bluebell Posted July 17, 2021 Author Posted July 17, 2021 2 hours ago, Teancum said: To say LDS believe is no different than biblical teaching is quite a stretch and represent a disingenuous portrayal of the LDS teachings on exaltation to the outside world. No it isn't. Our doctrine is supported by the bible verses that have been shared. We interpret those verses differently, but the passage you quoted doesn't dispute that. It doesn't even address it. Other Christian churches don't own the bible. A teaching can still be biblical even if it doesn't agree with protestantism or evangelicalism, for example. 4
Teancum Posted July 17, 2021 Posted July 17, 2021 26 minutes ago, bluebell said: No it isn't. Our doctrine is supported by the bible verses that have been shared. We interpret those verses differently, but the passage you quoted doesn't dispute that. It doesn't even address it. Other Christian churches don't own the bible. A teaching can still be biblical even if it doesn't agree with protestantism or evangelicalism, for example. Yes it is.
bluebell Posted July 17, 2021 Author Posted July 17, 2021 16 minutes ago, Teancum said: Yes it is. How so?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 17, 2021 Posted July 17, 2021 1 hour ago, bluebell said: It doesn't even address it. Quote We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest. The doctrine that I grew up with was that we were all Gods in embryo. An outsider reading that FAQ would not be left with that impression.
Teancum Posted July 17, 2021 Posted July 17, 2021 37 minutes ago, bluebell said: How so? How so not..
bluebell Posted July 17, 2021 Author Posted July 17, 2021 13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: The doctrine that I grew up with was that we were all Gods in embryo. An outsider reading that FAQ would not be left with that impression. I agree that the FAQ does not explain the teaching in depth at all and I personally think they should go further than they have. I don't believe what they have put up is deceptive though. We do believe that we are children of God, which is the same thing as saying gods in embryo. But I would prefer that, rather than only quote the bible passage we use to support our beliefs, that they also made a point of explaining how our interpretation of that is different than other Christian religions. Though there were other Christians throughout history who have used these same verses to teach the concept of theosis. One of the famous Catholic Christians to teach such was Athanasius of Alexandria who said "To make human beings gods, he was made man, who was God". 2
Popular Post bluebell Posted July 17, 2021 Author Popular Post Posted July 17, 2021 9 minutes ago, Teancum said: How so not.. Got it. No need to say anything else. I hope you understand that it takes energy (both actual energy and emotional energy) and time to engage with you in these discussions. If you have no respect or appreciation for that, and are just interested in venting your personal feelings about the church, then just say that from the start. 6
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 18, 2021 Posted July 18, 2021 8 hours ago, bluebell said: I agree that the FAQ does not explain the teaching in depth at all and I personally think they should go further than they have. I don't believe what they have put up is deceptive though. We do believe that we are children of God, which is the same thing as saying gods in embryo. But I would prefer that, rather than only quote the bible passage we use to support our beliefs, that they also made a point of explaining how our interpretation of that is different than other Christian religions. Though there were other Christians throughout history who have used these same verses to teach the concept of theosis. One of the famous Catholic Christians to teach such was Athanasius of Alexandria who said "To make human beings gods, he was made man, who was God". Agree with your last paragraph. That said, the section has a very PR / politician spin kind of feel. It appears to me (so just my opinion) that is written so that non-members will not think we believe in theosis, while placating members. Both groups, by design, can read the same words and come away with very different impressions. 3
Teancum Posted July 18, 2021 Posted July 18, 2021 On 7/17/2021 at 2:35 PM, bluebell said: Got it. No need to say anything else. I hope you understand that it takes energy (both actual energy and emotional energy) and time to engage with you in these discussions. If you have no respect or appreciation for that, and are just interested in venting your personal feelings about the church, then just say that from the start. Maybe you should do some introspection about how you respond to me or others before you lecture me about my posting. If you have a problem with me no need to respond. It take my time and emotion as well. Just think about the being as God and creating worlds discussion we had.
bluebell Posted July 18, 2021 Author Posted July 18, 2021 19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Agree with your last paragraph. That said, the section has a very PR / politician spin kind of feel. It appears to me (so just my opinion) that is written so that non-members will not think we believe in theosis, while placating members. Both groups, by design, can read the same words and come away with very different impressions. It's too PR for me as well.
bOObOO Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, Warlock said: No such thing as a lazy learner Yes these days we refer to learners as less active learners when they are not as active as other learners, rather than as inactive learners as we did in the old days before COVID, because everyone is still learning even if not as much as some others.
Warlock Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 Just now, bOObOO said: Yes these days we refer to learners as less active learners when they are not as active as other learners, rather than as inactive learners as we did in the old days before COVID, because everyone is still learning even if not as much as some others. So much wisdom
bOObOO Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, Warlock said: So much wisdom if you are not my #1 fan, if i somehow had any others before you, you are now at least my favorite fan on this board. I like that you like what I say and that by extension that means that you like me. I will now gladly share my picnic baskets with you.
Warlock Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 2 minutes ago, bOObOO said: if you are not my #1 fan, if i somehow had any others before you, you are now at least my favorite fan on this board. I like that you like what I say and that by extension that means that you like me. I will now gladly share my picnic baskets with you. I'll be your #1 fan! I also love picnics!
ksfisher Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 19 minutes ago, bOObOO said: Yes these days we refer to learners as less active learners when they are not as active as other learners, rather than as inactive learners as we did in the old days before COVID, because everyone is still learning even if not as much as some others. Ahab? 1
Warlock Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Ahab? No! The poster is bOObOO
Calm Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Ahab? Don’t think so, this is a type of humor Ahab doesn’t usually go to, mimicking the change in terminology in the Church….though a quick google on inactive vs less active on the Church’s website shows a change in the early 80’s.
ksfisher Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Calm said: Don’t think so, this is a type of humor Ahab doesn’t usually go to, mimicking the change in terminology in the Church….though a quick google on inactive vs less active on the Church’s website shows a change in the early 80’s. The sentence structure there was seeming familiar.
Calm Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 (edited) 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: The sentence structure there was seeming familiar. Once you suggested the possibility, I noticed that too… Edited July 21, 2021 by Calm
Warlock Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 Just now, ksfisher said: The sentence structure there was seeming familiar. I'm #1 fan of bOObOO! Please be nice
Warlock Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Calm said: Once you suggested the possibility, I noticed that too… bOObOO is bOObOO please be nice
pogi Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Warlock said: I'm #1 fan of bOObOO! Please be nice That's because you are one and the same, Ahab. No one loves Ahab's words quite like Ahab does. "Please be nice" - classic Ahab! Edited July 21, 2021 by pogi 1
Warlock Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 7 minutes ago, pogi said: That's because you are one and the same, Ahab. No one loves Ahab's words quite like Ahab does. "Please be nice" - classic Ahab! How dare you! I'm not Ahab. What do you mean by Ahab? -1
pogi Posted July 21, 2021 Posted July 21, 2021 15 minutes ago, Warlock said: How dare you! I'm not Ahab. What do you mean by Ahab? Yes, bOObOO is bOObOO, Warlock is Walock, and Ahab is Ahab. Got it, Ahab.
Recommended Posts