I Am A Bottomless Sinkhole Of Corruption

[Log]

I think there is a difference between believing that GOD will save all..and believing that you, yourself, might be a "savior".

In the context of that citation, there is no difference - as the speaker was asking to be THE Savior, the one by whom all would be saved, and without whom none would be saved.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Log

[Libs]

In the context of that citation, there is no difference - as the speaker was asking to be THE Savior, the one by whom all would be saved, and without whom none would be saved.

I still see a lot of differences. I didn't see MnG saying she wanted to be a savior, only that she believed God would save all, in the end. Lucifer was not so much interested in saving anyone, as he was in obtaining the glory for doing so. That was his downfall...his ego. The way in which he wanted to save everyone was also about himself. He wanted to take away free will, thus (in his mind) increasing the glory he would obtain, because he could take credit for everything. Lucifer was all about himself. Our true Lord and Savior was all about sacrificing for others, to give them the opportunity to be saved.

[Log]

I still see a lot of differences. I didn't see MnG saying she wanted to be a savior, only that she believed God would save all, in the end.

Since I was not saying ANYTHING about MnG, but only about the sentiment she expressed, I'm not sure why you're talking about her.

Lucifer was not so much interested in saving anyone, as he was in obtaining the glory for doing so.

The scripture doesn't say that Lucifer's primary interest in being chosen as the Savior was obtaining the glory for so doing. Nobody denies Christ received of the glory of the Father as Savior.

That was his downfall...his ego. The way in which he wanted to save everyone was also about himself. He wanted to take away free will, thus (in his mind) increasing the glory he would obtain, because he could take credit for everything.

The scripture also does not say any of that.

Lucifer was all about himself.

The scripture does not say that either.

Our true Lord and Savior was all about sacrificing for others, to give them the opportunity to be saved.

While I agree with this, the scripture does not say Lucifer wasn't. To be the Savior means, at least in part, to suffer, bleed, and die for the sins of the world. Kind of an interesting thing someone who only cares about himself to put himself forward for.

[mercyngrace]

There's also a wide gulf between believing all men can or eventually will choose to repent and be saved and believing that all men can or should be compelled to repent and be saved

[Log]

There's also a wide gulf between believing all men can or eventually will choose to repent and be saved and believing that all men can or should be compelled to repent and be saved

There is, indeed. Unfortunately, that gulf is not between believing all shall eventually be saved, and that which Lucifer proposed - which was that all shall eventually be saved.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with wanting all to be saved.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Log

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

And this feeling is why there was a war in Heaven.

All brothers fight?

[why me]

I believe so, yes. When I say "a work in progress", I am talking about the eternities.

A work in progress should show some sort of progression and not degression. I have found that people who have left the church usually come up with something to believe that they can deal with. On this earth we may be a work in progress if we believe that we can change and progress toward god. But if we are landlocked in sin and habitual evil, I would say that that person is no longer a work in progress.

[why me]

There is no us v. them in my worldview, Why Me. Here's how I see things:

My dear brethren of the priesthood, my beloved fellow disciples of the gentle Christ, should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard? As priesthood bearers, we must realize that all of God’s children wear the same jersey. Our team is the brotherhood of man. This mortal life is our playing field. Our goal is to learn to love God and to extend that same love toward our fellowman. We are here to live according to His law and establish the kingdom of God. We are here to build, uplift, treat fairly, and encourage all of Heavenly Father’s children.

If the early saints at the time of Joseph Smith did not defend themselves, they would be wiped out. The so called brotherhood of man was ready to kill, rob, and burn them out. And it was an us against them. And for most of the mob, they went to church on sunday listening to the preacher speak about love and christ and on the weekday, his flock read antimormon papers and set out to punish the mormons. This is reality and it is still the mormon reality today, minus the mobs.

Yes, we are here to learn to love god and to learn to love our fellow human beings. However, when these human beings reject our love and seek to harm the people and things that we love, I believe that we have the right to defend that which we love and to protect it.

[why me]

Again, I reissue my invitation. If you see me behaving in any way that is incongruous with what I believe as a disciple of Christ, you point it out.

I will. And you can start, if you have not done so already, by defending Daniel against unreasonable attacks by some of the posters there.

[mercyngrace]

If the early saints at the time of Joseph Smith did not defend themselves, they would be wiped out. The so called brotherhood of man was ready to kill, rob, and burn them out. And it was an us against them. And for most of the mob, they went to church on sunday listening to the preacher speak about love and christ and on the weekday, his flock read antimormon papers and set out to punish the mormons. This is reality and it is still the mormon reality today, minus the mobs.

Yes, we are here to learn to love god and to learn to love our fellow human beings. However, when these human beings reject our love and seek to harm the people and things that we love, I believe that we have the right to defend that which we love and to protect it.

And this has to do with me how exactly? If you believe that we have the right to defend that which we love then defend it, protect it. I defend and protect what I love by living it. I'm not going to put on a jersey you designed just because you decided life is a team sport and some people are on the opposing side.

I'm going to wear my faith on my sleeve, as I always have and try with all that is in me to treat all men decently, compassionately, and with charity in the hopes that my actions have an impact.

You've been posting on that board, calling people to repentance, arguing and contending for a long time now. How's that working out for you?

I will. And you can start, if you have not done so already, by defending Daniel against unreasonable attacks by some of the posters there.

It's not my job to defend Daniel. I don't worship Daniel.

It's my job to defend the gospel not every Brother Tom, Brother D!ck, or Brother Harry just because we share membership in the church. I don't defend everything American simply because I'm a citizen, neither do I defend everything labeled Christian or Mormon because they are so labeled. Nor will I defend someone I know nothing about.

There is a reason I avoid posting on threads about personalities. With one exception, I have done little delving into the personal writings and online behavior of anyone, that exception was per invitation.

I come online to discuss the gospel and to interact with friends in a positive way.

I love the gospel.

If you love Daniel and have a relationship with him the compels you to speak up for him, then do so. In my recollection, he and I have never even exchanged words so I have no basis for participating in discussions that center around him, regardless of his character.

[KevinG]

Am I my brothers keeper?

I would certainly feel unclean if I allowed slander and hatred to go unanswered under the guise of neutrality or peace.

"That duty demands and requires that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated. When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it. It is surely no very rational account of a man's life, that he has always acted right but has taken special care to act in such a manner that his endeavours could not possibly be productive of any consequence."

-Edmund Burke

[mercyngrace]

Am I my brothers keeper?

I would certainly feel unclean if I allowed slander and hatred to go unanswered under the guise of neutrality or peace.

If it is only a guise, then you should feel unclean.

Men didn't drop their stones and walk away from the woman taken in adultery because Christ put up a brilliant defense.

They dropped them because He was a brilliant defense.

Edited May 16, 2012 by mercyngrace

[why me]

If you love Daniel and have a relationship with him the compels you to speak up for him, then do so. In my recollection, he and I have never even exchanged words so I have no basis for participating in discussions that center around him, regardless of his character.

And this is the problem with your brotherhood of love. Love should get someone to defend their fellow human being against attacks by others. Love is universal and it would matter not if I liked Daniel. He is a human being and deserves respect and not bashing as what occurs on another board. And this is why I challenged your so called universal love and brotherhood of man and your letter to the priesthood. Should I remind you what you wrote:

There is no us v. them in my worldview, Why Me. Here's how I see things:

My dear brethren of the priesthood, my beloved fellow disciples of the gentle Christ, should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard? As priesthood bearers, we must realize that all of God’s children wear the same jersey. Our team is the brotherhood of man. This mortal life is our playing field. Our goal is to learn to love God and to extend that same love toward our fellowman. We are here to live according to His law and establish the kingdom of God. We are here to build, uplift, treat fairly, and encourage all of Heavenly Father’s children.

If daniel is bashed and mocked, where does your letter fit in?

[mercyngrace]

And this is the problem with your brotherhood of love. Love should get someone to defend their fellow human being against attacks by others. Love is universal and it would matter not if I liked Daniel. He is a human being and deserves respect and not bashing as what occurs on another board. And this is why I challenged your so called universal love and brotherhood of man and your letter to the priesthood. Should I remind you what you wrote:

There is no us v. them in my worldview, Why Me. Here's how I see things:

My dear brethren of the priesthood, my beloved fellow disciples of the gentle Christ, should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard? As priesthood bearers, we must realize that all of God’s children wear the same jersey. Our team is the brotherhood of man. This mortal life is our playing field. Our goal is to learn to love God and to extend that same love toward our fellowman. We are here to live according to His law and establish the kingdom of God. We are here to build, uplift, treat fairly, and encourage all of Heavenly Father’s children.

If daniel is bashed and mocked, where does your letter fit in?

Our God is the God of the Oppressed, Why Me, and Daniel Peterson is more than capable of defending himself.

Not to mention...

He's got you.

(PS, I think I've figured out Why.)

[why me]

Our God is the God of the Oppressed, Why Me, and Daniel Peterson is more than capable of defending himself.

Not to mention...

He's got you.

(PS, I think I've figured out Why.)

I know the game and I know the letter that you wrote the priesthood. It is sop. It is one thing to lecture the people who defend the lds church and it is quite another thing to lecture those who are critical of the faith. Your letter should be posted on the other board on the attack threads. And you should defend your fellow human beings against attack in the name of the brotherhood and sisterhood of your fellow human beings. I also believe that you would be the first to defend a critic against apologist attacks. Right? Lets be honest.

Since I have been around a long time and have seen the attacks that Daniel has experienced throughout the years for defending the lds church, yes, I would defend him. He is a fellow human being.

Edited May 16, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Our God is the God of the Oppressed, Why Me,

And when someone is attacked, bashed or bullied, they experience oppression by another human being or human beings. Such is oppression. I know that daniel can take care of himself but I do take issue with your letter to the priesthood. By the way, why not a letter to the relief society members? Why just the priesthood?

[mercyngrace]

I know the game and I know the letter that you wrote the priesthood. It is sop. It is one thing to lecture the people who defend the lds church and it is quite another thing to lecture those who are critical of the faith. Your letter should be posted on the other board on the attack threads. And you should defend your fellow human beings against attack in the name of the brotherhood and sisterhood of your fellow human beings. I also believe that you would be the first to defend a critic against apologist attacks. Right? Lets be honest.

Since I have been around a long time and have seen the attacks that Daniel as experienced throughout the years for defending the lds church, yes, I would defend him.

You lost me. It's becoming increasingly evident that you think I am someone that I'm not. I don't know what letter you are talking about nor do I know who you are referring to as "the priesthood" to whom I supposedly wrote this letter.

Hear me, Why Me, hear the charity and compassion in my voice as I say "You are seriously confused, bro."

Edited May 16, 2012 by mercyngrace

[KevinG]

I don't spend a lot of time defending others. However when the attacks are clearly designed to mock the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by mocking its representatives (official and otherwise) I am liklier to address the offensive behavior. I also don't go out of my way to find offensive behavior. I warn people not to bother with nasty comments on articles and other than to defend myself once I never go to these other sites where full time critics and anti-mormons (yes some fit that category) spew their hatred.

[mercyngrace]

And when someone is attacked, bashed or bullied, they experience oppression by another human being or human beings. Such is oppression. I know that daniel can take care of himself but I do take issue with your letter to the priesthood. By the way, why not a letter to the relief society members? Why just the priesthood?

Okay, now we're getting somewhere, Why Me. Ummm, I didn't write those italicized words that have so offended you. They are a quote from President Uchtdorf as copied directly from lds.org from a talk he gave in a recent general conference.

You know, if you cared as much about the church, as you do about fighting over personalities, you might have recognized the quote. Heck, you might have actually viewed the broadcast as I did.

Edited May 16, 2012 by mercyngrace

[why me]

I don't know what letter you are talking about nor do I know who you are referring to as "the priesthood" to whom I supposedly wrote this letter.

Her eme, Why Me, hear the charity and compassion in my voice as I say "You are seriously confused, bro."

See post number 61. Here is the letter:

My dear brethren of the priesthood, my beloved fellow disciples of the gentle Christ, should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard? As priesthood bearers, we must realize that all of God’s children wear the same jersey. Our team is the brotherhood of man. This mortal life is our playing field. Our goal is to learn to love God and to extend that same love toward our fellowman. We are here to live according to His law and establish the kingdom of God. We are here to build, uplift, treat fairly, and encourage all of Heavenly Father’s children.

Whether you wrote the letter or someone else, you support this letter which is why you posted it in response. If you believe this letter, then you should also believe that it applies not just to the priesthood but to all human beings. And since you support this letter, you should make it your own and put it into action by defending someone against such unwarranted attacks.

[why me]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere, Why Me. Ummm, I didn't write those italicized words that have so offended you. They are a quote from President Uchtdorf as copied directly from lds.org from a talk he gave in a recent general conference.

You know, if you cared as much about the church, as you do about fighting over personalities, you might have recognized the quote. Heck, you might have actually viewed the broadcast as I did.

But you used this letter to make a point. A point that you seem not to comprehend. I am not fighting over personalities. I am just putting my brotherhood into action in defending someone against hostile attacks. Nothing more. Also, I am not a computer where I remember everything that comes from the mouths of the GAs. I just see a lack of connection between you and the letter on this thread.

[mercyngrace]

OMgoodness. Seriously, you just need to stop, Why Me.

You are furious that I won't step into a pile o'stuff just cause you're waist high in it and on top of that you don't even recognize the words of the faith to which Dan is an adherent!

Of the words of President Uchtdorf, he's a counselor in our church's first presidency by the way, you wrote:

I know the game and I know the letter that you wrote the priesthood. It is sop.

[why me]

I don't spend a lot of time defending others. However when the attacks are clearly designed to mock the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by mocking its representatives (official and otherwise) I am liklier to address the offensive behavior. I also don't go out of my way to find offensive behavior. I warn people not to bother with nasty comments on articles and other than to defend myself once I never go to these other sites where full time critics and anti-mormons (yes some fit that category) spew their hatred.

The idea of defending the church is something that some just can't understand. Also, the posts of libs and mercyngrace seem a little contrived in attempting to explain their own station with the lds church. In the name mercyngrace, I see no mercy toward Daniel and the attacks that he has experienced. And that is my point also with mercyngrace. It is one thing to post all is love, one love, brotherhood of man and work in progress etc. But quite another to put such phrases and words into practice.

[why me]

You are furious that I won't step into a pile o'stuff just cause you're waist high in it and on top of that you don't even recognize the words of the faith to which Dan is an adherent!

Actually I am quite calm. I don't get furious about internet posts. I just respond with my thoughts. Nothing more. I haven't been doing this for years by getting furious. I would be in the nut house.

[KevinG]

When the mind reading starts its time to go.