3DOP Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 1 hour ago, CountryBoy said: Sure they do...not in so many words...but they absolutely believe they are better Fathers than Heavenly Father Not in any words Atticus Finch...er...Country Boy.
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 Just now, 3DOP said: Not in any words Atticus Finch...er...Country Boy. It's really a strange thing to say, isn't it?
3DOP Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It's really a strange thing to say, isn't it? There used to be a fellow on here who claimed to be a lawyer and a Catholic who discredited Catholic claims. Now there is someone who claims to be a lawyer and LDS who discredits LDS claims. As a Catholic, I find the current lawyer to be preferable. And yes...I would even say it is bizarre to propose than Protestants and Catholics claim to "absolutely be better Fathers than "Heavenly Father". I suppose we could ask for some kind of official reference, but that would be utterly impossible. Perhaps Country Boy/Atticus Finch has anecdotal evidence, but I doubt it. Edited June 15, 2016 by 3DOP 2
UtahTexan Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 13 minutes ago, 3DOP said: Not in any words Atticus Finch...er...Country Boy. Yes...in words and actions......and thank you for using an old name from another board! It is cute! You are just adorable!
UtahTexan Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It's really a strange thing to say, isn't it? yet you refused to answer my question.....curious
UtahTexan Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, 3DOP said: There used to be a fellow on here who claimed to be a lawyer and a Catholic who discredited Catholic claims. Now there is someone who claims to be a lawyer and LDS who discredits LDS claims. As a Catholic, I find the current lawyer to be preferable. And yes...I would even say it is bizarre to propose than Protestants and Catholics claim to "absolutely be better Fathers than "Heavenly Father". I suppose we could ask for some kind of official reference, but that would be utterly impossible. Perhaps Country Boy/Atticus Finch has anecdotal evidence, but I doubt it. Actually, I never claimed anything. I point blank said I am an attorney. If you have evidence to the contrary...be my guest and show me. And...the evidence is by word and deed. Edited June 15, 2016 by CountryBoy
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 9 minutes ago, 3DOP said: There used to be a fellow on here who claimed to be a lawyer and a Catholic who discredited Catholic claims. Now there is someone who claims to be a lawyer and LDS who discredits LDS claims. As a Catholic, I find the current lawyer to be preferable. And yes...I would even say it is bizarre to propose than Protestants and Catholics claim to "absolutely be better Fathers than "Heavenly Father". I suppose we could ask for some kind of official reference, but that would be utterly impossible. Perhaps Country Boy/Atticus Finch has anecdotal evidence, but I doubt it. Beats me. I guess his little analogy is a cute way to misrepresent what others believe, but that's about it.
UtahTexan Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Beats me. I guess his little analogy is a cute way to misrepresent what others believe, but that's about it. lol.....if you can't answer...just say so....calling your inability "cute" says it all. And proved my point
3DOP Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 Just now, jkwilliams said: Beats me. I guess his little analogy is a cute way to misrepresent what others believe, but that's about it. Yup. Agreed. When he was Catholic, he would use that kind of strategy, only it was against Mormons. 1
UtahTexan Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 1 minute ago, 3DOP said: Yup. Agreed. When he was Catholic, he would use that kind of strategy, only it was against Mormons. Did I? Actually, I do not recall. But thank you for pointing out my conversion...I am very happy about it. The fact is, the strategy is on point....you know it. I know it.
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 Just now, 3DOP said: Yup. Agreed. When he was Catholic, he would use that kind of strategy, only it was against Mormons. Oh, well. Some people enjoy arguing rather than discussing. It gets very old when people can't talk to you unless they have a strategy they think they can use to "win." Life is too short for that. 1
UtahTexan Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 Anyway.....the fear to discuss with me and, instead, discuss ABOUT me is truly flattering. And it proves my point. Thank you both.
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: Anyway.....the fear to discuss with me and, instead, discuss ABOUT me is truly flattering. And it proves my point. Thank you both. No fear here, just recognition that you're not really interested in discussing anything. 1
3DOP Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 9 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: Actually, I never claimed anything. I point blank said I am an attorney. If you have evidence to the contrary...be my guest and show me. And...the evidence is by word and deed. So I am right about your identification. You made me uncomfortable when you were Catholic. I don't see any need to pursue whether you passed a bar exam or not. It seems unlikely to me, but I don't care. If you care, I suppose there is some way for you to prove it? Whether you can see it or not, whether you are a lawyer or not, your claim that Protestants and Catholics "absolutely believing they are better Fathers than Heavenly Father," is without any foundation. I don't believe in the LDS Heavenly Father, but I know that you believe He is good, and a better "father" than I am or anybody of any religion. I am not as good of a father as the LDS believe Heavenly Father is. Period. The statement you make is totally wrong, seriously crazy, and seems incompatible with someone who could be competent in a courtroom. 4
3DOP Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 38 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: Actually, I never claimed anything. I point blank said I am an attorney. If you have evidence to the contrary...be my guest and show me. And...the evidence is by word and deed. Since you "point blank said" you are an attorney, perhaps you can explain the difference between "claiming" to be an attorney, and "point blank saying" you are an attorney? I have thought that I have "claimed" to be a truck driver because I have "point blank said" I am a truck driver. I wouldn't try to make a point out of it with someone if they said I have "claimed" to be a truck driver. I have made the claim to be a truck driver, as you have made the claim to be an attorney.
snowflake Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Agreed, I do seem to find the LDS "Holy Spirit" a bit suspect....for good reason. Other LDS sects claim to have the same "truth" as you would. They would say that they "know" their version of the church is true, and that their prophet is the only living prophet on the earth today....etc. It is quite true that most Christian denominations share your suspicion that the Holy Spirit is useless, and that is why they hold charismatic or Pentecostal Christianity in such contempt. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, puts great stock in their received tradition (the sacred deposit of the faith). Yet both Roman Catholic and Protestant mainstream Christianity give constant lip service to the Holy Spirit, only denying it when in discussion with Mormons. It seems to be merely strategic duplicity -- perhaps like Sister Simplice lying only in order to save Jean Valjean. Yet Mormons do not believe that only they may commune with the Holy Spirit, but that it is available to all (http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD ). Indeed, the Bible itself urges the primacy of the Holy Spirit for an answer to all questions: John 14:26 "the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you"; Luke 24:32 “did not our heart burn within us when he spoke to us on the road”; Matthew 16:17, John 20:29, Acts 1:2, 2:2-20 (Joel 2:28), James 1:5. What was the whole point of Jesus promising to send the Holy Spirit as the second Comforter in his place after he had gone (John 14:16-18,26, 15:26, 16:7-8)? I put my ultimate trust in Jesus of the Bible and in the Bible only. Exactly, sola scriptura. Yet how is the Word of Truth to be correctly parsed (2 Timothy 2:15)? Does one interpret for oneself? Does the Word interpret itself, or is that to be left up to God and his Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-20; cf. Proverbs 3:5)? Which is supreme: God, man’s reasoning powers, or ink on paper or vellum? Indeed, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts of the Apostles have as their central theme that “the Spirit is the primary means of God’s interacting with the Church, especially to its ordinary members.” So says non-Mormon Luke Timothy Johnson, Gospel of Luke (Liturgical Press, 1991), 17-18. You put your trust in the arm of flesh, while early Christians put it in the Holy Spirit of God. As long as you reject God's Holy Spirit, you will not understand this. There is no suspicion that the Holy Spirit is useless at all, I absolutely believe in the Holy Spirit. I am suspicious of the "LDS" Holy Spirit, for good reason as described before. The scriptures tell us that God cannot lie, so how can you trust the feeling you call the "Holy Spirit" when it when it gives different answers to different people? To you it tells you that your sect of Mormonism is "true". To others it confirms a different answer, and the people that believe in the "sealed portion" a different answer as well. Both cannot be "true", So that is why I believe your version of the Holy Spirit is erroneous. The group from Colorado City is confident that Warren Jeffs is their "prophet", and you would say it is Mr. Thomas Monson. Not sure what you mean by "the arm of flesh", please explain.
snowflake Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Listen to yourself. How do YOU know your "prophet" and your bible is better than their claims? I use the same Bible as you (I am assuming you use the KJV?). And I am not claiming to be following a prophet.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 19 minutes ago, snowflake said: There is no suspicion that the Holy Spirit is useless at all, I absolutely believe in the Holy Spirit. I am suspicious of the "LDS" Holy Spirit, for good reason as described before. The scriptures tell us that God cannot lie, so how can you trust the feeling you call the "Holy Spirit" when it when it gives different answers to different people? To you it tells you that your sect of Mormonism is "true". To others it confirms a different answer, and the people that believe in the "sealed portion" a different answer as well. Both cannot be "true", So that is why I believe your version of the Holy Spirit is erroneous. The group from Colorado City is confident that Warren Jeffs is their "prophet", and you would say it is Mr. Thomas Monson. If the Holy Spirit were truly important to you then you would not continually denigrate it and hold it in contempt. You say that you believe in the Holy Spirit, but exhibit no respect for it whatsoever. Not sure what you mean by "the arm of flesh", please explain. Your arm of flesh is your sole dependence on the Bible instead of the Holy Spirit. That is what sola scriptura means as the basis of Protestant Christianity. For you the Bible has become an idol and an object of worship. This means that you are "driven with the wind and tossed" -- subject to all manner of changes in creed and doctrine (James 1:5, Eph 4:14) -- and part of a vast expansion of denominations, endless and cantankerous in their disagreements. There is nothing like that within Mormonism, where we are united and successful. Small fundamentalist sects there indeed are, but they have no significant numbers, and are notoriously unsuccessful. 1
JLHPROF Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, snowflake said: I use the same Bible as you (I am assuming you use the KJV?). And I am not claiming to be following a prophet. You are if you use the Bible. Moses, Peter, Paul, John, James - all prophets and apostles. In fact, God and Christ wrote exactly 0% of the Bible. All of it was written and record by prophets and apostles. The difference is you no longer accept anything written since John or anyone claiming to be a prophet. And that's just sad. Edited June 15, 2016 by JLHPROF 1
mfbukowski Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 Robert and JLH said it all! I have nothing more to add to reply to snowflake.
snowflake Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: You are if you use the Bible. Moses, Peter, Paul, John, James - all prophets and apostles. In fact, God and Christ wrote exactly 0% of the Bible. All of it was written and record by prophets and apostles. The difference is you no longer accept anything written since John or anyone claiming to be a prophet. And that's just sad. Paul tells us in Timothy that all scripture is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). And in Hebrews 1:1,2 we are told that "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time pas un the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." I'm not saying that there can't be another prophet, plenty of people have claimed to be. What is your standard for testing a prophet? Certainly cannot be the Bible because Joseph fails the test. One test is Deuteronomy chapter 13. Joseph fails this test so he cannot be a prophet. Your contempt for the Bible confuses me, AOF 8: We believe the ible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Are you saying the KJV has not been translated correctly?, if so why doesn't your prophet correct it?
snowflake Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: There is no suspicion that the Holy Spirit is useless at all, I absolutely believe in the Holy Spirit. I am suspicious of the "LDS" Holy Spirit, for good reason as described before. The scriptures tell us that God cannot lie, so how can you trust the feeling you call the "Holy Spirit" when it when it gives different answers to different people? To you it tells you that your sect of Mormonism is "true". To others it confirms a different answer, and the people that believe in the "sealed portion" a different answer as well. Both cannot be "true", So that is why I believe your version of the Holy Spirit is erroneous. The group from Colorado City is confident that Warren Jeffs is their "prophet", and you would say it is Mr. Thomas Monson. If the Holy Spirit were truly important to you then you would not continually denigrate it and hold it in contempt. You say that you believe in the Holy Spirit, but exhibit no respect for it whatsoever. Not sure what you mean by "the arm of flesh", please explain. Your arm of flesh is your sole dependence on the Bible instead of the Holy Spirit. That is what sola scriptura means as the basis of Protestant Christianity. For you the Bible has become an idol and an object of worship. This means that you are "driven with the wind and tossed" -- subject to all manner of changes in creed and doctrine (James 1:5, Eph 4:14) -- and part of a vast expansion of denominations, endless and cantankerous in their disagreements. There is nothing like that within Mormonism, where we are united and successful. Small fundamentalist sects there indeed are, but they have no significant numbers, and are notoriously unsuccessful. I am not holding the Holy Spirit in contempt and do not denigrate it. I am just asking why people get different answers from it? Is Warren Jeffs a prophet? If not how do you know, what is your criteria for testing. I hold the bible up as God's word, not as an idol, but as God breathed truth.
thesometimesaint Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 27 minutes ago, snowflake said: Paul tells us in Timothy that all scripture is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). And in Hebrews 1:1,2 we are told that "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time pas un the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." I'm not saying that there can't be another prophet, plenty of people have claimed to be. What is your standard for testing a prophet? Certainly cannot be the Bible because Joseph fails the test. One test is Deuteronomy chapter 13. Joseph fails this test so he cannot be a prophet. Your contempt for the Bible confuses me, AOF 8: We believe the ible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Are you saying the KJV has not been translated correctly?, if so why doesn't your prophet correct it? Every single prophet fails that test, including Jesus. It has been over 2000 years and he ain't come back in glory yet. Errors/Contradictions in the Bible SEE http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2011/12/30/bible-errors-and-contradictions/ 1
Kevin Christensen Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) 52 minutes ago, snowflake said: Paul tells us in Timothy that all scripture is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). And in Hebrews 1:1,2 we are told that "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time pas un the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." I'm not saying that there can't be another prophet, plenty of people have claimed to be. What is your standard for testing a prophet? Certainly cannot be the Bible because Joseph fails the test. One test is Deuteronomy chapter 13. Joseph fails this test so he cannot be a prophet. Your contempt for the Bible confuses me, AOF 8: We believe the ible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Are you saying the KJV has not been translated correctly?, if so why doesn't your prophet correct it? I've found 28 different Biblical Tests for Discerning True and False Prophets. It's worth at least taking a look. http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets You've referred to one (Deut. 13) that I have numbered 13 of 28. My essay includes an informative case study of how that particular test often has been abused by ignoring the context. http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Considering_Joseph_Smith/Abuse_of_a_Bible_test "Why doesn't your prophet correct it?" doesn't appear to be on the list of Biblical tests. It's also worth looking at how Biblical peoples reacted to Bible prophets, and see what kinds of arguments they used. http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Rejecting_true_prophets The KJV does not have to be perfect or complete to be useful as a common starting point. It is very good, and very beautiful. Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited June 15, 2016 by Kevin Christensen typo, as usual
Robert F. Smith Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Every single prophet fails that test, including Jesus. It has been over 2000 years and he ain't come back in glory yet. Errors/Contradictions in the Bible SEE http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2011/12/30/bible-errors-and-contradictions/ Good points, sometimes. I have written an entire book on the subject, and am getting ready to publish it. Mainstream Christians just don't get it. Moreover, the Gospels have Jesus quoting from each of the five books of Moses and attributing those words to Moses. Does that mean that Jesus thought that Moses had said those exact words, or that the Greek NT has the actual words spoken in those instances by Jesus and Moses? Since Jesus was likely quoting in Hebrew, what authority do we give to the mostly LXX Greek version of Moses' words -- quite apart from the question of the editing and redaction of the Pentateuch according to the Documentary Hypothesis, as a set of separate documents which have been put together with the jointures still visible., and apart from the fact that one of those books speaks about Moses in the third person. If Jesus even said the words attributed to him, did he employ the Hebrew Canon as normative, and refer to Moses simply in a perfunctory and formal way, with no intention to delineating his views on Higher Criticism?
Recommended Posts