Anti-Mormon

[Steve Noel]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Steve,

I take back the page numbers being close, I think they screwed up the order of the threads at the same time as the names.  It might be easiest to google the title of the thread instead.  Maybe look at the date it started?  Am exploring.

Don't spend too much time on it. I am not familiar with the format and it seems hard to read.

[Calm]

Looks like Richard's alias was not saved so unless he signs his stuff or it is obvious from context it is him speaking, one is out of luck.  

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/9920/Richard-Abanes-About-Suing-PWReiss#.Vwxh7Wt5mSM

I suggest using google to at least track down where his name is used, though he will not be posting himself in all the cites:

"site:pacumenispages.yuku.com abanes"

[Bobbieaware]

14 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

That is not in the Bible.  Being joint heirs in Christ does not mean that we get to be Gods.  That is contradicted in those passages of scripture which affirm monotheism without any qualifications.

It is in the Bible, but you just don't see it. How does one get "filled with all the Fulnes of God" without being like God?

 16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

 17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. (Ephesians 1)

[Vance]

1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said:

The important issue is not works or grace.  The answer to that question has been documented elsewhere to death.  The important issue is human beings becoming Gods to begin with.  No human being who has ever lived or will ever live will ever become a God.  There is one Triune God.  Even glorified man will never be a God; he will only reflect God's glory.

So, Jesus wasn't human.  Got it.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Don't spend too much time on it. I am not familiar with the format and it seems hard to read.

Better stick with this board though Richard did more defending of his work over there, but as you say confusing formatting now.

[Jim Stiles]

1 minute ago, Vance said:

So, Jesus wasn't human.  Got it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union

[Vance]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Christ disagrees with you.

John 17:19-23 (see Rom 8:17)
Revelation 3:21

You  need to understand that we are Bible believing Christians and we accept ALL of the Word of God, including the Bible and modern revelation.
 

PS  You are not an antiMormon but only someone who is ignorant of what the Bible teaches.

It is not so much what he doesn't know, but that so much of what he does know isn't so.

[Calm]

Steve, you might want to know, as a thread starter you get to define the scope of the thread discussion and if posters are annoying you by taking it off topic, you can scold/ask them to take it to another thread or request moderators to do so by using the report button to warn and if needed kick them out of the thread.

PS:  I see you made a request already.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Calm

[Vance]

1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said:

There is no modern revelation.

And that is why you fail.

[Stargazer]

Actually, it might be kinda fun to make a set of tumbaga plates and engrave the text of the Book of Mormon onto them.  Not sure what the best characters would be for it, since we really don't know a lot about them.  Maybe take a Hebrew translation of the BoM, and transcribe it into either Demotic or Coptic characters.  Early Demotic was in vogue at the time Lehi left Jerusalem, but Coptic was a derivative of Demotic (mixed with Greek), and thus perhaps in spirit, at least, related to the Nephite "reformed Egyptian".

Be a bit expensive, though.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Stargazer

[Steve Noel]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Steve, you might want to know, as a thread starter you get to define the scope of the thread discussion and if posters are annoying you by taking it off topic, you can scold/ask them to take it to another thread or request moderators to do so by using the report button to warn and if needed kick them out of the thread.

Man, I think just about every thread I've started has turned into strange arguments. Lol.

[Vance]

39 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Besides, lead does not have the right characteristics for the purpose.  To start with, it's too soft.

 

Not if you alloy it with zinc and antimony, but that would significantly reduce the density. 

[Calm]

They can do that around here.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Jim Stiles said:

You can make your own set of plates out of lead and prove McKeever wrong.

Actually you can read the record of several individuals who actually hefted the plates, that they weighed between 40-50 pounds.  Emma writes that the plates lay on a table and she moved them around while dusting.  This is unlikely if they were 100- 200 pounds in weight.

Note that the witnesses said that the plates " have the appearance of gold ".  They knew this was not pure gold, but an alloy.

There is no need for speculation but a matter of the historical record.

Edited April 12, 2016 by cdowis

[salgare]

5 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Man, I think just about every thread I've started has turned into strange arguments. Lol.

lots of hot buttons.  I was going to make that suggestion to you last night but I ran out of posts.  Great example post to learn some of those hot buttons however.

For some of us on limited, we can not start our own threads and so have to glob onto threads that have diverted or are close to what we we would like to discuss.  Reel us in brother!

Edited April 12, 2016 by salgare

[Vance]

32 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

There is but one God.  Three in persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  One in essence.

The Bible, and only the Bible, is inerrant and infallible.

 

Show me in the Bible where is says that 1) God is three "persons", 2) God is one "essence".

I won't hold my breath while you look.  If you don't find it then at least one of your statements is in error.

[Jim Stiles]

24 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

So someone is a liar (that's what "pants on fire" means) because they disagree with your theology??!!

How bigoted and arrogant is it possible for one anti-Mormon to be?

 

The phrase "pants on fire" means that the cartoon was accurately depicting human beings becoming gods, just like what LDS theology says that they can become.

Your web site: http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/GMErrors.htm

said the following:

Quote

4. The Mormon "gods" were said to have "worked their way up" to become gods.  This is alien to LDS theology.  While we believe that we are the "offspring of God," (Heb. 12:9, Acts 17:29, Ps.82:6) and "joint heirs with Christ," (Rom.8:17, 1 Jn.3:2, Rev. 3:21) we can no more "work ourselves up" to godhood than a piece of coal can "work itself up" to become a diamond or a caterpillar can "work itself up" to be a butterfly.  In each case the potential is there, but it is God who must work the miracle. He is the only "Godmaker"!

Works salvation is preached everywhere in the LDS faith, even in this forum.  Grace plus works is works salvation.  The web site is criticizing the cartoon for saying that LDS members are told that they can work their way (with grace after all they can do) into the celestial kingdom and become gods.  Yet, this is exactly what my critics here are saying.  Ed Decker calls the LDS church the Godmakers because they have invented a God who is a Godmaker.

[UtahTexan]

21 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

I am not in the habit of repeating myself.  Since you are saying that people earn their salvation, then you must agree with that part of the cartoon.

Nor are you in the habit of paying attention or providing requested proof of your assertions.

I NEVER said you had to earn your way to heaven..YOU said that.  I asked if you are saying works are not important.  You have dodged that question.  I wonder why...is it because deep inside you know you are wrng and cannot support what you claim?

[Jim Stiles]

1 minute ago, Vance said:

Show me in the Bible where is says that 1) God is three "persons", 2) God is one "essence".

I won't hold my breath while you look.  If you don't find it then at least one of your statements is in error.

Quote

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, Jim Stiles said:

The phrase "pants on fire" means that the cartoon was accurately depicting human beings becoming gods, just like what LDS theology says that they can become.

Your web site: http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/GMErrors.htm

said the following:

Works salvation is preached everywhere in the LDS faith, even in this forum.  Grace plus works is works salvation.  The web site is criticizing the cartoon for saying that LDS members are told that they can work their way (with grace after all they can do) into the celestial kingdom and become gods.  Yet, this is exactly what my critics here are saying.  Ed Decker calls the LDS church the Godmakers because they have invented a God who is a Godmaker.

Which is a false accusation. Of course.

But apart from that, you are shifting the goal posts.

When I asked you to support your juvenile "pants on fire" accusation, you bore your antinomian testimony that no human anywhere could become a God.

Thank you for admitting that that failed to answer the accusation.

The notorious anti-Mormon mountebank Ed Decker was, of course, deliberately and maliciously distorting and misrepresenting LDS doctrine; and you think that's a good thing You clearly see nothing wrong with bearing false witness against your Mormon neighbors.

But that's okay. We accept Richard Mouw's apology on your behalf.

 

[Steve Noel]

8 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

The phrase "pants on fire" means that the cartoon was accurately depicting human beings becoming gods, just like what LDS theology says that they can become.

Your web site: http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/GMErrors.htm

said the following:

Works salvation is preached everywhere in the LDS faith, even in this forum.  Grace plus works is works salvation.  The web site is criticizing the cartoon for saying that LDS members are told that they can work their way (with grace after all they can do) into the celestial kingdom and become gods.  Yet, this is exactly what my critics here are saying.  Ed Decker calls the LDS church the Godmakers because they have invented a God who is a Godmaker.

Jim,

One more time. Could you please start a separate thread for these arguments? 

[cdowis]

47 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

There is but one God.  Three in persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  One in essence.

Actually, the Nicene Creed uses the Greek word, "homoousia", or one substance.

Anyway,  I find that it is interesting that Christ, while praying to the Father, said, " Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done ."  A very strange statement from a "one substance entity".

The Bible, and only the Bible, is inerrant and infallible.

But that still leaves a very small problem.  Even with an inerrant Bible, there is still a need for an INERRANT INTERPRETATION of the Bible.  Scholars and theologians disagree even on basic salvation doctrines -- is baptism necessary for salvation, etc etc.

Now where do we find that inerrant interpretation?  The inerrant Bible is moot until we find that source.

Joseph Smith Jr., Brigham Young, and Thomas S. Monson were not and are not prophets of the Triune God.

Each of us must indeed make that decision for ourselves.  I am sure that you agree with me that the day will come for us all when we are held accountable for those decisions we make here in mortality.

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by cdowis

[Jim Stiles]

13 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Actually you can read the record of several individuals who actually hefted the plates, that they weighed between 40-50 pounds.  Emma writes that the plates lay on a table and she moved them around while dusting.  This is unlikely if they were 100- 200 pounds in weight.

Note that the witnesses said that the plates " have the appearance of gold ".  They knew this was not pure gold, but an alloy.

There is no need for speculation but a matter of the historical record.

I have been led to believe that if the plates were tubunga with too much copper and not enough gold, then an electrolysis reaction would start, which would dissolve the copper away.  This would prevent the plates from lasting 1400 years in the ground.  I suppose God could have miraculously kept essentially copper plates from dissolving in the acidic soils of the eastern US for 1400 years, but then why call them gold or golden.  If they were 40 - 50 lbs, then they were not made out of gold or an alloy predominated by gold (i.e. Tumbaga).

[Vance]

53 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

I also posted the transcript of a print interview with Hinckley where he said exactly what I remembered him saying.

You claim he lied.  A claim that you didn't come up with on your own, but rather got it from one of your untrustworthy anti-Mormon friends.  They lied to you. You believed it.  And now it comes back to bite you.

[Calm]

Guys, be nice to Steve and take it elsewhere before the mods turn up (yes, I reported the offtopic stuff...Steve is trying hard to focus on one topic and that should be respected).