Sophomoric, but I'll take humor over you getting mad and calling the Mods. No more than your silly little picture, lent sooooo much to your argument.
I hear they won't let you in a Mosque on a "Holy Day", go fight with Moslems about that, I'll watch for your beheading video on the internet...
Moslems do not make the claim to be Christian.
Somebody was NOT listening.
Somebody cannot understand context
Now, I'll address the Satan appearing as an angel of light fallacy you guys seem to be so in love with.
Who actually visited Smith? Was it -
Door #1 – “First vision" story, Smith said he was first visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ in the woods in 1820.
Door #2 - Brigham Young, prophet second only to Smith said when Mormonism began, "The Lord did not come - but He did send His angel" (J. of D., Vol. II, p. 171).or
Door #3 - Smith was first visited in his bedroom by an angel in 1823.
http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Scans/first-vision-1832-m&av1p42.html
http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Scans/first-vision-1832-m&av1p78.html
http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Scans/first-vision-1832-m&av1p79.html
.
If LDS leaders (including Smith) told the first vision story wrong, could they also be wrong about other LDS doctrines? Mormons claim their apostles and prophets clarify God's message, but instead they have taught contradictory things about the first vision. Is God the author of confusion? (I Cor. 14:33.)
Which angel provided the plates was it:
"Nephi" the angel revealed the gold plates to Smith according to the first edition of the P.of G.P. published in 1851. In 1853, Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also said the angel's name was Nephi (Biographical Sketches, p. 79).
“Moroni” as published after Smith’s death?
Did Moroni (or Nephi) or whoever visited Smith for the first time 1820/1823 preach the same gospel that Paul did in Galatians and the other epistles? If Moroni did preach the same message as Paul did, we already had the message and therefore we do not need the bom. But, if Moroni preached a different gospel than Paul did, he is under the curse of Gal. 1:8-9, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Show me one, just one scripture in the Bible that clearly says that Satan can answer a prayer to God. If you can prove that God is not able to keep Satan for answering in his stead, you will make an atheist of me.
Depends upon if you are really praying to the true God or the devil in disguise.
MT 4:9 "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
So, do you still believe it Satan Masquerading as an angel of light that answered Joseph's prayer? if so, prove this is even possible, Scripturally
You’ll have to show me which version of the ‘vision’ is correct from above 1st :) But in either case
Paul made it clear that Satan does so work in that fashion if he chooses.
2 Cor 11: 12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Did Paul teach polytheism? No, eternal progression? No polygamy? No how about 11 year old elders? No, the list can go on and on. Smith fits Paul’s definition of a false apostle, deceitful workman, masquerading as an apostle of god.
I promote asking God. I ask you, If God told you Joseph smith was a prophet, would you believe him? God has told me exactly that, and now you want me to believe you instead? Get over yourself, Godzilla is a big lizard, not God.
Oh yes, but you are on that god-progression thingie. I judged Smith by the standards of the Bible and found him lacking and a false prophet. Perhaps we could examine his accuracy if you really want to hmmmmm?
A "Cannon" is a body of works officially recognized by a church as authoritative.
And teachings allowed to go on by PROPHETS and others of the General Authority, unrebuked by the same General Authority even today, then your PROPHETS don’t know what they are talking about, especially PROPHET PRIME Smith. If his teachings are in error, Mormonism has no living prophet.
Lurkers, somebody here is displaying a great lack of understanding of the real world.
Apart from the fact that DU is talking about himself again, he dodges behind the glaring fact that he is saying that the highest mormon prophet – Smith – didn’t know what he was talking about, believed or was understood the doctrine he established. Furthermore, this doctrine has not simply ‘believed’ but actually taught and endorsed by the General Authorities. Such is a defacto endorcement that the teaching is in line with canon. Colofornian did a pretty good job of deconstructing your argument here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?page=414#414
To deny eternal progression is to deny a fundamental aspect of mormon life. It is eternal progression that drives temple membership, weddings and other temple ordinances. You are also denying that you have living, breathing PROPHETS (a distinctive claim of Mormonism) that are in tune to God and speak his word, the fact that they have taught this for some 150 years as doctrine. Are you denying that Smith was your greatest prophet and mouthpiece of God and that when he spoke as such his words were not doctrine? Or do mormons only accept those teachings as prophetically uttered when it is less objectionable to do so?
But then, whatever. He wants see that eternal progression and its logical constructs come from lds works, so be it. Key word search in the official lds website yields dozens on passages obliquely addressing this doctrine. Here are a few:
D&C 138: 38-39 38 Among the great and amighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father bAdam, the cAncient of Days and father of all, 39 And our glorious aMother bEve, with many of her faithful cdaughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.
Abr. 3: 22 22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the aintelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the bnoble and great ones;
D&C 76: 58Wherefore, as it is written, they are agods, even the bsons of cGod—
D&C 130: 22 The aFather has a bbody of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of cSpirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not ddwell in us.
D&C 132: 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be bgods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.
Other citations that are possible. From these we see that there is a plurality of gods apart from the mormon godhead. One of which is Adam. Gee, I guess that Young wasn’t wrong when he prophesied about Adam-God. They also show that there are spirit children (intelligences) existing that are born to the gods and goddesses there. That there are gods who are sons of gods – indicating that the cycle had to be accomplished in a previous generation too. Other passages allude to these spirit children being given physical bodies and being born here. They eventually will become gods too if they successfully follow all of the ordinances and gain access to the highest heaven. With these facts in place know that Adam did this progression and took Eve. Therefore to become a god one must first become human else they will not have a body of flesh and bone, they would continue to be amorphous ‘spirit children’ and denied the opportunity to progress.
Now with this hodge-podge of verses providing the structure (and I’m sure DU could provide a better structure for eternal progression). Smith clarifies the subject while preaching with his ‘prophetic authority’ recognized by other duly appointed mormon prophets agreeing with the Prophet Prime. Smith says that Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, If the preceding doctrine was eternal life, it must have been pretty important if it involved such. Clearly the PROPHETS of Mormonism have accepted this as truth ever since.
Maybe, that's the point, it's not cannon, we don't know for sure, and since we can't know (because God has not told us). Whether or not God was created in eternities is irrelevant to our salvation.
You don’t know for sure? Certainly you don’t doubt the testimony of the first and foremost Prophet of Mormonism? I thought that was one of the great things Mormonism had over Christianity – a 24/7 prophet? It must be disturbing that Smith came to the same conclusion as I did. Are you greater in knowledge of God than Joseph Smith to second guess him? If Smith’s teachings are a lie, then chances are the rest of what he has said is a lie too. Young produced the same logical construct that I did, so did Snow (5th prophet). The mormon church is continuing to publish things like The LDS Booklet: Celestial Marriage--Key to Man's Destiny, where it states on the first page “God was once a man who, by obedience, advanced to his present state of perfection; through obedience and celestial marriage we may progress to the point where we become like God “.
Stop right there, it's a logical assumption, not Doctrine, ….. Smith and I are in agreement on where the logic leads to the doctrine he set up, set up as prophet prime. A the General Authority promotes that teaching since it is founded on canon references, absent rebuke by the GA yields a defacto doctrine due to passive acceptance as well as active promulgation.
What you are in fact arguing is that Jesus could not be "God" until he had completed the process of coming to earth and gaining a body..
I am reciting what you already told me earlier was mormon doctrine. :
(2) Jesus as a spirit at the beginning of time becoming a mortal at the meridian of time, and being a perfected being with an eternal body by the end of time represents our journey through life. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?page=307#307
If he represents you journey in life, he couldn’t have been a god as a spirit child and only could have become a god after death and all the processes thereafter – becoming a perfected being.
A God is someone unto whom all power is given regardless of physical body, or lack thereof.
Provide me canon for that one ;)
The holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, which is a member of the Godhead and has no body is also God, for he has all power as well.
Your getting all mixed up. According to mormons, the course of perfection requires humanhood, death and exaltation.
Jesus was God from all eternity (for he was God before this aberration called time existed, indeed he is the creator of Time, and he will be God after time has ceased to exist (for it will have fulfilled it's purpose.) thus he is God to Eternity, all eternity is that which surrounds time, thus he is God from all Eternity to all eternity.
Where do you get that doctrine from, DC says he is the Firstborn, that implies a point of origin, he was the first of the spirit children. Smith explains it for you if you will listen to your prophet.
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!.... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see... he was once a man like us... and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976)
General authorities have yet to refute Smith’s teaching (crickets). Smith said that he refutes that idea of an eternal god. Or do you know something your religion’s founder doesn’t know?
Did Jesus have "Eternal Life" before he came down from on high? No, for that he had to gain a body, now he could have built one like he did for Adam, but that was not the plan, the plan required him to come and be born and teach and suffer and die, for us. The Mormon View of Jesus is of a more compassionate, understanding Jesus than the perspective supplied by other religions (My opinion)
Your opinion isn’t canon and is worthless here as a mormon viewpoint.
You are specifically incorrect too is the correct way to say this, you must not understand Christology for you disagree with me about it (LOL).
Pontificating doesn’t prove you argument, though it might make you feel better about your self. It's there, just not as clear, fine if you want to allege that God doesn't fulfill his word, ….
I ask again – show me which MS has that nugget. Prove to me your superior intellect.
God can do whatever he wants, he is all powerful. However, he has also said you must be baptized to enter the kingdom, so how do you reconcile that? (Do you make a special exception? chuckle)
Luke 23:42-42
U Said: No more than your silly little picture, lent sooooo much to your argument.
Comic relief? But point taken, Grin.
U Said: Moslems do not make the claim to be Christian.
So? Christians do not claim to be Mormon? The point was you think you should have access to everything, how about the Vatican argument, you just going to ignore that?
U Said: Somebody cannot understand context
Context
- the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
- the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
- Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.
Got it. (grin)
U Said: Who actually visited Smith?
God the father and Jesus Christ, you can tell a story differently to different audiences, in fact a story told the same way is usually made up, and rehearsed, not spontaneous, these stories were being told spontaneously, so some variation is to be expected. Variations however should not conflict, just vary in details as these stories do.
U Said: If LDS leaders (including Smith) told the first vision story wrong,
It wasn't Wrong, it was just to differing audiences. (and I have pointed this out many times before, a story that is told to different police in exactly the same way is considered by them to be a fabrication...)
U Said: could they also be wrong about other LDS doctrines?
Sure, many church leaders have said inaccurate things in speeches or in private conversation, they are men called to be prophets and leaders, there is only one perfect exemplar (*Jesus Christ) that is why you have to limit "Authoritative" to Cannonized doctrine.
U Said: Mormons claim their apostles and prophets clarify God's message, but instead they have taught contradictory things about the first vision. Is God the author of confusion? (I Cor. 14:33.)
Well, we are all his creations, so...
But no, that is why we have authoritative sources, the Cannonized works. Show me any Church where some leader somewhere has not said something stupid / Doctrinally incorrect, or taken some action that had to be undone and I'll show you a really new church (like you just created it) and it'd be really small (like just you).
U Said: Which angel provided the plates
Moroni as the Cannonized work shows, you know, half of the time I get my own kids names wrong? The Catholics are the ones with the Infallibility of the Pope belief, not us, we believe God calls mortals complete with their flaws and foibles to be prophets. You are already pointing out some of Joseph Smiths, there are a lot more, to the whole list I say, So? God called him, God said so, it was an authoritative communication from him (because if fulfilled the promise for authenticity in
1st John 4:2) So what, can a man resist God? I have had a witness and I know it, and God knows it, I dare not deny it.
U Said: Did Moroni (or Nephi) or whoever visited Smith for the first time 1820/1823 preach the same gospel that Paul did in Galatians and the other epistles?
Yes, for it is the Gospel of God, too bad much was lost or changed in the Bible, or we'd be able to prove it better. (Not that we are doing to badly now...)
U Said: If Moroni did preach the same message as Paul did, we already had the message and therefore we do not need the bom.
Except that the message was not preserved, thus the need for a restoration.
U Said: if Moroni preached a different gospel than Paul did, he is under the curse of Gal. 1:8-9, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Yeah, that's why I pity those who attended the Vote at Nicea where they changed the definition of God for the church, they will really wish they had just let Constantine kill them.
I Said: Show me one, just one scripture in the Bible that clearly says that Satan can answer a prayer to God. If you can prove that God is not able to keep Satan for answering in his stead, you will make an atheist of me.
U Said: Depends upon if you are really praying to the true God or the devil in disguise.
MT 4:9 "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
I don't see a disguise... (If you pray to God, you are praying to God, even if you have some of the details wrong.)
U Said: You’ll have to show me which version of the ‘vision’ is correct from above 1st :) But in either case
Easy:
The Cannonized First vision story.
U Said: Did Paul teach polytheism?
Neither do we, we no more preach polythiesm than the trinitarians do.
U Said: eternal progression?
Sure.
U Said: polygamy?
No, but neither did he preach against it.
U Said: how about 11 year old elders?
I know the missionaries look young, but they aren't that young... (Elders are at least 19...)
U Said: the list can go on and on.
Yes, you do...
That does not make you or your list anymore accurate for it's or your length.
U Said: Smith fits Paul’s definition of a false apostle, deceitful workman, masquerading as an apostle of god.
So does every religious leader since Paul, in some way or another, luckily, there is a
Test whereby we can know the truth of all things:
?
First John 4:1-3 1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
I encourage everyone to
Get a Book of Mormon, and
Get a Bile, Read both Pray about Both, God will answer. That answer, as mine did, will contain a testimony of Jesus Christ, and thus you can know that it meets John's test of authenticity. Godzilla and I can't both be right here, and it is conceivable that we are both wrong! Don't thake the chance of "Guessing" wrong, ask God and be sure. Don't take my word for it, don't take his word for it, ask God.
I will however note that I am (again) the only one asking people to pray for an answer, Godzilla is telling people Satan may answer a prayer to God. Good luck with that Godzilla.
U Said: Oh yes, but you are on that god-progression thingie. I judged Smith by the standards of the Bible and found him lacking and a false prophet. Perhaps we could examine his accuracy if you really want to hmmmmm?
Yes, I know you are big on the Judging thing, I too have been judged by you on many threads an on many occasions, I'm sure your judgment of Joseph has as much effect on his salvation as your judgment of me will have on mine. I for one am not worried by your "Judegment" of me. The question you should be asking is how much will it effect your salvation, all this judging that you are doing can't be good for you.
I Said: A "Cannon" is a body of works officially recognized by a church as authoritative.
U Said: And teachings allowed to go on by PROPHETS and others of the General Authority, unrebuked by the same General Authority even today, then your PROPHETS don’t know what they are talking about, especially PROPHET PRIME Smith. If his teachings are in error, Mormonism has no living prophet.
Who said unrebuked? He got called in by the Living Prophet and asked not to print anymore of his factually inaccurate books. (for those of you in reolinda, that's a rebuke!) Later, they assigned another GA to give him Guidance on corrections and even then did not claim to have gotten everything, but figured it was better than what was "Out there" in his prior published version.
I Said: Lurkers, somebody here is displaying a great lack of understanding of the real world.
U Said: Apart from the fact that DU is talking about himself again,
Once again, you are mistaken, I am the one person for sure who knows who and what I was talking about, again you assume you know far more than you do.
U Said: he dodges behind the glaring fact that he is saying that the highest Mormon prophet – Smith – didn’t know what he was talking about, believed or was understood the doctrine he established. Furthermore, this doctrine has not simply ‘believed’ but actually taught and endorsed by the General Authorities. Such is a defacto endorcement that the teaching is in line with canon. Colofornian did a pretty good job of deconstructing your argument here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?page=414#414
- Prophets do not come in ascending order.
- I never said Joseph did not know what he was talking about.
- I have said you don't know what you are talking about.
- You are not Joseph Smith.
U Said: To deny eternal progression is to deny a fundamental aspect of Mormon life. It is eternal progression that drives temple membership, weddings and other temple ordinances. You are also denying that you have living, breathing PROPHETS (a distinctive claim of Mormonism) that are in tune to God and speak his word, the fact that they have taught this for some 150 years as doctrine.
I have not denied eternal progression. With the Keen intellect, and powers of observation which you have displayed here, I can see why you are having trouble following ours, or anyone else's doctrine.
U Said: Are you denying that Smith was your greatest prophet and mouthpiece of God and that when he spoke as such his words were not doctrine?
Or do Mormons only accept those teachings as prophetically uttered when it is less objectionable to do so?
Um neither? (these silly do you poop your pants or droll down your chin type arguments are so silly since everyone who reads them knows it's going to be neither.)
Joseph Smith was a prophet of God called to open this the dispensation of the fullness of times. Does that make him the greatest prophet? Some may say so, but I am not aware of a ranking system in the Cannonized works of the church.
U Said: But then, whatever. He wants see that eternal progression and its logical constructs come from lds works, so be it. Key word search in the official lds website yields dozens on passages obliquely addressing this doctrine. Here are a few:
Eternal progression is Doctrinal, it's cannon, the specifics of whether or not God has a parent are not doctrinal, they are speculative. Are you guys deaf?
I'm going to drop the whole rest of your argument about why eternal progressin is Doctrine, because I agree that it is.
I will simply state state that God's parentage, or lack thereof has not been addressed in Cannonized works of the church, and request any citations specifically God's parents to prove me wrong...
< Skip a ton of blovation >
U Said: Your opinion isn’t canon and is worthless here as a Mormon viewpoint.
Your viewpoint as a non Mormon is worth less than mine as a Mormon, so your words are then less than worthless... they have negative value.
I Said: You are specifically incorrect too is the correct way to say this, you must not understand Christology for you disagree with me about it (LOL).
U Said: Pontificating doesn’t prove you argument, though it might make you feel better about your self.
In your post (
# 404) you brought up "Christaology" it was such a fallacious argument that I had to laugh, but decided to parody it anyway, I am glad you now see that the pontificating way you were speaking does not make you right, it only makes you feel better. (Christology is not exactly a Mormon phrase, when someone uses your phrases back at you, they may be making fun of you, I know I am.)
I Said: It's there, just not as clear, fine if you want to allege that God doesn't fulfill his word, ….
With your cuts no lurker would know what the Sam hill we are talking about, that's the problem with your monster posts. Cut them down, or no one will read them, much less respond to them, wait, its that the point write such boring stuff and since your opponent can't red it without falling asleep, you win be default?
Well, it's an interesting approach to debate, I'll give you that much.
Now, the topic is whether Jesus has to do it all himself, in order to fulfill his work, I posted a link from the D&C and I will repost it here:
D&C 1:38 38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my eservants, it is the same.
So, the question is "is it the same if a servant fulfills god' promises?"
I give you
The Gospel of St. John 20:21 21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Jesus sends his disciple just as he has been sent, Jesus was commanded to teach the Gospel to the world, so he sent his disciples. You will of course reject this obvious example out of hand, but that will not stop it from being true.
U Said: I ask again – show me which MS has that nugget. Prove to me your superior intellect.
Form your post I cannot tell what nugget you want me to show, and if my intellect is superior, it is not mine, but him who sent me who's spirit animates my body and enlivens my fingers.
We were talking about Baptism for the dead and baptism being required
I Said: God can do whatever he wants, he is all powerful. However, he has also said you must be baptized to enter the kingdom, so how do you reconcile that? (Do you make a special exception? chuckle)
U Said: Luke 23:42-42
There is no way for you or I to know if the Thief had been baptized, but Jesus knew.
Your argument fails here.
Other citations that are possible.
2 Pet. 3: 16 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
You wrest the scriptures at your peril, it's not hat there aren't answers to the questions you are posing there are. The problem is two fold:
- You don't have the foundation necessary to understand the answers since you do not understand the fundamentals.
- You don't want to understand.
- Your posts are so big, that responding to them is a waste of time since no one will read these massive missives.
The truth is simple, The book of Mormon is a message from God, those who are ready to accept more of God's word will read, ponder and pray. Those who are not ready will "wrest the scriptures" to their own damnation.
I keep presenting truths here, truths like the spelling differences of different scribes, the list of over 3,000 changes with 90%+ being spelling, punctuation, and verses being added, I point out the corrections by Joseph to the scribe's errors on the manuscript that were never incorporated by the printer.
You drop this defeated argument and move to a new smear.
I send you to links that have refutation, and you admit you don't read them. I Quote huge sections from Hippolytus' works that back up my position complete with links, and you dismiss them because they don't agree with your preconceived notions of what happened long ago. You won't look at any evidence that supports the Book of Mormon, or Joseph.
I'll give the readers a few to chew on.
Chiasmus, a literary structure used in semetic writings, unknown in Joseph Smith's day, but the Book of moon is chock full of them
Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.
DNA and the Book of moon:
Does DNA evidence refute the book of Mormon, and
DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective
These two papers (among many) one from Doctor who specializes in DNA, Address the Straw man argument posed by those attempting to use DNA as a scientific "cloak" for their straw man debunk the whole issue.
You misquote my own scriptures at me, arranging scripture in ways that they are not in the book, thus you twist a the truth into a lie.
The doctrine of Eternal Progression is a Mormon doctrine.
God having a father is not.
Simple, pure fact, but that's not good enough for you, you dig up quotations (from uncannonized sources) and then say I don't agree with he brethren, when in fact, I am supporting the church. Every religion must be free to establish their own beliefs, not have them established by their opponents, or else we do not have freedom of religion in this country.
Godzilla, if you cannot stick to one topic, and make more cogent posts, I will begin to edit your posts in my responses for a single topic, and for brevity.
I will end this post with my testimony that I have read the Book of Mormon which you so decry, I prayed to God about it, he answered my prayer to him as the Bible promises he will do. The answer that I received told me the Book of Mormon is true, and that Jesus Christ is my savior and lived and died on this earth, for me. I testify to all who will read this that he lives, he lives who once was dead, and he will answer a sincere prayer from the heart.
Godzilla, you attack all the time, I have yet to see you testify as I just did. Is there a problem with asking you if you personally believe in the savior?