selek1 Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) This argument is really a diversion from the issue. Yes or no: Am I presently a god? No- but you are mentioned explicitly in Scripture.http://www.lds.org/s...ng=eng&letter=a"Anyone or anything that counterfeits the true gospel plan of salvation and that openly or secretly opposes Christ. John the Revelator described the antichrist as a deceiver (1 Jn. 2:18–22; 4:3–6; 2 Jn. 1:7). The great antichrist is Lucifer, but he has many assistants, both spirit beings and mortals."You consistently misrepresent the Gospel, eternal law, and the Teachings of the Church.You seek to lead the people away from the Church of God, and to an idol of your own making.Like Nehor, you teach false doctrine, call that which is "good" evil, and evil "good", and have introduced and promoted priestcrafts.You do so for pure sectarian advantage, accepting a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Edited August 31, 2012 by selek1 1
Rob Bowman Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Grimace,Thanks for your reply. Let me assure you I didn't think you were being anything but genuine. If you have any other questions you think I might be able to help answer, let me know.Thanks, Rob. When I ask these questions, I really am being genuine. Prior to Mormonism, I had no idea about anything Christian or religious. Two decades later, I only have a Mormon view of Christianity. Post Mormonism, I am really looking to understand things I'd long considered taboo.
Rob Bowman Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Grimace,You asked:Is Jesus the same God as God the Father, in traditional Christianity?Yes, the same God. But not the same person.
Rob Bowman Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Zeta-Flux,Oh great. The Trinity compared to the Borg. I'm sure Rob will give a more complete answer, but the basic answer is "yes". They are distinct persons in one God. They are the same "substance" (a technical term that is hard to grasp).The best analogy I know is the following (and no disrespect meant). Consider three androids. Each has an antenna, and they all receive the same signal, communicate with each other, and follow the same directives. Thus, there are three persons, but in some sense they are all the same being.
Zakuska Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 I've been a bit off physically and emotionally all week, so silly mistakes like this have been more plentiful than usual. My apologies.No Appology necessary.You're right, I missed it. I still miss it. I cannot find it. There's a reason why your word exactly is not in quotation marks: it isn't part of what John says. We will be like him, yes; like him in all respects, no--that's not something John says.So tell us Rob, how close to 0 can one get until the lines blur so much that for all intents and purposes there is no difference?The passages cause no problems at all for evangelical doctrine, let alone "HUGE problems." We don't deny that creatures are in some contexts called "gods" in the Bible. We deny that human beings can or will become gods in the sense of becoming all-powerful, all-knowing beings of the same nature, attributes, and abilities as God.Thats news to many Evangelicals.The significance of the tense of the verb in John 10:34 cannot be dismissed so easily. The fact that the text says "Ye ARE gods," not "ye shall become gods," makes all the difference. Whatever the text means, it is not referring to a future exaltation of faithful Christians to godhood. Thus the text is useless for establishing Mormon doctrine and, as explained above, poses no problem for evangelical doctrine.I never said that John 10 or Psalm 82:6 does speak of "exaltation". I only brought it up to demonstrated that "children of God" are infact called gods by God himself. 1 John 3 on the otherhand show "creatures" becoming gods even children of God.You can bury your head in the sand all you want Rob.
Zakuska Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 This argument is really a diversion from the issue. Yes or no: Am I presently a god?In one sense YES Rob, since the bible does call the soul of man "god".
Zeta-Flux Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Zeta-Flux,Oh great. The Trinity compared to the Borg. Yeah. There is that unfortunate aspect, but I think it does get the idea across that they are distinct persons but one being (or am I wrong that Trinitarians assert they are the same being?).
selek1 Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) selek,thumbs-downTo quote President Marvin J. Ashton:As I continued my walk to the visitors’ center, I began to ponder the actions of those persons who are giving time and money to discredit, embarrass, ridicule, and shame those who have religious views that differ from their own. Sometimes such actions can unify and strengthen those who are attacked. However, in some few instances they plant seeds of discord, and at times righteous people are hurt by their slander.I doubt that such actions can be called "Christlike". At no time did Jesus Christ encourage us to spend time participating in damaging, destructive criticism. His message was to encourage us to seek, learn, and share all that is praiseworthy and of value as we associate with our fellowmen. Only those who are vindictive and cantankerous participate in ferreting out and advertising the negative and unsavory. President Ashton might just as readily have mentione Rob by name.Bowman seeks to "discredit, embarrass, ridicule, and shame those who disagree with his narrow, sectarian version of "Christianity".Bowman seeks explicitly to sow "seeds of discord" among both the Saints and among those who might bereceptive to their message.Bowman seeks to undermine and destroy the testimony of faithful Latter-days Saints, to wound their relationship with the Church and with Christ, in order to remake them in his own image.He seeks not to "encourage us to seek, learn, and share all that is praiseworthy and of value", but rather to foreclose on even the option of such conversation. He has elevated well-poisoning against the Latter-day Saints from "humble aberration" to "life's work".Bowman is both "vindictive and cantankerous" in "ferreting out and advertising the negative and unsavory" rumors and legends regarding Mormonism, and is deliberately and consistently dishonest in his reporting of Mormon faith and belief.You may call that "Christ-like" if you wish- but I quite clearly have a different opinion. Edited August 31, 2012 by selek1
The Grimace Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Bowman seeks to "discredit, embarrass, ridicule, and shame those who disagree with his narrow, sectarian version of "Christianity".That's not my experience of Rob.
Recommended Posts