Eternal Progression

[Mormon Factor]

God bless you folks for "putting up with an 'anti.'"

Russ

Uh oh.....

According to some Baptist pastors at http://www.pastors4huckabee.com, wishing a Mormon good wishes or god speed means that you are also in it with the devil!!!

I'm just playin' with ya, though, Russ. We know that you probably disagree with those Baptist pastors and their eisegesis of the Bible. Heck, you disagree with tenets found in the very church you attend/ work for.

Let us know when you guys finally come to that prophesied unity of faith!!

[Calm]

I'm not worried one iota about credibility in the eyes of those here present.

I'm sure you don't. It's those who you want to influence when they read your website that you want your work to appear credible to.

[Calm]

P.S. I just changed the article to read as follows:

One Mormon complained that I haven't given the whole story. A faithful Mormon (who desires that their name not be cited) wrote to me:

So you posted something without actually doing research on it to see if it's accurate. How surprising.

Let me educate you: link to FAIR article

I did not give you permission to quote me with or without my name. It is up to you if you want to put up a link to the correction or not, but I do not want any of my personal comments appearing anywhere on your website in any form.

Thank you for removing all trace of me from there ahead of time.

[LifeOnaPlate]

One letter in response hardly undoes the preceding bundle. LDS members who continually question their leaders are routinely disfellowshipped or excommunicated.

CFR, moron.

[Russ]

I'm sure you don't. It's those who you want to influence when they read your website that you want your work to appear credible to.

The reason I'm not concerned about credibility here is because anyone opposed to LDS doctrines shouldn't expect to be received.

If Ravi Zacharias (a man with a hi-octane tank full of intergrity) were to post I would venture to say that even he wouldn't be welcomed if he disagreed.

Understood?

[Calm]

The reason I'm not concerned about credibility here is because anyone opposed to LDS doctrines shouldn't expect to be received.

If Ravi Zacharias (a man with a hi-octane tank full of intergrity) were to post I would venture to say that even he wouldn't be welcomed if he disagreed.

Understood?

Understood, but you are wrong. There are many posters who are "opposed to LDS doctrines" who are not only welcomed, but loved and cherished by many of us.

[Russ]

Understood, but you are wrong. There are many posters who are "opposed to LDS doctrines" who are not only welcomed, but loved and cherished by many of us.

I'll take your word for it for now.

Apologies.

Who are they?

[Zakuska]

David Waltz, Rhinomelon, and many others.

[John Williams]

The reason I'm not concerned about credibility here is because anyone opposed to LDS doctrines shouldn't expect to be received.

If Ravi Zacharias (a man with a hi-octane tank full of intergrity) were to post I would venture to say that even he wouldn't be welcomed if he disagreed.

Understood?

I wouldn't say that at all. There are all kinds of critics and all kinds of believers here. Generally, polite and respectful critics are welcome here.

[William Schryver]

LDS members who continually question their leaders are routinely disfellowshipped or excommunicated.

They are? Since when? Did I miss the new directive? I mean, I would like to get a disfellowship/excommunication purge started in my stake, but I can't seem to get anyone on board with the idea. And here you're telling me that LDS members who question their leaders are routinely drummed out of the chapel! Where is this happening? I wanna see decisiveness like this in action. We need more progressive stakes like that in the church!

You hear that, JohnW? "Routinely"! That's what I'm talking about.

[4truth]

In response to rhinomelon

Stu's mom is WHAT??!?

Stuess writes:

Highly intelligent and extremely good-looking.

I take after my father.

* laughs but then thinks* Wait a minute! Are we related?

[Russ]

CFR, moron.

Grant Palmer, for one.

His book appears straight-up honest to me. How about you?

Thomas Murphy was threatened with tribunal, no?

I've heard some stories out of BYU. Have you?

(Is name calling acceptable here? If so, why?)

[Russ]

I did not give you permission to quote me with or without my name. It is up to you if you want to put up a link to the correction or not, but I do not want any of my personal comments appearing anywhere on your website in any form.

Thank you for removing all trace of me from there ahead of time.

Done.

Please be aware that I removed your quote as a courtesy to you personally.

There's nothing unethical about quoting somone anonymously.

[Russ]

David Waltz, Rhinomelon, and many others.

Thank you. I'll watch for their posts.

[Markk]

Hi Russ,

I can tell you have done your home work, interesting thread. I don't know if you are a ex member or not but my self being a ex member can tell you, if you haven't figured it out by now, that it gets to a point in these discussions that the only defense one has a a member is to make it personal.

What is interesting, and exciting, is that many here deny LDS core theology...i.e. eternal progression as taught through out the history of the church. They mock, they call names, they refuse to actually discuss or debate the doctrines while calling names to those who defend their faith here from these core teachings that teach orthodox christianity has no authority.

It would be cool to start another thread about eternal progression and discuss it and see if we can stick to the facts without all the name calling, there is so much written on it, yet so much denied on this site.

More later

Mark

John 1:12

[Russ]

Hi Russ,

I can tell you have done your home work, interesting thread. I don't know if you are a ex member or not but my self being a ex member can tell you, if you haven't figured it out by now, that it gets to a point in these discussions that the only defense one has a a member is to make it personal.

What is interesting, and exciting, is that many here deny LDS core theology...i.e. eternal progression as taught through out the history of the church. They mock, they call names, they refuse to actually discuss or debate the doctrines while calling names to those who defend their faith here from these core teachings that teach orthodox christianity has no authority.

It would be cool to start another thread about eternal progression and discuss it and see if we can stick to the facts without all the name calling, there is so much written on it, yet so much denied on this site.

More later

Mark

John 1:12

Mark, thanks for the encouragement. Looking forward to more of your posts.

If you have a written testimony out of Mormonism, I have a place on the web for it. (I'm not allowed to post the website here, but if you just google my name....)

I've started literally dozens of threads on the concept of Eternal Progression over the years. I've found it most difficult to get to the crux of the issue, but I keep hanging in there and asking questions for three reasons:

1) To allow investigators and other interested readers to examine the concept and ask themselves if they want to be aligned with it and to ask themselves if they believe it to be a genuine, Christian doctrine. I've come to the conclusion that it cannot be because only God is God and we're not. "The purpose of an open mind, like that of an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." G.K. Chesterton.

2) To ask LDS members to ask themselves if Christ doesn't offer a better way.

3) To ask Christians to educate themselves regarding core LDS beliefs and then to do something about it.

P.S. Oh, I forgot to say that I've never been LDS. My former neighbors were (or still are?). We had a LOT of interesting discussions. Never heated, never antagonistic. When they felt I wasn't accepting their answers (well, they didn't make sense to me in light of the Bible), they told me to invite over the missionaries. I thought to myself: what will 19 year olds be able to convince me of that you couldn't? And it went from there.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Grant Palmer, for one.

Oh, so we're talking about people who attempt to tout their Mormon "credentials" while publishing recycled garbage arguments against the Church?

His book appears straight-up honest to me. How about you?

His book was entirely unoriginal and poor. At least Fawn Brodie was entertaining.

Thomas Murphy was threatened with tribunal, no?

He wanted one so badly, too!

I've heard some stories out of BYU. Have you?

Sure.

(Is name calling acceptable here? If so, why?)

Not really, I was in a bad mood.

[seishido01]

Mark, thanks for the encouragement. Looking forward to more of your posts.

If you have a written testimony out of Mormonism, I have a place on the web for it. (I'm not allowed to post the website here, but if you just google my name....)

I've started literally dozens of threads on the concept of Eternal Progression over the years. I've found it most difficult to get to the crux of the issue, but I keep hanging in there and asking questions for three reasons:

1) To allow investigators and other interested readers to examine the concept and ask themselves if they want to be aligned with it and to ask themselves if they believe it to be a genuine, Christian doctrine. I've come to the conclusion that it cannot be because only God is God and we're not. "The purpose of an open mind, like that of an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." G.K. Chesterton.

2) To ask LDS members to ask themselves if Christ doesn't offer a better way.

3) To ask Christians to educate themselves regarding core LDS beliefs and then to do something about it.

P.S. Oh, I forgot to say that I've never been LDS. My former neighbors were (or still are?). We had a LOT of interesting discussions. Never heated, never antagonistic. When they felt I wasn't accepting their answers (well, they didn't make sense to me in light of the Bible), they told me to invite over the missionaries. I thought to myself: what will 19 year olds be able to convince me of that you couldn't? And it went from there.

I must respond to the pure fallacy that when discussing a doctrine such as deification members of the church can do nothing but resort to name calling. This a the biggest falsehood that has been stated on this entire thread. While it is true that some people in this board who are LDS have moved somewhat that direction as imperfect persons, it is just as true, if not far more so, that the people on your side of the discussion do the same. I have witnessed and participated in numerous debates between the "Elders of Israel" and sectarian pastors and or ex-members. In every case any neutral party present has conceded that we, the Elders, had the stronger position. This is true even using only biblical passages.

I unnderstand that some of you out there disagree with our position, but to say that we can't defend it reasonably is utter crap. And you both know that.

In Russ's defence, it is fair to say that many people assumed (and based on that even myself suppossed) that he had no intention of actually aquiring knowledge from us on a subject, but simply wanted perhaps to start a fight or something of that sort. That was perhaps a bit unfair, and despite Russ's disagreement with our doctrine it is only fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and provide him with a straight answer about what we believe. If we indeed have nothing to fear, and I know I for one do not. What harm can it be to answer his question, as I did a few pages back.

I hope Russ comes out of this understanding that there are many LDS out there who believe strongly in the doctrine discussed and are perfectly willing to be forthwright in saying so, even if that can at times expose them to the distain or ridicule of those who may disagree. We do have the truth. Many of us know it. And we need to do better in standing for it while maximizing our respect for those who disagree even if they choose not to. That, indeed, is what I feel Christ would have us do. (even on a message board where relatively few neutral parties will have the chance to see the gospel in its strength and choose to accept the same)

I would gladly accept a debate with either Russ or Mark at any time on the subject of "weather or not the deification of man is a biblically supported doctrine" But at the same time I say:

"We claim the privelage of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may"

regards,

seishido01

[Orpheus]

(Is name calling acceptable here? If so, why?)

No, but what you are doing isn't acceptable either. You are rude, insulting and you are a flamer so clean it up or clear out. We have plenty of people to talk to so we don't need to import abusive posters. You won't be warned again you will just be escorted out so your choice, show minimal respect to take the act somewhere else.

[Russ]

I must respond to the pure fallacy that when discussing a doctrine such as deification members of the church can do nothing but resort to name calling. This a the biggest falsehood that has been stated on this entire thread. While it is true that some people in this board who are LDS have moved somewhat that direction as imperfect persons, it is just as true, if not far more so, that the people on your side of the discussion do the same. I have witnessed and participated in numerous debates between the "Elders of Israel" and sectarian pastors and or ex-members. In every case any neutral party present has conceded that we, the Elders, had the stronger position. This is true even using only biblical passages.

I unnderstand that some of you out there disagree with our position, but to say that we can't defend it reasonably is utter crap. And you both know that.

In Russ's defence, it is fair to say that many people assumed (and based on that even myself suppossed) that he had no intention of actually aquiring knowledge from us on a subject, but simply wanted perhaps to start a fight or something of that sort. That was perhaps a bit unfair, and despite Russ's disagreement with our doctrine it is only fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and provide him with a straight answer about what we believe. If we indeed have nothing to fear, and I know I for one do not. What harm can it be to answer his question, as I did a few pages back.

I hope Russ comes out of this understanding that there are many LDS out there who believe strongly in the doctrine discussed and are perfectly willing to be forthwright in saying so, even if that can at times expose them to the distain or ridicule of those who may disagree. We do have the truth. Many of us know it. And we need to do better in standing for it while maximizing our respect for those who disagree even if they choose not to. That, indeed, is what I feel Christ would have us do. (even on a message board where relatively few neutral parties will have the chance to see the gospel in its strength and choose to accept the same)

I would gladly accept a debate with either Russ or Mark at any time on the subject of "weather or not the deification of man is a biblically supported doctrine" But at the same time I say:

"We claim the privelage of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may"

regards,

seishido01

seishido, that was very well said.

If you wish to debate the concept of Eternal Progression, I'm happy to oblige. If we are to talk of the LDS concept of human deification then it's only fair and right to discuss the complete ramifications of the concept and to include many details so that a fuller understanding can be had, e.g. mandatory elements of required laws and ordinances. I wouldn't expect you to speak of the endowment as I know that's off-limits on this board.

Let's do that next week? Busy weekend here.

I'm glad you brought up the issue of being free to worship as one sees fit. I agree with that. The issue I take with Mormonism is that it desires to call its theology "Christian."

You wrote in part: "I hope Russ comes out of this understanding that there are many LDS out there who believe strongly in the doctrine discussed and are perfectly willing to be forthwright in saying so."

I've met very, very few Mormons who are willing to be forthright regarding their core beliefs. In fact, it's been one of my chief complaints against those who post on Christian discussion boards.

It is my stance that Eternal Progression cannot be biblically defended. Not in the least. It wasn't taught by Jesus, it wasn't believed by the Apostles and it certainly has no place in historic Christianity. It's my stance that the uniquely LDS aspect is a product of the 1800s.

I look forward to a debate with you. Not because "my God can beat up your God" (although I do believe the Bible has the upper hand) but more because I'll learn something and I'll take away from our conversation a better means by which to show how and why Mormonism errs.

P.S. I don't think all Mormons resort to name-calling. Some in this thread have been quite professional in their approach. Some have been "testy" and Peterson told me in a nutshell to "Go fish" for his articles. (I guess I'll have to.)

[Russ]

No, but what you are doing isn't acceptable either. You are rude, insulting and you are a flamer so clean it up or clear out. We have plenty of people to talk to so we don't need to import abusive posters. You won't be warned again you will just be escorted out so your choice, show minimal respect to take the act somewhere else.

Is there a means by which I may contact you privately, Orpheus?

[Mark Beesley]

Sorry, Bee Eff. Yes, you and some others responded according to LDS doctrine. jkfrost too.

Kudos to you and others who responded as such. I apologize to those not mentioned.

Y'know what, though?

I get the feeling, for the most part, that the majority of LDS members on Internet discussion boards hide their real beliefs behind "milk before the meat."

I'd rather tell you every thing I know about my Jesus.

I believe that He is indeed God in the flesh. Emmanuel, God with us.

I believe He is my very Creator (not "participant" in creation) of all their is and sustainer of the oxygen we breathe.

I believe He is the Lamb found worthy to be slain and worshipped and prayed to as God. The only God.

Emphasis added.

Ah, but you didn't ask about Jesus, Russ. You asked about an entirely tangential issue having to do with our personal exhaltation. If you want to talk about Jesus, that's a whole different topic. I'd be glad to tell you what I believe about Jesus. Then again, you don't listen, so why should I bother?

And you never answered my earlier question. What was it about my initial response to you that caused you to think I was full of hatred? I'd really like to know.

[Orpheus]

Is there a means by which I may contact you privately, Orpheus?

You can contact me right here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=32964

[Mark Beesley]

I've met very, very few Mormons who are willing to be forthright regarding their core beliefs. In fact, it's been one of my chief complaints against those who post on Christian discussion boards.

The problem Russ, is coming to agreement as to what a core belief is. For me, my core belief is that Jesus is the Christ, that he suffered for my sins, was crucified, and rose on the third day, thereby extending the gift of immortality to all. Everything else is tangential and not core.

[seishido01]

{{{

seishido, that was very well said.

If you wish to debate the concept of Eternal Progression, I'm happy to oblige. If we are to talk of the LDS concept of human deification then it's only fair and right to discuss the complete ramifications of the concept and to include many details so that a fuller understanding can be had, e.g. mandatory elements of required laws and ordinances. I wouldn't expect you to speak of the endowment as I know that's off-limits on this board.

Let's do that next week? Busy weekend here.}}}}

If you would wish to discuss that which occurs in the temple then you are correct. It is sacred to me and I would feel just as uncomfortable talking about it as I would if someone asked me about my intimate relations between myself and my wife. I mention this to stress the "it's not secret, just sacred" position I adhere to when speaking of the temple ordinances. Besides, you obviously have obtained information on the temple endowment and all attending ordinances from the many sources that are available, and there would be no point in trying to explain them even if I didn't feel it would be insanely disrespectful of me before the LORD if I were to do so.

Having said that. I would be happy to discuss weather the bible supports the position that man can become like his heavenly father. Perhaps we could continue it on this same thread next week or start a new thread for only that express purpose, while asking those wishing to bring other subjects into the exercise to post somewhere else. It wouldn't be any fun if nobody else could read it though!!!