Praise to the Man!

[twhite982]

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

You're right about the sarcasm and it shouldn't be that way.

To frankly address the question, the direct answers to CalGal's questions are not found in scripture, so any answer would just be a guess.


I wasn't screaming "persecution" at all.

I'd like to know the point of the question CalGal asked.
Was she really interested in hearing an LDS answer? Honestly?

TW

 

[MormonFriend]

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?

[/size][/font]

How could it be not what you said when I copied and pasted it exactly (I did add the underlines)? I have learned from a member here that we are talking about elipses. You may be right about this rule pertaining to the breaking of a sentence only. My complaint is that you took the statement out of a paragraph, which paragraph contained essential information to establish my statement. You posted the statement and applied it to suit your purpose of avoiding my issue.

Does anyone know if elipses are required when breaking up a paragraph?

 

[Der Alte]

What I think MF is asking is that you want us to prove everything, and you can say or interpret the scriptures the way you want, but we are wrong when we interpret it the way we want. He wants to know how you know your interpretation is correct and not his. How do you know that the word of God is not just a book that is made up? You certainly believe the Book of Mormon to be such a book. Prove that the Bible is the word of God.

False statement. I do not "interpret the scriptures the way I want." I read the scriptures usually in more than one version, if there is some apparent difficulty, or inconsistency I then read in the original languages, and read how the word(s), are used in other passages. This is especially true when, someone in one group, e.g. LDS, says this verse means "X" and I believe it to be "Y."

Praying for a testimony will not interpet the Bible for me but knowledge of the original languages will. Thus when someone states their "testimony" or the "Holy Spirit" gives them an interpretation which is not supported by the original languages or the history of the early church, then something or someone is wrong. Guess which one it will be, the scriptures which can be traced back to the time of Moses or contradictory writings which can only be traced back to 1827, for which no ancient texts exist to compare?

 

[happyinhisgrace]

You're right about the sarcasm and it shouldn't be that way.

To frankly address the question, the direct answers to CalGal's questions are not found in scripture, so any answer would just be a guess.


I wasn't screaming "persecution" at all.

I'd like to know the point of the question CalGal asked.
Was she really interested in hearing an LDS answer? Honestly?

TW

You would have to ask her, not me.
Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

How could it be not what you said when I copied and pasted it exactly (I did add the underlines)? I have learned from a member here that we are talking about elipses. You may be right about this rule pertaining to the breaking of a sentence only. My complaint is that you took the statement out of a paragraph, which paragraph contained essential information to establish my statement. You posted the statement and applied it to suit your purpose of avoiding my issue.

Does anyone know if elipses are required when breaking up a paragraph?

I have no idea...I am still just waiting to hear the answer to Tom777's question that he asked pages ago...where in the Bible does it say that man can become Gods?

God Bless-
Grace

 

[Der Alte]

How could it be not what you said when I copied and pasted it exactly (I did add the underlines)? I have learned from a member here that we are talking about elipses. You may be right about this rule pertaining to the breaking of a sentence only. My complaint is that you took the statement out of a paragraph, which paragraph contained essential information to establish my statement. You posted the statement and applied it to suit your purpose of avoiding my issue.

Does anyone know if elipses are required when breaking up a paragraph?

Ellipses​

· Use ellipses to indicate an omission in a quotation. Recently, MLA style adjusted in order to differentiate between ellipses that may already appear in a passage and those ellipses that you, as the writer, add in order to abbreviate a passage that you are quoting. In accordance with current practice, you should add brackets around elliptical points when you add them to a passage. Do not, however, begin a quoted passage with ellipses. Example:

Carlyle observes, "The wretched are not cheerful company. Dante [. . .] was not a man to conciliate men."

Macaulay wrote of Edward Russell, "Bad as he was, he was much under the influence of two feelings [. . .]. Professional spirit and party spirit were strong in him."

Note that the three elliptical marks do not replace normal punctuation. Thus, a period is required after the ellipses when the ellipses indicate the omission of the end of a sentence.

· Use a line of ellipses to indicate the omission of one or more lines in a quotation of three or more lines of verse. Example:

Forgive my grief for one removed,
Thy creature, whom I found so fair.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Forgive these wild and wandering cries,
Confusions of a wasted youth.

(See also "Presenting Quotations" in MLA Style and Documentation.)

http://www.tejones.net/grammar.html#Ellipses

 

[Toms777]

How could it be not what you said when I copied and pasted it exactly (I did add the underlines)?

Please - this discussion is getting ridicukous - go back to the original messages and have a look at what was said. The only message that was quote which had dots was yours. I dopuble checked to see if I had missed anything. That is why I found it so ironic.

I have learned from a member here that we are talking about elipses. You may be right about this rule pertaining to the breaking of a sentence only. My complaint is that you took the statement out of a paragraph, which paragraph contained essential information to establish my statement. You posted the statement and applied it to suit your purpose of avoiding my issue.

Does anyone know if elipses are required when breaking up a paragraph?

Not required.

I pulled one excerpt to avoid lengthy quoting when that sentence contained the essence of the point to which i was responding. If you think thatI took it out of context, rather than going on and on about dots (which you did, not I), why not deal with that specific before everyone forgets what it was that we were talking about (if they have not already)?

 

[emerald Dragon]

I thought we were arguing theology here, not grammer. Come one, please stop bickering.

Toms777- I do not know where in the bible it says that, I am looking for possible references. As best as I know, it is new scripture. We bleive in an open cannon, that scripture should never end, as the message of God should be repeated, and new message for the times should come. It is probably a lost doctrine-I don't know. I am looking for answers. I hope to find some, especcially for my own sake of learning.

 

[fatboys]

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

FB: This statement does not do you justice. Tell me Grace what why would you say that God or Our God would not know the desires of my heart? If I did not put effort into finding out who and what God is, could I ever know who he is? Why did Jesus teach us to pray and ask God for things in a specific manner. Did God not know the desires of his only begotten Son's heart? Grace if I prayed to God to know truth, do you believe he would tell me?

 

[Toms777]

I thought we were arguing theology here, not grammer. Come one, please stop bickering.

Agreed. That has been my point.

Toms777- I do not know where in the bible it says that, I am looking for possible references.

I appreciate your honesty on this point.

As best as I know, it is new scripture. We bleive in an open cannon, that scripture should never end, as the message of God should be repeated, and new message for the times should come.

I could argue the closed or open canon issue, but it is not necessary to do so. Suince we both agree that the Bible is scripture, if any other document claims something which is in contradiction to the Bible, then it cannot be of God.

It is probably a lost doctrine-I don't know. I am looking for answers. I hope to find some, especcially for my own sake of learning.

God gave us the Bible to reveal himself. Diefication to godhood is the highest goal of the mormon church, yet if it was so, why would God have not revealed that in the Bible?

 

[MormonFriend]

FB: This statement does not do you justice. Tell me Grace what why would you say that God or Our God would not know the desires of my heart? If I did not put effort into finding out who and what God is, could I ever know who he is? Why did Jesus teach us to pray and ask God for things in a specific manner. Did God not know the desires of his only begotten Son's heart? Grace if I prayed to God to know truth, do you believe he would tell me?

Perhaps something like this will help her?

7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

(Matthew7:7 - 11)

 

[MormonFriend]

Ellipses​

( .................................).

http://www.tejones.net/grammar.html#Ellipses

Thank you for that effort. I even know now how to spell it.

 

[SiSSYGAL]

Just a personal note about being immature and therefore subject to all sorts of rules being placed upon you.: My friend was one of the best reader in class. Our teacher told us to read over the summer so we wouldn't slip back on our reading skills. My friend just attacked this assignment and set up a schedule for herself and goals for finishing a certain amount of books over the summer. Then she wanted her mom to read out loud sometimes and she wanted me to come to her house for reading parties. The girl drove me nuts. But, looking back, I think this is what Mormons are like today. They drive themselves and other around them nuts. They come up with all this stuff--and it gives them some sort of sense that it makes them better....readers? I still know this friend--although she now lives in Reno. But, I can assure you, today at our ages, she is not a better reader than me. For those of you that don't get my parable--this is about trying trying trying, instead of simply picking up the cross and following. (I personally loved the Oz series--read most of them--without having any sort of reading schedule)

 

[MormonFriend]

...................................
Praying for a testimony will not interpet the Bible for me but knowledge of the original languages will. Thus when someone states their "testimony" or the "Holy Spirit" gives them an interpretation which is not supported by the original languages or the history of the early church, then something or someone is wrong. Guess which one it will be, the scriptures which can be traced back to the time of Moses or contradictory writings which can only be traced back to 1827, for which no ancient texts exist to compare?

Hopefully I can present my greatest concern here. I do not discredit the great contributions that scholars provide. I would personally be unable to "go there and do that."

What is the difference between "an interpretation" and a correct understanding? So many passages, that I am sure are interpreted correctly, say that understanding is hidden from man until he applies certain behaviors. Does that not mean that with all the fuss of who understands what, as we argue points of knowledge, that the real answers might lie in those behaviors that yield understanding?

 

[happyinhisgrace]

FB: This statement does not do you justice. Tell me Grace what why would you say that God or Our God would not know the desires of my heart? If I did not put effort into finding out who and what God is, could I ever know who he is? Why did Jesus teach us to pray and ask God for things in a specific manner. Did God not know the desires of his only begotten Son's heart? Grace if I prayed to God to know truth, do you believe he would tell me?

That is not the point and you are avoiding the direct issue. You said "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."

and I responded with "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?"

You clearly stated that the lds teach people when investigating the church to be specific when asking the source of all truth what is right and true. You said "be specific" indicating that if one was not specific, God would have no clue what you meant. As if God does not know what someone means or the desires of their heart before they even ask. I should not expect more though from a god that is nothing more than a man that worked his way to godhood.

Now, once again, let's get back to the original topic of discussion....where in the Bible does it teach that man can become Gods.

Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

FB: This statement does not do you justice. Tell me Grace what why would you say that God or Our God would not know the desires of my heart?

Tell me, FB...where did I say that God did not know the desires of your heart...I asked you a question...here are my exact words "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?"

I give you credit, you are terrific at spin doctering but not so good that one who is paying attention won't catch you in your false accusations.

Now, can we focus on the topic?

Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Perhaps something like this will help her?

7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

(Matthew7:7 - 11)

where in those verses does it say that you have to be specific about what you ask for...FB said you have to be specific, these verses just say to ask.

Yes, those verses are beautiful and I have read and mulled over them serveral times but they have nothing to do with the claim that one must be "specific" when talking to God but rather back up my personal beliefs that God knows the desires of our heart and we don't have to get into specifics for him to understand, bless and answer us.

God Bless-
Grace

 

[MormonFriend]

Please - this discussion is getting ridicukous - go back to the original messages and have a look at what was said. The only message that was quote which had dots was yours. I dopuble checked to see if I had missed anything. That is why I found it so ironic.


Not required.

I pulled one excerpt to avoid lengthy quoting when that sentence contained the essence of the point to which i was responding. If you think thatI took it out of context, rather than going on and on about dots (which you did, not I), why not deal with that specific before everyone forgets what it was that we were talking about (if they have not already)?

As a matter of fact, I forgot what we were talking about. What I do remember is that I asked a valid question(s) about how God gives understanding to some and not to others. I asked this because, as I said, why discuss deeper Bible doctrine before learning how God teaches how we should learn it? Then you created a distraction tactic saying something to the effect of quit attacking the person and stick to the issue. But since the issue is a deeper doctrine in the Bible, and I had already tried to explain it, it is apparent that we understand things differently. So the logical step would be to consult the Bible as to how we should approach understanding before we try to continue talking apples and oranges.

The fair approach is this. If I do not understand it is because God is withholding it from me. It would be that I am one of those who do not hear His voice. If it is you that does not understand, then the same reasons above would apply to you.

Then maybe we can go on about discussing where in the Bible it says, or does not say, that man can become like God. That doctrine is far from "milk." The issue of how God taught us to understand His doctrines is the "milk" that we must grow on before the meat.

If you cannot agree on this because it is not "the issue," then we can put the issue on hold, and I can make this issue of understanding the subject of another post.

Keep in mind that you should have this same concern. If I am not a Christian, then you do not want to choke me with a T-bone steak. You must teach me the basics and be sure that I am well fed on that first.

 

[MormonFriend]

where in those verses does it say that you have to be specific about what you ask for...FB said you have to be specific, these verses just say to ask.

Yes, those verses are beautiful and I have read and mulled over them serveral times but they have nothing to do with the claim that one must be "specific" when talking to God but rather back up my personal beliefs that God knows the desires of our heart and we don't have to get into specifics for him to understand, bless and answer us.

God Bless-
Grace

That logic cannot apply. Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments. Well, if I keep two that is plural. Where does it say specifically that we must keep all of them to love Him?

If you ask something of God specifically, will He give you a stone? Or will He give you bread by answering you on that specific? Have you ever prayed specifically for someone? Have you ever lost something and prayed to find that specific lost thing?

 

[MormonFriend]

MF: "Tom, I sit here in amazement contemplating the real reason you keep driving at this point. Since our concept of God is very different than yours, you obviously believe that our God does not exist! Surly our doctrine is not suggesting that we can become as the God that you invision or know. So what in the world can you prove by arguing that we cannot become as something that you believe does not exist? What is your real purpose?"

I believe that your god does exist, but not as God or as a god. We do see in the Bible that there was one who sought to be as God and who promised that men could also be as god.

Isa 14:12-15
12 "How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
'I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.'
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.
NKJV

So, are you call me a devil worshiper?
I see where Satan wanted to become as God, but where do you quote to say that Satan promised men that they could become as god? He told Eve that they would be as God, knowing good from evil.

Joseph Smith said that the doctrine that man could become as God was "gospel doctrine". Did he not understand the gospel?

My real purpose is the truth, and the hope that we can get into the Bible and seek to see what God says through the Bible on these matters.

Then you won't mind discussing how to understand what God says throug the Bible, by consulting the Bible on what God said about man gaining understanding?