en-us http://www.intensedebate.com/users/269626 Comments by MichaelP http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/mormon-coffee-tabletalk-friday-december-3rd-in-west-jordan-ut/#IDComment12342708 SteveH, Another example of a mispresentation of our beliefs. No one would say God is done talking to us, you do know that, right? So do YOU understand OUR beliefs? The idea of a testimony is entirely subjective, because there is no way that I can, or anyone here, can deny how you view your experience. I do not know what you have felt, but nor do you know what I have felt, right? You'll probably say that I have not truly experienced God because I am not a Mormon, or something along those lines. Even though you say all can experience God in their own way, unless they accept the Mormon view, they haven't gone all the way (accurate enough?). But the experience is something you cannot know from my view point, because it is not you experience it. Right? So, when I have an experience contrary to yours, how do we resolve the discrepency of what the experience speaks to? Tue, 9 Dec 2008 23:28:42 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/mormon-coffee-tabletalk-friday-december-3rd-in-west-jordan-ut/#IDComment12342708 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12342465 Yes, they can be read wrong. And many are. Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn are great examples. But that does not mean they all get it wrong, and that is why we have the Bible as the standard. This way we can test what people say about God's word by looking at an objective and stable source. Sure, there are different takes, but there are many ideas that are unreasonable. Kind of like law, there are different ways to apply a legal rule, but that rule still exists. Tue, 9 Dec 2008 23:01:12 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12342465 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12342397 Cheap grace. Do you really think the grace offered by Christ is cheap? I know you say you have put effort into understanding our view, but I don't think you get it. You can view it differently, but a pet peeve of mine is when Mormons get so bent out of shape when we "misconstrue" your faith and so quickly and readilly "misconstrue" ours. And again, you paint a very large brush without specifics. Do you care to explain why ours is a cheap gospel? Please do so while accurately portraying our view. It can be done while disagreeing, too. Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:52:10 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12342397 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12308105 Cluff, beg your pardon? "That is the verse that Matthew was commanded to leave out of his gospel, because the world was not ready for deeper doctrine. You know, milk before meat." What a comment! I am not sure to take it seriously or not. And I am not trying to be mean. What you are saying here is that the Bible is unequivocably not sufficient because God left stuff out that we might not understand. I hope you know that we disagree 100%. While I accept that as the Mormon view on how it affects godhood, and for that I thank you for your explanation. I think you might expect me to have some problems with the thinking. The trouble with it is not too far from the first in that marriage was not written for baptism. That substitution is changing what was written. It also does not negate Paul's writing in 1 Cor 7. I think it is more difficult to arrive at that conclusion without your last comment, that Matt was commanded to leave stuff out, a claim without any historical, or theological, basis. Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:46:38 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12308105 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/mormon-coffee-tabletalk-friday-december-3rd-in-west-jordan-ut/#IDComment12284381 Amanda, real quick true/false question here: the Bible tells us we are to test the spirits that speak to us. How do we test the spirits? What does the Bible say about scritpture? Take the discussion of marriage going on at the other post, for instance. The question is what Paul's addition to scriptute in 1 Cor 7 has to do with your 'commandment' of marriage. Seeing as 1 Cor 7 is scripture, are we to discount it because it is someones mere opinion? If this is the case, then the Bible lies when it says all scripture is valuable. Or is it not scripture to begin with? If its not scripture, then how do we determine what is scripture? Based on the spirit? The same spirit that we are told test? By that route, You end up with a conclusion that really is only guided by the spirit, and anything written cannot be taken seriously. Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:34:50 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/mormon-coffee-tabletalk-friday-december-3rd-in-west-jordan-ut/#IDComment12284381 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12274928 Where did I say Paul was against marriage? I never said so, though I do repeat what Paul explicitly says, that if folks canot avoid sinning through sex, they ought not to get married. How can you read anything different into his clear words? And his clear words suggest that marriage was not a commandment. BTW, you like to say that we misprepresent your faith. Fair enough, but consider this alternative view: we interpret your faith differently. No, we are not saying what it is you think you believe. While what you think you believe is important, we simply reach different conclusions. Its also necessary to say that Mormons all too often conclude differently on our beliefs. Thus it is important try to understand the others view point, and fairly try to present it. You don't have to like what we say, but give specific examples where we are completely off base. OK? Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:42:33 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12274928 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12272213 Steve, but that misses the point. You can qualify the works with faith, but that does not negate the importance of the works, right? Faith might be important, to you, but it is meaningless without the specific works, the checklist that Christ will view at judgment. Is Christ going to tell people who had the faith in his saving powers that they don't quailify because they didn't do the specific thing? Of import is faith, then? Does this philosophy of the checklist not also put faith in the works themselves? I know you believe something different, but this conclusion is perfectly legitimate. I hope you understand the thought process here, that works as a requirement negate the effects of faith as shown above. I hope this also puts the idea that we ought not to put our faith in works so that we might boast. Our faith is to be in Christ, and Christ alone. Does this make sense? Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:32:13 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12272213 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12262733 Still no response on the effect of Paul's suggestion on the topic and its effects on the assumption that it was first century custom that all are married ebcause of this commandment. As I have stated, Paul seems to be saying that it was not rule, like you are assuming. Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:52:58 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12262733 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12254513 Would it be accurate, FoF, then to state that you are responsible for your actions that Christ bases his decisions for salvation? Whether or not the individual is the one who saves, what role does Christ have in forcing the actions that the individual takes? Seems to me that you have set up a system that requires an individual effort to reach the standard Christ set up, and since there is the idea of agency, it seems the indivuidual alone reaches the check point set up by Christ, and all he does is say yes or no as to the efforts to get there. I know you will see that as misrepresenting your faith, but is the logic there to reach this conclusion? Mon, 8 Dec 2008 06:25:56 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12254513 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12254468 God's command in the garden, huh? Jesus's teaching, referencing that man and wife are to become on flesh when they are married. There is one thing missing from that-- a clear cut command. You'll disagree, and that is fine. But the biggest thing missing from your response is that the mere suggestion Paul gives, opinion or not, is that marriage was not a requirement. You seem to flippantly disregard this suggestion, which really gets at a major point of Mormonism-- that it restored the early church. But here we see a requirement in your church under the restoration theory that was not in existence in the early church. Rather, Paul suggests that it is better not to be married. Again whether or not it was his opinion does not matter to the suggestion that it negates it as a requirement of the early church. Do you have any thoughts on this observation? Mon, 8 Dec 2008 06:20:00 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12254468 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12249156 OK, Ralph, so, let me step a bit broader now. You say that Paul is suggesting somethhing, and the Mormon claim is that it is the restored church. Was Paul suggesting that people go against what God had commanded in the early church? If so, why would that make any sense? My point is that there are other ways this section is important in a discussion of LDS beliefs. And if it is his suggestion, why would he suggest something against a commandment? Paul was supposedly privy to all God's commandments, right? Or is that not right? Is this part of the ongoing revelation? And if it is, how can we trust any command in the Bible? And this leads to the conclusion that Mormons don't think it as important as the newer books. I've asked before, and I'll ask again about these things and my comments, but does the logic make sense to you? Do you see the connections I make? If I am unclear, what don't you get? Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:46:40 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12249156 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12249094 No, he is not necessarilly saying marriage is bad, but that if you can refrain from sex, you ought to not get married so you can focus on God. Read it with that perspective, and see what you think. It might also help if you read some other versions, a tool that helps interpretation. Do you care to give any examples of how I do not understand LDS views? I have stated that I am not an expert, and you have an area that A) I have misrepresented and can correct me and B) makes logical sense, I am more than willing to revisit these areas. But you must also understand where I am coming from, and I try to lay this out for you. In other words, show me specifics rather than saying I am wrong on your beliefs. And I have to ask, do you ever try to consider these things from our viewpoint? Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:39:23 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12249094 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12247109 I am still curious the Mormon take on 1 Corinthians 7. I have seen absolutely nothing on the chapter. Any thoughts from anyone on the Mormon take of 1 Cor 7? Sun, 7 Dec 2008 20:10:24 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12247109 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12246680 So, FoF, to restate your first paragraph, Christ will only save you if you do certain things. Am I being accurate with that? Does it make sense to you why we see that as saying the works save you? Lets outline what you wrote: Christ saves 100%, but will only save if you do X. Conversely, if you do not do X, Christ will not save. Thus, it makes sense to say X saves because Christ's decision is based on the act of X. And as I said earlier, all I need is Christ to save, and my salvation is not dependant on X. Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:16:07 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12246680 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12232129 My apologies all. I fear I started something that will only allow each side to dig in their claws. I fear I made comments that insulted peoples' pride. That's never a good thing. I do not turn from the statements made about your faith making an effort to be Christians like 'us', I wish I'd approached the idea differently. I know most Mormons have given all they can to your faith. I appreciate that. I wonder if you appreciate what it is that we believe, and what we see. Believe it or not I always try to view an idea from the way you present it. I really do. And no matter how much I try, I see you forget the one most important thing we can ever have: God. I don't need eternal marriage to be with my wife in heaven for eternity. I don't need baptism by one of authority to be baptized by the holy spirit. I don't need anything but to allow Christ into my heart. And the thing is, neither do you. See allowing Christ into your heart will show you all that you are missing. You don't have to believe me, all you have to rely on is God. He's all we have. Sun, 7 Dec 2008 07:33:42 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12232129 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12229090 SteveH, Another very broad stroke with little support. I know you know what you believe, but what you believe, from what I see, tries to look very much like the rest of Christendom. Feel free to disagree, but all I can do is state what I see. What I see is what I said. There may be truth in it, there may not be. But it is interesting to watch the trend, isn't it? Do you want to discuss or are you going to give the strokes you have given? Steven, you do not have to like what I say. I will never force anyone into that. I am also open to correction, and welcome a cordial debate. So, given part of the discussion here, and part of the above post, what is your thought on 1 Cor 7? What did he mean when he said that we should only get married to keep us from sinning? Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:59:02 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12229090 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12201299 I think I know more than you give me credit for. Am I an expert? Hardly, probably enough to be dangerous though, lol. But alas... In seriousness, I use hyperbole to demonstrate a trend, and as Aaron says, far too much has to happen. The trend is that Mormons want to be seen more and more as Christians, just like the rest of us. Just a quick example, outside of the doctrines that have been dropped or modified, is that you advertise on TV the Bible sent free to those wanting to know more about the gospel of Jesus while saying very little about the BoM or Mormonism. Sun, 7 Dec 2008 01:22:16 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12201299 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12191655 I wonder what role 1 Cor 7 plays in this? Paul seems to suggest that marriage is to be had only for those who cannot 'control' themselves, and should be entered into so that one might not sin in that regard. That he even discusses it in that way suggests something other than it being a command. Sat, 6 Dec 2008 21:54:16 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12191655 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12188323 A point I do not want to get lost from this post is that marriage is required for ultimate salvation, ie achieving godhood. Not only does this demonstrate a reliance on works, it brings up several questions about marriage in general. For example, what happens when an eternally married couple divorces, or one of the spouses cheats on another, gauks at another outside of marriage? What if one leaves the church, or just stumbles really badly, enough to individually take one out of the good graces of the church? Does this negate the chances of both becoming a god? Eternal marriages can happen at a very young age, with a lot of life together to come. While I grant that there is likely some form of forgiveness, an eternal marriage, from what I understand links the spouses for eternity. So, what happens if something really bad goes wrong to but one spouse? Sat, 6 Dec 2008 16:39:38 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12188323 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12187686 Fair enough, Ralph. So then our assumption about specific acts required for ultimate salvation is true then, and that it is not about faith, is true, too. I know somehow you will say that the above is not true, and that is also fair. But if you are granting that marriage is required to become a god, then it cannot be all about faith for getting married, even if done under faith in the future, is a specific act. Sat, 6 Dec 2008 15:48:35 +0000 http://blog.mrm.org/2008/12/progression-to-godhood-mormonisms-god/#IDComment12187686