restored in our day, the LDS church.

We are criticized for being so "exclusive." I would be offended too if I didn't believe the LDS church's claims are true, and IF the promises weren't offered to everyone.

Having said that, the argument is always advanced, "You silly mormons, all you have to do is believe in Jesus to be saved." When we say, "But we do," the response is, "No, not THAT Jesus, THE Jesus."

The question becomes, "If we're so stuck-up for claiming we know WHO Jesus is and HOW to worship Him in complete harmony with his gospel, what makes you guys different for telling us it's YOUR Jesus we have to believe in?" And then the follow-up question begging to be asked is, "On what authority should I believe your claims over the LDS church's?" And, "Who gave you that authority?"

At the end of the day, what y'all are really saying is, "You have to believe in Jesus to be saved, that's it. Oh, but you can't believe in living prophets. Oooh, yeah, and you can't believe in new scripture. Then there's the troublesome belief in mandatory obedience to specific ordinances, not to mention the corollary and equally troublesome belief that only certain people can administer those ordinance," and so on, ad infinitum.

Do you see how absurd this becomes? If we believe you, we're really not that different. If we can't believe in living prophets/new scripture etc... along with Jesus Christ, you have to have authority from God to tell us that (please don't use the "priesthood of believers" argument). So we both claim authority from God is necessary. Question becomes, where does yours come from and who are you to tell us what we CAN'T believe in to be saved? Did Jesus authorize you? If so, maybe he authorized me too? This is purely an exercise in hypothetics and hyperbole, but I think you see my point.

I can find no time in the New Testament where Jesus taught, "Confess with your mouth and ye shall be saved by my grace, for it is sufficient for all who will come and partake; unless ye believe I will ever add to my words, or that I shall ever send forth more prophets or apostles. Yea, all who will may come and partake of the gift of eternal life freely, for truly it is free...unless ye believe ye must do good works, then thy faith in me is vain and shall not profit thy soul one whit."

See where I'm headed? Jesus never said we CAN'T believe in prophets or new scripture in addition to his divine role as Savior. If he did, it's not in the New Testament, which means it's new scripture, which hamstrings your position. So either way you look at it, your claims rest on the necessity of continuing revelation and authority from God to direct others to eternal life. So do our claims.

What kind of God, by the way, would deny eternal life to people who believed in His Son Jesus AND things like obedience to commandments, fulfilling all righteousness through ordinances like baptism as Jesus directed? Would God bar His beloved children from coming back to His presence because they believed in new scripture and continuing revelation, essentially saying that He isn't chained up in some abyss, unable to speak to His children whom, as you pointed out, He loves dearly?

As I would tell detractors of the LDS church while on my mission in Kentucky, "If all we have to do is believe in Jesus to be saved, what are we arguing about? We believe in Jesus."

???

[Ray]

Originally posted by Red@Oct 30 2005, 03:56 PM

If sin is necesarry for us to overcome and attain godhood then the system is evil, because, "sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (James 1:15).  Here's the question I ask, how many must die (and/or be sent to outer darkness) before the gods are content in their glory?

Red,

The Church officially declares that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were [and continue to be] prophets of God, and the Church also officially declares that what they taught was inspired or revealed to them by our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost. You simply do not believe those ideas were inspired by Jesus Christ, just as you also do not believe those persons were [and are] prophets of God.

I believe you also made an error in judgment when you stated that the “system” is evil merely because it is necessary for us to overcome sin and attain godhood. Or in other words, I believe it is wrong to state that “sin is necessary for us to overcome and attain godhood”, and instead I believe it is correct to state that “it is necessary for us to avoid and overcome sin to attain godhood”, and the mere fact that we are free to choose either good or evil doesn’t mean the “system” God uses to “prove” us is evil.

And btw, my answer to your question asking:

“How many must die (and/or be sent to outer darkness) before the gods are content in their glory?”

is that:

All of us must die before the gods determine where they will send us, and those who have chosen to be evil are the only ones who will be sent to outer darkness, despite how much God would have been content in having us all live around Him.

Or in other words, God is content in His glory no matter what we choose to do, and He merely offers us the opportunity to live like He does if we so choose.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Oct 31 2005, 01:24 PM

The Church officially...officially declares that what they taught was inspired or revealed to them by our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Ghost. 

←

That's a misleading statement. The officially declares that the canon is inspired of God and so, logically anything that they taught that is included in the canon is considered inspired but the Church does not declare that everything they taught was inspireded or revealed.

Of course, if it is "official" as you say, then post the official declaration and there won't be an argument.

[Ray]

I don’t recall the specific words, but one reference that comes to mind is from a President of the Church who stated that prophets don’t need to preface a statement with “thus saith the Lord” in order to have their statement considered as scripture. And since a President of the Church is officially recognized as the highest official in the Church on Earth at any given time, that’s officially enough for me.

Another reference that comes to mind is from Doctrine & Covenants section 50, where it says that everything that leads to do good and believe in Christ is inspired of God… and although some people think some of what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said went way out on a limb in leading people to do good and believe in Christ, I personally testify that I have been brought closer to Christ through the things they have said.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 1 2005, 01:44 PM

I don’t recall the specific words, but one reference that comes to mind is from a President of the Church who stated that prophets don’t need to preface a statement with “thus saith the Lord” in order to have their statement considered as scripture.  And since a President of the Church is officially recognized as the highest official in the Church on Earth at any given time, that’s officially enough for me.

Another reference that comes to mind is from Doctrine & Covenants section 50, where it says that everything that leads to do good and believe in Christ is inspired of God… and although some people think some of what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said went way out on a limb in leading people to do good and believe in Christ, I personally testify that I have been brought closer to Christ through the things they have said.

←

It is because not all are 'prepared' or able to 'receive' what has been taught... so it has to be put aside and found only on a personal level...

I love this:

D&C 88: 32

32 And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.

[Ray]

Yes, and that's another statement which I would know to be true even if it was not included in the standard works.

Hmm, or would I? ...maybe the standard works are the things we need to know before we are able to grow beyond them? Yes, that's it. I now know that to be true too. :)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 1 2005, 11:44 AM

I don’t recall the specific words, but one reference that comes to mind is from a President of the Church who stated that prophets don’t need to preface a statement with “thus saith the Lord” in order to have their statement considered as scripture.  And since a President of the Church is officially recognized as the highest official in the Church on Earth at any given time, that’s officially enough for me.

←

You said that the Church officially declares...

Your reponse indicates that you have no idea if there really is an official declaration or not so why did you say it?

[Ray]

You said that the Church officially declares...

Your reponse indicates that you have no idea if there really is an official declaration or not so why did you say it?

<div align="right">←</div>

The President of the Church is the Church's highest official on this Earth, and any declaration made by a President of the Church represents what the Church has or has had to say.

And while it is true that the person who occupies the position of President of the Church may not always be speaking as a prophet... because he may not be teaching something he has learned through the power of the Holy Ghost, and is instead only reading a cookbook recipe or something... but when he speaks as the President of the Church, he is speaking in his official capacity in the Church and is thus speaking for the Church.

And btw, you and I and every other member of the Church also may not be speaking for the Church... unless we are speaking in our own official capacity in the Church... and even when we do whatever we say can be trumped or overruled by the President... or other authorities who have even more authority than he does... when we are not in agreement with them.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 2 2005, 11:01 AM-->

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 1 2005, 10:05 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Nov 1 2005, 11:44 AM

I don’t recall the specific words, but one reference that comes to mind is from a President of the Church who stated that prophets don’t need to preface a statement with “thus saith the Lord” in order to have their statement considered as scripture.  And since a President of the Church is officially recognized as the highest official in the Church on Earth at any given time, that’s officially enough for me.

←

You said that the Church officially declares...

Your reponse indicates that you have no idea if there really is an official declaration or not so why did you say it?

←

The President of the Church is the Church's highest official on this Earth, and any declaration made by a President of the Church represents what the Church has or has had to say.

←

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:110)

I for one, Ray, am grateful that you don't know what you are talking about or the Church would be murdering white men every time they had sex with black women.

... besides which that still doesn't speak to your claim, which by your obfuscation be must now accept as false, that the Church officially declares...

Come on, admit it, you just fabricated that, didn't you Ray.

[Ray]

I think you don't understand what Brigham Young meant. And for a comparison, God Himself said Adam and Eve would die when they ate the forbidden fruit, yet soon after they both ate that fruit they both walked out of the garden of Eden.

Did you think that make God a liar?

And btw, I still say that Brigham Young was speaking for the Church, as well as for the Lord.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 3 2005, 01:30 PM

I think you don't understand what Brigham Young meant.  And for a comparison, God Himself said Adam and Eve would die when they ate the forbidden fruit, yet soon after they both ate that fruit they both walked out of the garden of Eden.

Did you think that make God a liar?

And btw, I still say that Brigham Young was speaking for the Church, as well as for the Lord.

←

It is very difficult to discuss gospel because there are so many levels that when one is on one level and another is on another level.. they totally miss what the other is saying...

[Ray]

Originally posted by Please+Nov 3 2005, 02:21 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Nov 3 2005, 01:30 PM

I think you don't understand what Brigham Young meant.  And for a comparison, God Himself said Adam and Eve would die when they ate the forbidden fruit, yet soon after they both ate that fruit they both walked out of the garden of Eden.

Did you think that make God a liar?

And btw, I still say that Brigham Young was speaking for the Church, as well as for the Lord.

←

It is very difficult to discuss gospel because there are so many levels that when one is on one level and another is on another level.. they totally miss what the other is saying...

←

I don't think either one of us is "missing" what the other is saying.

"To [agree] or not to [agree]... that is the question."

Btw, I'll give you 1000 points if you can tell me whose quote I just borrowed. :)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 3 2005, 02:30 PM

And for a comparison, God Himself said Adam and Eve would die when they ate the forbidden fruit, yet soon after they both ate that fruit they both walked out of the garden of Eden.

Did you think that make God a liar?

And btw, I still say that Brigham Young was speaking for the Church, as well as for the Lord.

←

Ray, Ray, Ray...please research your examples a little more, especially when claiming something as serious as whether Brigham Young's every word is scripture.

God told Adam and Eve that in "the day" they partook of the fruit they would die. As we know, a day to the Lord is 1,000 years. Guess how old Adam was when he died?

Genesis 5:5

"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

So Adam did die in "the day" (1,000 years) that he ate the fruit. And no, not every word uttered by Brigham Young was scripture or speaking for the Lord. Good heavens, he said a good many things which were personal opinion or pet doctrine (refer to the Journal of Discourses). The key is that when he spoke concerning requirements for salvation, in his role as prophet, he was speaking for the Lord, but I really don't feel like getting into that.

[Ray]

Originally posted by ApostleKnight+Nov 3 2005, 03:38 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Nov 3 2005, 02:30 PM

And for a comparison, God Himself said Adam and Eve would die when they ate the forbidden fruit, yet soon after they both ate that fruit they both walked out of the garden of Eden.

Did you think that make God a liar?

And btw, I still say that Brigham Young was speaking for the Church, as well as for the Lord.

←

Ray, Ray, Ray...please research your examples a little more, especially when claiming something as serious as whether Brigham Young's every word is scripture.

God told Adam and Eve that in "the day" they partook of the fruit they would die. As we know, a day to the Lord is 1,000 years. Guess how old Adam was when he died?

Genesis 5:5

"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

So Adam did die in "the day" (1,000 years) that he ate the fruit. And no, not every word uttered by Brigham Young was scripture or speaking for the Lord. Good heavens, he said a good many things which were personal opinion or pet doctrine (refer to the Journal of Discourses). The key is that when he spoke concerning requirements for salvation, in his role as prophet, he was speaking for the Lord, but I really don't feel like getting into that.

←

I think it's interesting that you have found reasoning to support the idea that God was telling the truth when He said what He said, but you have failed to find reasoning to support the idea that Brigham Young was telling the truth when he said what he said. But just because you can't find reasoning to support what he said as truth, it doesn't mean what he said can't be supported as truth, if understood correctly.

And btw, the next time you don't want to get into something, it might be better if you don't bring it up, otherwise I may exercise my right to say what I have to say in response to what you say.

And now I'll tell you a story.

There once was a man who joined the Church after gaining a testimony that the President of the Church was a prophet of God. He loved that person and listened to everything he said with the assurance that the Prophet would never lead him astray. Later in life, that Prophet died and another person was appointed as the President of the Church, and the member gained another testimony that that President was also a Prophet of God, so he listened and learned from him as much as he could. And again, later in life, that Prophet died and another person was appointed to be the President of the Church, but the member didn't gain a testimony that that person was a Prophet of God, so he didn't listen as much and wasn't really interested in anything that President had to say. In fact, there were some things the President of the Church said which the member openly refused to accept as truth, while thinking that President should simply learn to keep his mouth shut except for quoting the other people he had accepted as Prophets of God.

So tell me, if that member didn't believe that President of the Church was a Prophet of God, did that then mean that President wasn't a Prophet of God, or that what that President said wasn't supportable as revelation from our Lord?

As I said in another thread, the question is simply whether to agree or not to agree, and right now I know enough to know that I can always agree with the Prophet.

[Jason]

LeGrand,

Please keep in mind that Ray's a convert. Therefore he's more likely to be utterly devoted even when there's no call for it.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 3 2005, 05:35 PM

LeGrand,

Please keep in mind that Ray's a convert.  Therefore he's more likely to be utterly devoted even when there's no call for it.

←

Well Shanstress was a convert.... do you want to retract your statement?

[Jason]

Originally posted by Please+Nov 3 2005, 06:04 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Jason@Nov 3 2005, 05:35 PM

LeGrand,

Please keep in mind that Ray's a convert.  Therefore he's more likely to be utterly devoted even when there's no call for it.

←

Well Shanstress was a convert.... do you want to retract your statement?

←

No. Ray's still a convert. He doesn't want to look like he made a mistake, so he's more likely to defend the dogma.

Shan realized the flaws and walked away. Big difference.

[Ray]

Jason,

I left the church my Mom and Dad and most other members of my family are still members of when joining this church, and if I ever felt this church was wrong, I wouldn't hestitate to leave this one too.

After all, most of my family would be happy to welcome me back, and they and people like you give me a lot of encouragment to leave, so there must be some other reason to stay since it would be easy to go somewhere else.

And btw, my wife doesn't have any really close ties to her family, most of them are either not members or not active, and she would follow me anywhere, so there's no good reason for you to think that I'm staying for her either.

Oh, and I'm not "clickish" either, if you can't tell, so I'm not staying for any "friends" either.

Basically, it's me and my wife and the Lord. :)

[Jason]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 3 2005, 06:48 PM

Jason,

I left the church my Mom and Dad and most other members of my family are still members of when coming into this church, and if I ever felt this church was wrong, I wouldn't hestitate to leave this one too. 

After all, most of my family would be happy to welcome me back, and they and people like you give me a lot of encouragment to leave, so there must be some other reason to stay since it would be easy to go somewhere else.

And btw, my wife doesn't have any really close ties to her family, most of them are either not members or not active, and she would follow me anywhere, so there's no good reason for you to think that I'm staying for her either.

←

A man can stand to be made a fool once, but twice is unthinkable.

[Ray]

Is it really so hard for you to see that I don't care what anyone else thinks?

And why on Earth would I care about anyone who thinks I am a fool?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 3 2005, 04:59 PM

Is it really so hard for you to see that I don't care what anyone else thinks?

And why on Earth would I care about anyone who thinks I am a fool?

←

Well I don't know why you should but you do in fact care... so much so that you repeated threaten to leave when things get dicey for you.

...but Ray, Ray, Ray, no one is saying that prophets aren't prophets and should be followed and listened to. They are and they should. What you said however about "officially declares" turns out to have been a mistake on your part.

Why is it so hard for you to correct yourself when you are obviously mistaken? Admitting you are wrong gains you respect, not ridicule. Acting as if you are still right when everybody clearly understands your are mistakens makes you look foolish and invites the kind of reponse you dislike so much.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 3 2005, 04:22 PM-->

Originally posted by Please@Nov 3 2005, 02:21 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Nov 3 2005, 01:30 PM

I think you don't understand what Brigham Young meant.  And for a comparison, God Himself said Adam and Eve would die when they ate the forbidden fruit, yet soon after they both ate that fruit they both walked out of the garden of Eden.

Did you think that make God a liar?

And btw, I still say that Brigham Young was speaking for the Church, as well as for the Lord.

←

It is very difficult to discuss gospel because there are so many levels that when one is on one level and another is on another level.. they totally miss what the other is saying...

←

I don't think either one of us is "missing" what the other is saying.

"To [agree] or not to [agree]... that is the question."

Btw, I'll give you 1000 points if you can tell me whose quote I just borrowed. :)

←

Christ's... to be or not to be (Cor. 13:1-3)