Praise to the Man!

[Toms777]

Toms777,

Just to clear up more of you misperceptions, neither Catholic, EO, nor LDS believe that men can become EQUAL to God.
Charity, TOm

I cannot speak for EO, but certainly article 460 of the CCC disagrees with you and if no man can become equal to God under Mormonism, then explain Lorenzo Snow's statement which was said by Joseph Smith to be gospel doctrine.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

...It does not saya word about men becoming God or gods. As was shown on here earlier, it is necessary to alter the words to make it say that.

Let's let go of that claim. It is not necessary to alter anything. The only reason I did that at all was to show the parallel between the formulary of the ancient Church and 2 Corinthians 8:9. Nothing more was intended. However, the meaning is implicit within the verse, which you will see if you will open your mind to the possibility and admit that the first part of the verse does indeed speak of the Kenosis.

Consider this verse and think again about what you are saying.

Eph 2:4-7

This verse does not address 2 Corinthians 8:9.

...

It refers to Jesus coming to earth, and though He is God, manifest himself in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16) making himself of no reputation (Phil 2:9) in order to submit himself voluntarily to the authority of God the Father.

That is part of the fundamental idea contained in the Kenosis. But, the Son still voluntarily submits himself to the Father even now and always will.

...Roman Catholics teach something virtually identical to the Mormons, and it is found in article 460 of the Roman Catechism:...

Actually, Mormons take the teaching to what they regard as the next logical step. Roman Catholics and the Orthodox are not willing to take that step.

...Other non-Christians religiosn try to reverse it, and instead of man humbling himself, they try to exalt themselves to the become gods or God, going beyond what the Bible teaches in an effort ot equate ourselves either to God the Son or God the father.

That is not it at all. No one can or will ever acheive Theosis without humbling himself and submitting himself to the will of the Father through the Son and Spirit. "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted." The scripture is clear that what the Son has inherited from the Father shall be given to the adopted sons of God, whose glory shall become incomparible because it is the same glory given to Christ.

Colossains 2:9 actually argues against you:...

Colossians 2:9 does no such thing. I take the words of the scripture literally. I think that is the problem with those who do not wish to accept the truth of scripture. Most do not want to take the scripture for what it says, for if they did, they would know that the New Testament clearly shows that what has been received by the Son will also be communicated to those sons of God who become divinized by receiving the full glory of the Son, receive the same image, are united to God in one spirit, possess all things jointly with the Son, and who are transformed into the very image of Christ, who is the image of God. I am glad that you cited Colossians 2:10 as well. It is unfortunate that the fuller implication of the passage does not show through your translation of the passage. It say that "we are by means of Him ones having received a fullness." This passage agrees with both John 1:12-16, Ephesians 3:19-20 and other passages.

First, avoid the traditions of men....

The question is to what traditions and which men who give these traditions. Even Paul states that people should adhere to the traditions handed down through the apostles in addition to what had been written in what was the Bible at that time.

Second, the fullness of God is in Jesus - that is because He is God! We are not.

Yes, the fullness of God is in Jesus. But, we are also told that we are ones having received a fullness and we are flatly told that one day we, too, will be filled with all the fullness of God and attain to His holiness as co-heirs of Christ of all that the Father has given Him. The doctrine of Theosis is only the explicit revelation and exposition of what is implicit in scripture. As the Fathers were fond of saying: "He is God by nature; we are gods by adoption."

Third - it says nowhere here that we will ebcome God.

What the passages do say is that we will have communicated to us the attributes that make God what he is. The logical conclusion is that those to whom this nature comes will be divinized.

Fourth, Throughout scripture we are told that we are sons by adoption, not by procreation, but by adoption. Adopted sons do not take on the nature of the parents....

Yes, we are sons by adoption. Yet, even in the Mormon scheme they acknowledge that much, though it is in addition to a procreation of some sort. The only Father I know of who advocated a similar idea of procreation is Lactantius but he was a Latin Father. But, since I have been arguing the Orthodox position, your comment about procreation is unnecessary.Adopted sons certainly will have the very nature and image of Christ by a mystical union in the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. As I said, the Fathers say that we are sons by adoption. In addition, the Fathers are clear as scripture that the very attributes of the Christ shall indeed be communicated to the sons of God as they receive the inheritance received by the Holy Son of God.

Now, having responded to your statements, please answer the following questions which have yet to be directly addressed by you:

1. Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refer to the Kenosis? Yes or no?

2. Why or why not?

 

[Toms777]

Let's let go of that claim. It is not necessary to alter anything. The only reason I did that at all was to show the parallel between the formulary of the ancient Church and 2 Corinthians 8:9. Nothing more was intended. However, the meaning is implicit within the verse, which you will see if you will open your mind to the possibility and admit that the first part of the verse does indeed speak of the Kenosis.

I have opened my mind to anything that is in the Bible – if you want me to believe it, then show me from the Bible, don’t tell me and expect em to accept it because you say it. So far, the only way anyone has dragged the exaltation of man into godhood out of this verse is to alter the actual words, but I am always open to anything which can be shown and validated by scripture, taken in context.

That is what you have so far failed to do.

This verse does not address 2 Corinthians 8:9.

For clarity, I will just state that this refers to Eph 2:4-7. The point is that it does refer back. You see what we are dealing with here is an interpretation, and you have given your own interpretation. Earlier it was shown that 2 Cor could be made to agree with your theology if the words were changed. That is because that is how Mormons interpreted this verse. But as I have said before, I go to the Bible for my interpretation.

This is why I felt that it was necessary to look at Eph 2 first before continuing. The question that we should be asking when trying to understand this verse and what is completely critical to your interpretation is what the word “riches” means in the context of Jesus and in our context. I am still surprised that you were unable to see the link.

Nowhere in scripture do riches in human terms refer to Godhood, or anything close to it, but rather let’s look at Eph 2 again as an example:

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. NKJV

Grace towards man is frequently associated with riches from God’s perspective, and what greater wealth could there be for man than to have God’s grace which leads to salvation? Without salvation, we have nothing, but with grace, we have received the only gift that matters and that is to have our sins forgiven, and with that, eternal life. So this verse and many others relate very much to understanding 2 Cor. Now, does this match to the context of what 2 Cor is all about? Let’s look at the intro to chapter 8:

2 Cor 8:1 Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: 2 that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. NKJV

It does indeed. Note that riches is directly associated with grace, the grace through which they received salvation and thus liberated from sin. If we look now also at the context of 2 Cor 8:9, you will see that it also refers to grace, not godhood.

This illustrates the danger of applying the interpretation of men to a verse without looking at how the Bible itself shows us the meaning. Now that we understand the context, we can look at the meaning of 2 Cor better:

2 Cor 8:8 I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others. 9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich. NKJV

So we know that we become rich through receiving grace from Jesus, so working backwards, what is it that he did that caused us to have grace? He came and died on the cross for our sins. Part of that was that he had to come to earth as a man, manifest in the flesh and die on the cross. So, yes, Christ emptied himself that He might die on the cross that we might have the riches of His grace, salvation through the forgiveness of sins.

Deification of man cannot possibly be found in the context of this without altering the words or their meaning contrary to the context.

 

[TOmNossor]

I cannot speak for EO, but certainly article 460 of the CCC disagrees with you and if no man can become equal to God under Mormonism, then explain Lorenzo Snow's statement which was said by Joseph Smith to be gospel doctrine.

Toms777,

On a message board, your interpretation of the Bible is no better or worse than mine. But for Lorenzo Snow’s couplet, my interpretation for me and my interpretation for LDS is superior to yours because I am both me and a LDS.

Joseph Smith did not believe that men would ever be equal to God. I do not believe that men will be equal to God. All that we as men have comes from God.
Concerning Catholicism, I have no more right to tell Catholic's what they believe than you do. I have studied Catholicism, refuted silly anti-Catholic stuff, and really tried to understand Catholicism. I can tell you that you are mistake here too, but since we both stand as non-Catholics you can take or leave this truth.


BTW,

With respect to the answer to DCP’s question (that you seem to me to have never provide) why don’t you try this.



What Toms777 might type:



DCP said:

Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refer to the Kenosis? Yes or no?



Toms777 (might say, this is TOm pretending to be Toms777):

No. (or Yes)



DCP:

Why or why not?



Toms777 (might say, this is TOm pretending to be Toms777):

Because Isaiah says that there is only one God and thus all the things that point to deification are misunderstood by everyone but Protestants.



TOm:

This is just a suggestion. I have failed to notice where you have answered the question, and you look like you are trying to evade it to me.



Charity, TOm

 

[Toms777]

Toms777,
On a message board, your interpretation of the Bible is no better or worse than mine.

Agreed. Personal interpretation will be the interpretation of man, and only God's interpretation matters. Neither your interpretation, nor mine, nor that of any man be they Joseph Smith, the Pope or the First Presidency should hold sway over how the Bible interprets itself. That is why I will choose to see what the Bible says rather than holding forth a personal interpretation.

But for Lorenzo Snow’s couplet, my interpretation for me and my interpretation for LDS is superior to yours because I am both me and a LDS.

Of course you are welcome to choose that which you prefer - that is personal preference - but I will follow the approach of the Bereans by using the Bible's interpretation and allow my preference to be submitted to God's word.

Joseph Smith did not believe that men would ever be equal to God. I do not believe that men will be equal to God. All that we as men have comes from God.

Ah, but there is the rub....which God?

Concerning Catholicism, I have no more right to tell Catholic's what they believe than you do.

Agreed. That is why I use Roman catholic sources rather than your opinion or mine.

With respect to the answer to DCP’s question (that you seem to me to have never provide) why don’t you try this.

Seems that perhaps your never read the board or perhaps my messages.

Maybe a more careful reading and who knows, maybe you will actually discover that I answer more than you thought.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

I have opened my mind to anything that is in the Bible...

So we know that we become rich through receiving grace from Jesus, so working backwards, what is it that he did that caused us to have grace? He came and died on the cross for our sins. Part of that was that he had to come to earth as a man, manifest in the flesh and die on the cross. So, yes, Christ emptied himself that He might die on the cross that we might have the riches of His grace, salvation through the forgiveness of sins.

Deification of man cannot possibly be found in the context of this without altering the words or their meaning contrary to the context.

No, you haven't. You haven't even addressed the questions. You keep evading them, so far as some here can tell. In order for your interpretation to fit, you must, if you hold that the word rich here means grace and you remains consistent to the interpretation, also hold that Jesus himself is the recipient of God's grace! That is a false doctrine. What need would Christ have had for the grace of God? No, Mr. 777, the word rich certainly does NOT refer to grace. That is the danger of following footnotes. They can be bent to any interpreter's will and theological inclinations. Your interpretation breaks the sense of the text and application to its surrounding context. Yet, you still have not directly addressed the questions. Please answer them directly. They are again:

1. Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refer to the Kenosis? Yes or no?

2. Why or why not?

 

[Toms777]

No, you haven't.

I answered very directly and specifically addressed your question in my response, as I said that I would, if your bother to read the entire response.

Since you continue to deny, until you take the time to read, then I see no further sense in continue to interact with you on this topic.

If and when you choose to read what I said and respond to it, then we can begin again.

Have a Happy New Year.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

I answered very directly and specifically addressed your question in my response, as I said that I would, if your bother to read the entire response....

You replied with an interpretation. You did not address the questions directly. The first is a simple yes or no answer. Responding with an interpretation there is NOT dealing directly with the question. The second is your reason for saying as you do. Instead of evading the simple yes or no question, here are the questions (which have yet to be addressed directly) again:

1. Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refer to the Kenosis? Yes or no?

2. Why or why not?

 

[Toms777]

You replied with an interpretation. You did not address the questions directly. The first is a simple yes or no answer. Responding with an interpretation there is NOT dealing directly with the question. The second is your reason for saying as you do. Instead of evading the simple yes or no question, here are the questions (which have yet to be addressed directly) again:

1. Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refer to the Kenosis? Yes or no?

2. Why or why not?

One more time - if only you would read what I wrote. If you interpret the Bible this way, no wonder we have difficulties in coming to a common understanding. I did answer directly as requested, but you actually have to read the message to see it.

Now, I gave you the ebnefit of an immense doubt by answering yet again...a grown person would not normally need to be told to read something before answering, but I live as an eternal optimist that maybe you indeed may be sincere and have tried but for some reason did not see the sentence. It is for this reason that I suggest that you read slowly this time.

If you cannot read it this time, I will no longer be so kind as to assume that you keep missing it, but will assume that you are deliberately missing it. And if it is deliberate, then I would be forced to assume that you have no interest in what I have to say, so why should I continue to waste my time.

So, this is the last chance to prove your sincerity to me. Please prove my doubts to be in error.

 

[TOmNossor]

One more time - if only you would read what I wrote. If you interpret the Bible this way, no wonder we have difficulties in coming to a common understanding. I did answer directly as requested, but you actually have to read the message to see it.

Now, I gave you the ebnefit of an immense doubt by answering yet again...a grown person would not normally need to be told to read something before answering, but I live as an eternal optimist that maybe you indeed may be sincere and have tried but for some reason did not see the sentence. It is for this reason that I suggest that you read slowly this time.

If you cannot read it this time, I will no longer be so kind as to assume that you keep missing it, but will assume that you are deliberately missing it. And if it is deliberate, then I would be forced to assume that you have no interest in what I have to say, so why should I continue to waste my time.

So, this is the last chance to prove your sincerity to me. Please prove my doubts to be in error.

All,

Could someone who does not interpret the Bible as I do and is thus not so blind, stupid, or whatever it is that I am; please tell me what Toms777’s answer to this question is (if Toms777 said "maybe" or as God sometimes does "wait", you may say that too, but I am not even convinced he said that):



Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refer to the Kenosis? Yes or no?









If you know what his answer to the second question is, it would be great if you could provide that too.



Why or why not?







I really have missed this answer and since according to Toms777 it is so hard to do so, I was hoping someone who has not missed the answer could help.



Charity, TOm

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

One more time...

I've read your post several times and it does not address the first question. It really does not address the second in full, either, if you get right down to it. Instead, you offer an interpretation which you think answers a simple yes or no question that is more ambiguous that it really needs to be.

You interpret the word rich to mean grace. The problem is that you are asking me to believe that Paul changed the meaning of the same Greek words in the same sentence! This I cannot do, Mr. 777. Look at the structure of the passage in the Greek text, if you are able. Look at an actual Greek text, not Strong's Concordance and 1886 Dictionaries. The English does not do it justice and does not as clearly show the chiastic structure of the passage.

The first part of the passage has Christ leaving something or giving somthing up and changing into another state, that of poverty. It is through that poverty that he makes us rich. If you define one word in the same sentence as meaning grace, you must define the other occurrence as such. But, that would make no sense whatever. Christ had no need for grace so there was no grace to leave. Your interpretation does not fit very easily with the context without redefining the meaning of the same words in two parts of the same sentence to mean something different.

Jesus did not have need of grace before his incarnation, yet that is the logical outcome of your interpretation. Your post seems to be saying something like that the first part might refer to the Kenosis but the way you have constructed your convoluted post makes things not as clear as a simple yes or no, which is what I asked for in the first place, and which is the only way to address the first question directly. So, I ask you again:

1. Does the first part of 2 Corinthians 8:9 refer to the Kenosis? Yes or no?

2. Why or why not?

P.S.: If you want to skip the second question, you are welcome to do so if that you have posted above is your answer to the second question, but don't claim you have answered the first question unless you have answered either with 'yes' or with 'no.' Only then will you have addressed the first question directly. Please demonstrate some sincerity and charity.

 

[JVAC]

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!
Jesus annointed that Prophet and Seer.
Blessed to open the last dispensation,
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.

Ok I was looking at this hymn for good measure, and I originally thought they were talking about Jesus, now that I have looked at it more I do realize that JS is the person here talked about (sorry if I confused anyone with my wierd first post)

The bolded portion borders on heretical; for it does suggest that Jesus the Christ (anointed) anointed Joseph Smith thus making him the Christ as well. Now there are two Christs?? Is there any other Christs I should know about???

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

Ok I was looking at this hymn for good measure, and I originally thought they were talking about Jesus, now that I have looked at it more I do realize that JS is the person here talked about (sorry if I confused anyone with my wierd first post)

That is what the Mormons have been saying all along. Thank you for admitting that careful reading shows that it did refer to Joseph Smith and not to God or to Jesus Christ.

The bolded portion borders on heretical; for it does suggest that Jesus the Christ (anointed) anointed Joseph Smith thus making him the Christ as well. Now there are two Christs?? Is there any other Christs I should know about???

No, it does not look heretical to me because it does not speak of two Christs, for there only is one who died for us, even in Mormon thought. Anointing was an ancient practice and was used for kings and for prophets and priests in instances in ancient times. It also is used to describe the anointing of the Spirit of God. But, don't take my word for it. Mormons around here will confirm the meaning of their own hymn.

 

[JVAC]

The word 'Christos' (Christ) means anointed, thus we have Jesus the anointed one, and according to this hymn we have Joseph Smith the anointed one, aka the christ. I don't know if they mean to make two christs but that is what they did.

Christ had all authority on earth given to Him, and if he were to make Joseph Smith a Christ, anointed one, it would hold. Thus Joseph Smith according to the Hymn and Scripture, we have now two christs.

 

[Toms777]

Ok I was looking at this hymn for good measure, and I originally thought they were talking about Jesus, now that I have looked at it more I do realize that JS is the person here talked about (sorry if I confused anyone with my wierd first post)

The bolded portion borders on heretical; for it does suggest that Jesus the Christ (anointed) anointed Joseph Smith thus making him the Christ as well. Now there are two Christs?? Is there any other Christs I should know about???

Yes, and if you look further down, it says:

"Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know "brother Joseph" again. "

Indeed it is about Joseph and many of the attributes in the hymna can apply only to God. Have a look at message #12 in this thread and you will see where I summarized them.

 

[JVAC]

On that subject I don't quite understand then, If he was as venerated as this hymn suggests, then why must we atone for his blood. If he is a Christ of God then why did the Christ Jesus atone for our evilness, and the Christ Joseph die to condemn us of his blood.

One christ saves the other condemns, quite interesting.





(I did not know that the action of condemning (starts with a D) is not allowed when used in context, my appologies.)

 

[TOmNossor]

Well, I am a LDS around here. I will tell you that DCP is correct. We do not believe that Joseph Smith is equal to or superior to Christ. We do not think that Joseph Smith atoned for our sins.

Now I have never been one to try to tell others that they hold heretical beliefs. I have never tried to analyze the hymn book of other religions and then tell them that they believe something that every one of them denies believing. I believe that to do so is ridiculous at best and dishonest at worst. So I have never tried to see if I could read into LDS hymns or other hymns heretical beliefs so I could then show error in the religion that sings the particular hymn. All I can tell you is that this hymn does not elevate Joseph Smith to an equal or superior position relative to Christ. To suggest that it does is to be ignorant of LDS beliefs.



If you want to attack the statement, “Men may become gods.” Then at least you are addressing something the LDS believe, but to attack the hymn is ridiculous.



Charity, TOm

 

[Toms777]

Well, I am a LDS around here. I will tell you that DCP is correct. We do not believe that Joseph Smith is equal to or superior to Christ. We do not think that Joseph Smith atoned for our sins.

Now I have never been one to try to tell others that they hold heretical beliefs. I have never tried to analyze the hymn book of other religions and then tell them that they believe something that every one of them denies believing. I believe that to do so is ridiculous at best and dishonest at worst. So I have never tried to see if I could read into LDS hymns or other hymns heretical beliefs so I could then show error in the religion that sings the particular hymn. All I can tell you is that this hymn does not elevate Joseph Smith to an equal or superior position relative to Christ. To suggest that it does is to be ignorant of LDS beliefs.

If you want to attack the statement, “Men may become gods.” Then at least you are addressing something the LDS believe, but to attack the hymn is ridiculous.

Nobody will try to argue with you if you tell them what you believe. But when the leadership of the LDS church puts in writing what they believe, that is open for challenge. It may not be what you believe, but it is a tyeaching of the LDS church. If you disagree with that teachings, by all means please make that known, but don't takle others to task bnecause they also disagree. Establish common ground where we can, don't divide in those areas wherre we agree simply because we are not LDS and you are.

 

[JVAC]

Well, I am a LDS around here. I will tell you that DCP is correct. We do not believe that Joseph Smith is equal to or superior to Christ. We do not think that Joseph Smith atoned for our sins.

Now I have never been one to try to tell others that they hold heretical beliefs. I have never tried to analyze the hymn book of other religions and then tell them that they believe something that every one of them denies believing. I believe that to do so is ridiculous at best and dishonest at worst. So I have never tried to see if I could read into LDS hymns or other hymns heretical beliefs so I could then show error in the religion that sings the particular hymn. All I can tell you is that this hymn does not elevate Joseph Smith to an equal or superior position relative to Christ. To suggest that it does is to be ignorant of LDS beliefs.



If you want to attack the statement, “Men may become gods.” Then at least you are addressing something the LDS believe, but to attack the hymn is ridiculous.



Charity, TOm

If my Church sang a Hymn that was heretical I would like to be made known of this, yet it doesn't. The Hymns sang by a church are songs that can be related to scripture. Thus, if a church has a hymn it must reflect thier scripture. Also a church must a agree with it if they sing it as worship to God!

I don't presume to tell you what you believe but I do presume to deduce from your hymn that this is the teaching of that hymn, the praise of that hymn, the purpose of that hymn.

Show me where I am wrong? Is not my logic fitting? According to the text that I am working with, and its context? If you disbelieve a hymn that you sing to God, that is upon your head. When I went to sacrament meetings in an LDS church I did not sing the hymns that I found to be against my belief.

If the hymn is against your belief then why is it in the churches hymn book? What of your scripture is its allusion?


______________

added 5:43 12/31/2003

I did not say that your belief was heretical, I said that the statement of the hymn could be heretical, I allowed myself to be wrong. I await a refuting of my logic.

 

[MormonFriend]

If my Church sang a Hymn that was heretical I would like to be made known of this, yet it doesn't. The Hymns sang by a church are songs that can be related to scripture. Thus, if a church has a hymn it must reflect thier scripture. Also a church must a agree with it if they sing it as worship to God!

I don't presume to tell you what you believe but I do presume to deduce from your hymn that this is the teaching of that hymn, the praise of that hymn, the purpose of that hymn.

Show me where I am wrong? Is not my logic fitting? According to the text that I am working with, and its context? If you disbelieve a hymn that you sing to God, that is upon your head. When I went to sacrament meetings in an LDS church I did not sing the hymns that I found to be against my belief.

If the hymn is against your belief then why is it in the churches hymn book? What of your scripture is its allusion?


______________

added 5:43 12/31/2003

I did not say that your belief was heretical, I said that the statement of the hymn could be heretical, I allowed myself to be wrong. I await a refuting of my logic.

I have a great idea. Why don't you and Mr. 777 find one active and devoted LDS that believe, or have been taught those things that you allude to? If this is what the Church teaches, then it is doing a poor job of it because nobody that is LDS understands it that way or believes it.

When I sing that hymn, equating the Prophet to Diety is not what my praise is doing. I praise my children in their musical accomplishments. I praise my wife for her talents in making our home pleasant. I praise Joseph Smith for answering the call from the Lord to restore His gospel, and the tremendous load he had to bear. I praise Jesus Christ for His perfect love and sacrifice for me and for all of mankind, and the unspeakable and uncomprehendable load He bore for us.

Now this hymn praises Jesus for His acts of Godliness.

Reverently and Meekly Now
Text: Joseph L. Townsend

Rev'rently and meekly now,
Let thy head most humbly bow.
Think of me, thou ransomed one;
Think what I for thee have done.
With my blood that dripped like rain,
Sweat in agony of pain,
With my body on the tree
I have ransomed even thee.

In this bread now blest for thee,
Emblem of my body see;
In this water or this wine,
Emblem of my blood divine.
Oh, remember what was done
That the sinner might be won.
On the cross of Calvary
I have suffered death for thee.

Bid thine heart all strife to cease;
With thy brethren be at peace.
Oh, forgive as thou wouldst be
E'en forgiven now by me.
In the solemn faith of prayer
Cast upon me all thy care,
And my Spirit's grace shall be
Like a fountain unto thee.

At the throne I intercede;
For thee ever do I plead.
I have loved thee as thy friend,
With a love that cannot end.
Be obedient, I implore,
Prayerful, watchful, evermore,
And be constant unto me,
That thy Savior I may be.

Perhaps we have a higher level of giving praise to God that you have never experienced, therefore what minor praise we give to Joseph Smith seems ultimate to you.

Who knows? There must be some reason that you keep beating this topic into the ground. Just remember as I have told you (Tom) that when you put a piece of our puzzle into your picture, it will never fit in.