Jesus the Only Begotten Son "in the flesh"

[BookofMormonLuvr]

On the contrary, I rather explicitly allowed for the possibility that you might be atypical, when I said that maybe I had come across "someone who really wants the whole picture of LDS history, and not just the warty bits."

So if you tell me that you are interested in the whole picture, I'll believe you.

And as you demonstrate your interest in the whole picture, and resist any temptation to obsess about warts to the exclusion of non-warts, my belief will be vindicated.

And by the same token, I respect your right to hold your opinion, even in defiance of the truth.

Regards,

Pahoran

The sarcastic quality of your "allowance" made it clear you were not seriously entertaining the idea.

I have the distinct impression you will only focus on my disagreements with LDS history or teachings, to the exclusion of acknowledging any agreements I may have.

By the way I don't obsess. I merely share what I believe, I am sorry if those areas of disagreement lead you to think I am obsessing.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I find it fascinating that you made a blatant misrepresentation of what Pahoran said, and have refused to acknowledge it - even as it's been pointed out to you on this thread.

It leaves me wondering about your claim that you "approach everything with sincerity and a desire to know the truth".

Fortunately, I am not worried about whether you believe me or not. God knows, I know, and the important people in my life know that I sincerely seek after truth. I am sorry that my questions, doubts, disagreements lead you to believe otherwise.

[jwhitlock]

Fortunately, I am not worried about whether you believe me or not. God knows, I know, and the important people in my life know that I sincerely seek after truth. I am sorry that my questions, doubts, disagreements lead you to believe otherwise.

And yet, all you need to do is address the misrepresentation you made. But you refuse to do so. Continuing to do so actually gives us some concrete evidence concerning your possible real motivations.

Certainly a sincere seeker after truth would strive to address such things head-on. Or do you need a reminder of what you misrepresented?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

And yet, all you need to do is address the misrepresentation you made. But you refuse to do so. Continuing to do so actually gives us some concrete evidence concerning your possible real motivations.

Certainly a sincere seeker after truth would strive to address such things head-on. Or do you need a reminder of what you misrepresented?

Apparently, I do because I have no clue what you are talking about.

[TAO]

Hey, how 'bout both of you just forget the past disagreements and start over.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Hey, how 'bout both of you just forget the past disagreements and start over.

I have no clue what jwhitlock is talking about, apparently he has stumbled onto something I missed. I want the opportunity to apologize if I misrepresented anything or defend myself if I didn't.

[Ceeboo]

Hey, how 'bout both of you just forget the past disagreements and start over.

I agree TAO

Who wants to join in on a HUGE group hug?

Ceeboo's in!

Anyone else?

[jwhitlock]

Apparently, I do because I have no clue what you are talking about.

What Pahoran said:

"Because if I have, then I can tell you this: the whole picture of LDS history, warts and non-warts, skeletons and non-skeletons, with all of these in proper proportion, is "faith-promoting" from beginning to end."

What you responded with:

"To deny that there are questions relating to official LDS versions of history and the actual events is looking through rose-colored glasses at it's finest."

I'm still left wondering why, when Pahoran readily acknowledges that there are warts and skeletons, that you would claim he is "denying" that there are such questions, and that all he's doing is looking through rose-colored glasses. That's a pretty blatant misrepresentation to me.

Perhaps you find it inconceivable that someone could know about such things, and yet not only remain in the Church but actually rejoice in the depth and breadth and beauty of the restored gospel. Unbelievable as it may be, there are actually plenty of people who have that depth of understanding of what's happened in Church history and whose testimonies are actually stronger because of it.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

What Pahoran said:

"Because if I have, then I can tell you this: the whole picture of LDS history, warts and non-warts, skeletons and non-skeletons, with all of these in proper proportion, is "faith-promoting" from beginning to end."

What you responded with:

"To deny that there are questions relating to official LDS versions of history and the actual events is looking through rose-colored glasses at it's finest."

I'm still left wondering why, when Pahoran readily acknowledges that there are warts and skeletons, that you would claim he is "denying" that there are such questions, and that all he's doing is looking through rose-colored glasses. That's a pretty blatant misrepresentation to me.

Perhaps you find it inconceivable that someone could know about such things, and yet not only remain in the Church but actually rejoice in the depth and breadth and beauty of the restored gospel. Unbelievable as it may be, there are actually plenty of people who have that depth of understanding of what's happened in Church history and whose testimonies are actually stronger because of it.

I acknowledge that Pahoran acknowledges that there are some questions related to official LDS history, but that he sees them as "faith-promoting".

Happy?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Will you acknowledge that some people leave the LDS church over sincere disagreements about history and doctrine, not because they are sinners wanting to justify their sins or they were offended by someone?

[Pahoran]

BoML: you may have the last word.

I haven't seen any evidence from an authority of the LDS Church that would make me believe that LDS believe that Jesus was always God.

Actually Bart, if you want us to accept that you are attempting to discuss our doctrine in good faith, then you need to stop demanding that we prove to you that we believe something. If we say we believe it, it's because we do believe it.

The presumption of good faith, you see, has to go both ways.

We believe that Jesus was always God. We do not believe that He was ever His own Father. We believe that He created all things. We do not believe that living beings are "things" in that context, so the belief that He did not create some (or any) premortal spirits is not a contradiction to anyone who understands LDS teaching.

Any other questions?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ceeboo]

NOBODY wants to hug Ceeboo?

What's up with that?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

NOBODY wants to hug Ceeboo?

What's up with that?

[Pahoran]

I acknowledge that Pahoran acknowledges that there are some questions related to official LDS history, but that he sees them as "faith-promoting".

Happy?

Having just allowed you to have the last word, I find myself obliged to correct you.

Pahoran acknowledges that there are some questions related to official LDS history. Pahoran further says that when those questions are placed in their proper context, and in proportion, then, and only then, the whole sweep of Church history becomes "faith-promoting."

Is that clear now?

Will you acknowledge that some people leave the LDS church over sincere disagreements about history and doctrine, not because they are sinners wanting to justify their sins or they were offended by someone?

I will acknowledge that all things are possible; and statistics being what they are, there probably are some people who have done that.

I have also noticed that among the many people who claim to have "researched" their way out of the Church, most of them have their minds fully made up, and quite belligerently reject any attempt to acquaint them with additional information that might cause them to reconsider that decision; and among the many people who would never dream of leaving the Church in order to live a more "relaxed" moral code, most of them mechanically and predictably side against the Church on many or most significant moral questions.

Will you acknowledge that leaving the Church over "sincere disagreements about history and doctrine" sounds more noble and praiseworthy than leaving for less disinterested reasons? And that therefore some people who did leave for less disinterested reasons might prefer to describe themselves as having left over "sincere disagreements about history and doctrine?"

And now you may have the last word.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

I acknowledge that Pahoran acknowledges that there are some questions related to official LDS history, but that he sees them as "faith-promoting".

Happy?

Your response is another misrepresentation of what he said. Pahoran, I see, has already corrected you, so that's all that needs to be said about that. The truth-seeking needs a little tuning, evidently.

As far as being happy, I am happy about a variety of things. However, inaccuracy is not included in that particular category.

I personally find Pahoran to be rather balanced in taking things as a whole, as he has indicated. I also believe that when a person takes in the entire Church experience - and doesn't just pick and choose what evidence to accept to bolster predetermined biases on either side - that person will come away with a stronger testimony and greater appreciation of what God has done in restoring the fullness of the gospel int the last days.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Having just allowed you to have the last word, I find myself obliged to correct you.

Pahoran acknowledges that there are some questions related to official LDS history. Pahoran further says that when those questions are placed in their proper context, and in proportion, then, and only then, the whole sweep of Church history becomes "faith-promoting."

Is that clear now?

Works for me.

I will acknowledge that all things are possible; and statistics being what they are, there probably are some people who have done that.

I have also noticed that among the many people who claim to have "researched" their way out of the Church, most of them have their minds fully made up, and quite belligerently reject any attempt to acquaint them with additional information that might cause them to reconsider that decision; and among the many people who would never dream of leaving the Church in order to live a more "relaxed" moral code, most of them mechanically and predictably side against the Church on many or most significant moral questions.

Will you acknowledge that leaving the Church over "sincere disagreements about history and doctrine" sounds more noble and praiseworthy than leaving for less disinterested reasons? And that therefore some people who did leave for less disinterested reasons might prefer to describe themselves as having left over "sincere disagreements about history and doctrine?"

And now you may have the last word.

Regards,

Pahoran

My "moral code" has become more stringent since I left the LDS Church and I agree with their standing on all moral issues.

Your sarcastic, snide little accusations are becoming tiresome. Let's get one thing straight... Leaving the LDS Church is one of the hardest decisions of my life, I didn't take the decision lightly, and I prayed and continue to pray that if I was wrong in leaving that the Lord would lead me back... so get off your self-righteous high horse.