| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/20/2008 6:54:12 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 02/16/2008 3:13:15 PM PST by restornu
?
Good. None of us want to be taught by you and your ilk.
My mommy and daddy are dead.
Does this mean you are not going to answer my question?
I believe Young was getting it right. I have explained why close to ten times on this thread.
And now, the counterquestion upon which this whole argument is based: Where in that quote (or any other) does Young teach that salvation is gained through any means but by Christ?
The scriptures only inform, it is the Holy Ghost who witness to words.
It is obvious none of you and I mean none of you have been touch by the Holy Spirit yet!
One is aware when that happens, there is man’s good behavior and than there is the behavior when one is allowing the Holy Spirit to leads one tongue.
It also shown that because one read something in the scripture is it automatically true.
This shows that many do not know the truth for them selves or how to test the spirits to see if it is of the Lord.
Many just want to use the Bible is their only source of back up.
Many can not go beyond their limitations of knowing for sure.
PS
And for many these will go over many of your heads, many will just pretend this was never pointed out, and continue saying, but the Bible says!
Yet many of you really don’t have a clue how to use the Lord’s Bible.
And those who do know how to use the Lord’s Bible, many of you will try to belittle and scoff at, thinking this will hide your inability and reveal that so many of you here are clueless as how to work with the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ!
You are completely missing my point, evidently purposefully.
I said I may well be wrong on this point. I’ll have to do some research.
You said that Hinckley denied that the Church teaches the doctrine.
He did not. He said: “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.”
In other words: It is not emphasized in the Church. I (Hinckley) don’t know a lot about that doctrine (and why should he? It’s not been fully revealed), though I understand the philosophy behind it.
You are twisting the quote to say: That is not the doctrine of the Church.
This is an increasingly Pharisaical line of questioning, PM. Will you persist until you’re satisfied you’ve caught me in my own words? Is that your objective?
Does this mean your parents are not talking to you!
It also shown that because one read something in the scripture is it automatically true. This shows that many do not know the truth for them selves or how to test the spirits to see if it is of the Lord. Many just want to use the Bible is their only source of back up.
It is you, each of you, who are in darkness and believe a false prophet who has placed himself above Christ, Who is God, not me. It is you, each of you, who, though being aware that the claims Joseph Smith made have been proven false (concerning more than just one thing, which one alone counts him as false), continue to idolize and bow to the words uttered and scribed by such a false prophet. It is your minds which have become clouded and your thinking foolish.
Romans 1:
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...
The only question I asked in that post was this: "How can any thinking man defend this kind of sleazy garbage?"
The rest of my post was simply an observation that Gordon Hinckley, like Joseph Smith before him, was a world class liar and dissembler. Hinkley lied when he claimed that he didn't know that the church taught that. That doctrine is taught from day one in Priesthood classes. That doctrine is what differentiates Mormonism from all other religions and that doctrine is what keeps Mormonism from being classified as even nominally "Christian". For Gordon Hinckley to claim that he didn't know that the LDS Church taught that is ludicrous. If he were under oath during that interview, he would have been charged and convicted of perjury.
You answered my question by admitting that the doctrine that God was once a man is, in fact, still taught in the LDS Church. Your admission makes a liar out of Gordon Hinckley.
Thank you for your frank honesty. It's too bad Gordon Hinckley couldn't be as honest as you.
Truth Bump!
Yes, we who have the light have no interest in you folks who insist on being in the dark.
Strangely coincidental that my post concerning the Apostle Paul vs. the false prophet Joseph Smith happened to land on post #777.
lol
Just as strange that Elsie’s post #666 contains the video entitled “Lying for the Lord” [Mormon Robert Millet lecturing to an audience preparing for a mission, where he says, among other things, “Never provide meat when milk will do”.]
LOL!
~”That doctrine is taught from day one in Priesthood classes.”~
Um, no, it’s really not. The doctrine of the deification of man is, but the idea that God was once as we are is not emphasized. I’ve heard it discussed in church, but not much. I can’t recall ever finding it in an official Church manual. It is a logical extension to the deification of man, and so is embraced by many in the Church (including myself), but I was incorrect when I said it is Church doctrine.
A more appropriate phrase for me to have used would have been “Church philosophy.”
Enough of this, though. I don’t expect your agenda here is any more than to convince yourself that Mormonism is wrong. I choose not to aid you any more with that.
Good evening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.