CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) You said "I am not going to disagree with Mormon, because I agree with him."You are misquoting me. Like you misquote the scriptures. Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) You are misquoting me. Like you misquote the scriptures.Your posts are there to be read. I personally take my integrity very seriously. Did you never write the words "I am not going to disagree with Mormon, because I agree with him."? Edited June 10, 2012 by Log
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 I am going to spend a few minutes deleting most of my posts above because this has become an exceedingly pedantic, tedious conversation that will really annoy other people on this board. So I am going to try to make my posts become as small and unobtrusive as possible. Then I am going to see if you have gotten back on track.
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Your posts are there to be read. I personally take my integrity very seriously. Did you never write the words "I am not going to disagree with Mormon, because I agree with him."?Well I will not delete that one so your personal integrity can be verified.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Thanks. The other accusation you made was that I misquoted the scriptures. Is "[H]e that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent..." a misquote of Mormon on my part? Edited June 10, 2012 by Log
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Thanks. The other accusation you made was that I misquoted the scriptures. Is "[H]e that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent..." a misquote of Mormon on my part?Quoting out of context is misquoting.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Quoting out of context is misquoting.Did Mormon introduce a context that limited the statement "[H]e that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent..."? Does Mormon admit of any situation in which one who is not condemned, or one that is under no condemnation, can, in fact, repent?
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Did Mormon introduce a context that limited the statement "[H]e that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent..."? Does Mormon admit of any situation in which one who is not condemned, or one that is under no condemnation, can, in fact, repent?Yes. (answering your first question) Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Yes.Please, feel free to cite the verse where Mormon admits that those who are not condemned, or those that are under no condemnation, can, in fact, repent.
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Please, feel free to cite the verse where Mormon admits that those who are not condemned, or those that are under no condemnation, can, in fact, repent.I never claimed he said that. But, in context, the very scripture we are talking about appears to describe the one case where this is so. Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Then please, feel free to cite the verse where Mormon introduced a context that limited the statement "[H]e that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent...". Please be aware, this is logically equivalent to Mormon admitting that those who are not condemned, or those who are under no condemnation, can repent, the statement you disavowed saying he said. Edited June 10, 2012 by Log
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Then please, feel free to cite the verse where Mormon introduced a context that limited the statement "[H]e that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent...". Please be aware, this is logically equivalent to Mormon admitting that those who are not condemned, or those who are under no condemnation, can repent, the statement you disavowed saying he said.You have been quoting it repeatedly but only in part. Try grabbing the whole verse.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 You have been quoting it repeatedly but only in part. Try grabbing the whole verse.I grabbed the whole relevant section already.
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) I grabbed the whole relevant section already.I humored you for a long time, you could return the favor. Read the whole thing, very very slowly. Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 I humored you for a long time, you could return the favor. Read the whole thing, very very slowly.I have read it many times, and the speed with which I read it does not affect the words or their placement in relation to one another, nor their definitions.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Just as an aside - Adam, being given the law that he should not partake of the fruit - was he under condemnation simply by virtue of the law being given him, prior to his partaking?
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) I have read it many times, and the speed with which I read it does not affect the words or their placement in relation to one another, nor their definitions.Nor, I guess, your comprehension of them.The verse you constantly misquote... is misquoted by refusing, over and over and over again, to notice the limiting factor: It is to those who do not have the law that he was addressing this specific matter. It was not about the children. And I have already said that, and we could have been here hours ago if you had bothered to pay attention to what I was saying.In fact, this particular bit of wisdom that he expresses here is not new at all. He is almost quoting Jacob. But Jacob did not talk about the Children.That's because they are even more different. Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Nor, I guess, your comprehension of them.The verse you constantly misquote... is misquoted by refusing, over and over and over again, to notice the limiting factor: It is to those who do not have the law that he was addressing this specific matter. It was not about the children. And I have already said that, and we could have been here hours ago if you had bothered to pay attention to what I was saying.Just as an aside - Adam, being given the law that he should not partake of the fruit - was he under condemnation simply by virtue of the law being given him, prior to his partaking?I trust you see the point of the question? Edited June 10, 2012 by Log
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Then try answering it and see what happens.Ok... Nope.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Great. So even if someone has a law given to them - that is, they are under law - they can yet be without condemnation and therefore not be able to repent, and neither be under commandment to be baptized. Edited June 10, 2012 by Log
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Great. So even if someone has a law given to them - that is, they are under law - they can yet be without condemnation and therefore not be able to repent, and neither be under commandment to be baptized.Having one law does not mean you would have another. Also.. you can repent without being under condemnation. We have been through this.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 And, cutting to the punchline, Mormon was elucidating a general principle, not limited solely to small children and those without law - it so happens that if one is not under condemnation, one cannot repent, and to such an one, baptism does no good.
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) And, cutting to the punchline, Mormon was elucidating a general principle, not limited solely to small children and those without law - it so happens that if one is not under condemnation, one cannot repent, and to such an one, baptism does no good.Wrong Small children are a special case. Those without the law are a different case from small children and from those with the law. Its three different groups of people. Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
Recommended Posts