Praise to the Man!

[Toms777]

I looked back. To which original comments are you referring? Please tell me, because if I did that, I want to apologize and make the necessary corrections.

Look at your first line in message 428, and you will see the "....." at the end.

Another way you could take it is as a possibility. In no way, means, or context have I told you that I have the Spirit and understand, and you don't. The context of my contributions to this discussion is that if I understand correctly, then the understanding came to me by the Spirit, and the same would apply to you. Since we understand differently, we can't both be listening to the Spirit.

Not the same spirit in any case.

I have good reason to question and doubt your source of understanding, because you, claiming to be a saved Christian, understand things differently than many others who also claim to be saved Christians.

I have good reason to doubt your understanding also, but I don't see that pointing fingers, regardless of which direction is going to bring us closer to truth. Getting into the Bible is the best way to approach that issue.

 

[Toms777]

I would agree except for the part where God "intended that they eat the fruit"

Please show me where you read that in the Bible.

 

[Toms777]

FB: To know Good, you must know the opposite, evil.

I disagree. I can know that candy tastes good without knowing that Buckley's cough syrup tastes bad. To say that you must know evil to know good makes no sense.

Regardless,, you ignored my questions:

The question more appropriately is, why would one want sin to enter the world? What is the value in knowing evil and experiencing sin?

Are you suggesting that sin (rebellion against God) was a desirable thing?

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Titus 3:10 Reject a devisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning..being self condemned.

2Peter 2:1-3 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction *does not slumber.

 

[MormonFriend]

That sounds fair to me. Show me that you understand the Bible. Prove it. Give us your clear understanding of this passage.

ח יהוה את-פי האתוןויפת​

​

First of all, I apologize (to Tom and you) for saying "you" in my sentence:

Why show you things in the Bible before you know how to understand the Bible.

Better said "a person", or: Why show a person things in the Bible before that person knows how to understand the Bible.

I am growing in experience, and I try not to be confrontational. Too many times I pre-assume the reader will understand my demeanor.

Second issue:

ח יהוה את-פי האתוןויפת
I have no idea of what it says. I give you high marks for your linguistic skills. I have enough problems with English.
FatBoys was partially correct in his post. My point is that there is a difference between having knowledge of the Bible and understanding the Bible. One can memorize the Holy Writ, cover to cover and still not understand the precepts and principles that it teaches. Jesus was the Master Teacher and He personally could not penetrate the minds of many.
Granted that I may come across as being the one who does understand, but the reasoning and challenges I present, they must apply to me as well as to whoever I am challenging. It is also an invitation, or considering the long term outcome, I would beg of you, to analyze my reasoning and point out where it fails.

Third issue: My reasoning is as I have repeated many times. God gives understanding of His Word through the Holy Ghost, not by debate or scholastic studies. What claims to be the Body of Christ today has split and divided, many times quite contentiously, because they understand doctrines of Christ differently. They cannot all be listening to the same Spirit, so they cannot be one Body. Also, dividing is contrary to Christianity.

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Corinthians1:10)

Now, do I have a legitimate concern to question who truly understands?

Forth issue: If I do understand by the Spirit, it would be impossible to prove it to anyone, because it is God's design that persons would have to prove it to him/her self. I could only present evidences that this is so. That would include the people I worship with are united in all things, seeing eye to eye, not divided etc. (excluding errors they make as we are learning to become more like Christ).


Fifth issue: I would like you or Tom to list those teachings in the Bible that demonstrate what a person does to obtain understanding, and the conditions where God might withhold understanding. I have a list, and have posted it somewhere. Maybe you have seen it.

Sixth issue: God bless everyone in this discussion to have knowledge and understanding of His truth.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

If this is so, how would God know what was Good or Evil? Our purpose in the eternal scheme is to learn through our experiences

uuummm because he is God and perfect and all knowing.

I know the Bible says our purpose is to bring glory to God. Can you show me in the Bible where it says that our eternal purpose is to learn through our experiences?

God Bless,
Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

FB: Then you just shot yourself in the foot. You are saying that a person's work that is founded on the world will still be saved. That it does not need to be founded on Christ to be saved.

no, actually I just read it in context, not just by itself...I considered the verses before it and after it and what the subject of the passage was and how the verse that was pointed out applied to that subject. It is really quite easy to see the meaning of a passage when you read it in context. Sure beats the proof-texting and guessing games that I was taught in the LDS church. So, actually...my foot is still intact with no holes in it yet and the gun is still locked up in cabinet...lol

God Bless-
Grace

 

[MormonFriend]

Look at your first line in message 428, and you will see the "....." at the end.

Are you referring to this?
Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, ......

I was not even quoting you. It is only a common expression, where the "......" means "you know the rest."

 

[Toms777]

Are you referring to this?
Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, ......

I was not even quoting you. It is only a common expression, where the "......" means "you know the rest."

I never said that you were quoting me, but you made a com,ment about those who use "...". The irony was that I did NOT use the ... in my response, yet your comment to which I was responding DID use ....

That is why I suggested that you were pointing fingers the wrong way. there can be legitimate reasons for using ... and I had no issue with how you used it. I just thought it ironic that you should condemn the use of the ... when you were the one to use them.

My point is twofold.

1) When you judge others and their actions, do so carefully. the fingers may point back.

2) The value that we will get from this discussion comes from discussing the topic not from focuing on people.

 

[fatboys]

I looked back. To which original comments are you referring? Please tell me, because if I did that, I want to apologize and make the necessary corrections.




Another way you could take it is as a possibility. In no way, means, or context have I told you that I have the Spirit and understand, and you don't. The context of my contributions to this discussion is that if I understand correctly, then the understanding came to me by the Spirit, and the same would apply to you. Since we understand differently, we can't both be listening to the Spirit.

I have good reason to question and doubt your source of understanding, because you, claiming to be a saved Christian, understand things differently than many others who also claim to be saved Christians. Are all of you listening to the same Spirit? Impossible! (or at least I see it that way, and hence, a source of my doubts.)

You cannot separate the person from what the Bible has to say. The Bible itself teaches how a person is to understand. Can you name them? If you do not know what the Bible teaches about how a person is to understand, then how can you claim to understand the Bible? It would be like rowing a boat without lifting the anchor.

The Bible also teaches that man's mind can be veiled from understanding, and that his heart can be "past feeling."

Why delve into deep doctrines if these primary priorities have not been addressed?

FB: MF a person can receive guidence and truth from the Holy Spirit no matter what their belief is. We are all children of God, and are entitled to this blessing. I understand what you are trying to say. How can the spirit witness to you that the LDS church is a restoration, and a mainstream Christian receives an answer that their belief is true. It matters to what you are asking. We teach people when investigating the church to be specific when asking the source of all truth about what is right and true.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

It matters to what you are asking. We teach people when investigating the church to be specific when asking the source of all truth about what is right and true.

Is this because the lds god is not capable of knowing the desires of your heart so you have to point out to him exactly in detail what you mean?

God Bless-
Grace

 

[calgal]

Will any Mormons answer the question about the Council of the Gods directly? And can any of them say who God #1 is to them? Is this possible?

 

[MormonFriend]

I never said that you were quoting me, but you made a com,ment about those who use "...". The irony was that I did NOT use the ... in my response,

Re-read my comment.

You know Tom that it is improper and considered "yellow journalism" to quote someone partially and not put the dots ..... , indication of more to that sent(e)nce or paragraph.

My criticism was that you did not use the dots when you should have. By not doing so it allows the writer to misrepresent what was intended and the reader has no clue that there was more to that thought. Since I wrote it, I picked up on the misrepresentation, but others would not.

As an example, a Minister I was writing to on-line said Mormons believe that works save us and quoted our 3rd Artilce of Faith like this: "We believe that .... all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

He ommitted something and at least had the integrity to indicate it with the dots. (I have long sense forgotten the proper term.)

Here is the full quote:

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. (Articles of Faith1:3)

See how a simple ommission can turn the whole meaning around?

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Will any Mormons answer the question about the Council of the Gods directly? And can any of them say who God #1 is to them? Is this possible?

Apperntly not

God bless-
Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Re-read my comment.


My criticism was that you did not use the dots when you should have. By not doing so it allows the writer to misrepresent what was intended and the reader has no clue that there was more to that thought. Since I wrote it, I picked up on the misrepresentation, but others would not.

As an example, a Minister I was writing to on-line said Mormons believe that works save us and quoted our 3rd Artilce of Faith like this: "We believe that .... all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

He ommitted something and at least had the integrity to indicate it with the dots. (I have long sense forgotten the proper term.)

Here is the full quote:

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. (Articles of Faith1:3)

See how a simple ommission can turn the whole meaning around?

How does that change the meaning of that particular quote....it still says you are saved by your obidiance to laws, not faith. If you respond to this, in the quote of what I said, please make sure you enter the proper amount of dots....LOL

Grace

 

[MormonFriend]

FB: MF a person can receive guidence and truth from the Holy Spirit no matter what their belief is. We are all children of God, and are entitled to this blessing. ....

On this there is no doubt.

....I understand what you are trying to say. How can the spirit witness to you that the LDS church is a restoration, and a mainstream Christian receives an answer that their belief is true. It matters to what you are asking. We teach people when investigating the church to be specific when asking the source of all truth about what is right and true.

Not quite what I was trying to say. Yes the Spirit can reveal answers to sincere questions from anyone of any faith. The Spirit will not come to those who pretend to be sincere. There are many Biblical statements that differentiate between the two.

So that I am not mis-understood (again) this applies to me as well.

 

[Toms777]

Re-read my comment.


My criticism was that you did not use the dots when you should have.

That is not what you said. But you should check out proper use of dots. They are used to show a partial sentence being used, which I did not do. nor did I alter the meaning but rather used one sentence to show the theme of your comments and the point that i wished to addressed. One is never forced to quote everything that another person has said, but it is appropriate to address it in context which I did.

Now, can we address the topic?

Where in the Bible does it endorse the doctrine that man can become God or gods?

 

[Toms777]

Will any Mormons answer the question about the Council of the Gods directly? And can any of them say who God #1 is to them? Is this possible?

I don't think that they know the answer.

 

[twhite982]

Will any Mormons answer the question about the Council of the Gods directly? And can any of them say who God #1 is to them? Is this possible?

Here is your original question:

Who are the GODS in the COUNCIL OF THE GODS referred to in the Pearl of Great Price? Who was the first of your multiplicity of Godlets? Is not the belief in many gods that your Prophet Joseph Smith (Sbuhn) espoused more similar to Wiccan and Pagan polytheistic beliefs? Prove to me that you are not a polytheistic godlet in training please.

Its so full of sarcasm and insults nobody wanted to bother with it. That's why it was left behind 4 pages ago. I feel a little guilty resurrecting it back to life.

Were you really especting an honest answer?

TW

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Here is your original question:


Its so full of sarcasm and insults nobody wanted to bother with it. That's why it was left behind 4 pages ago. I feel a little guilty resurrecting it back to life.

Were you really especting an honest answer?TW

Most all the posts on this forum contain sarcasm in one form or another, why should this particular posts stop someone from answering the question? Me thinks it is because none of the LDS on this forum have the answer. It's Much easier to cry "persicution" than deal with the issues.

Grace