As the only basis I have for judgment is one action in the past I have no idea what he's like now or even if jackassishness is a typical trait or if it only appears sporadically.
"Jackassishness".....I like that term! I think it should be added to the dictionary! :)
Edited to add--I can even use it in a sentence. The jackassishness of BC in this thread is truly an award-winning low. ;)
huckelberry wrote:Yes I am sure Isaiah 43:10 says, "before me no god was formed. nor will there be one after me. " because it is speaking of Jesus who became divine by receiving divinity from his father who received divinity from his father. I can see that is what it really means.
Orwell.
When I read that verse, Huck, I wasn't concerned with whether or not Jehovah was Jesus (as I'd been taught as a Mormon). It simply became clear to me that men didn't become Gods and that God wasn't once a man. If Mormonism had the nature of God wrong, then how could it have anything else right? The decision to leave was easy to make after that.
Once I figured out Mormonism was false, all the answers fell into place. As I think Tal Bachman once mentioned, Mormonism finally made sense when I realized it wasn't true.
KA
Kimberly, you comments make sense to me. (I agree) I was wondering in my previous post if you had questions about the coherence or beliveablity of LDS picture of God as an exalted man before this particular encounter with Isaiahs comments on the matter. I was supposing that you did and found Isaiah a confirmation of your suspicion. I do not see anything wrong if that is the case. It seems natural enough to me.
Bcspace is following what seems a popular but to my mind bizarre stratagy of juggling the Isaiah. Way back when I was LDS I was taught the simpler idea that Isaiah was speaking only limited horizons of knowledge and did not have the resotration doctrine in mind. That makes more sense, relatively, to me. I can see fragments of older polytheism in the Bible but that polytheism is a diffent thing than LDS polytheism. All kinds of biblical scholars have seen those remains but very few put that together into believing the Bible teaches polytheism. Instead people usually see the Bible as moving away from it. But we know that the LDS believe the Bible is corrupt so may be read as itself moving away from the previous truth.
I do not think it works to try to proof text that idea out of existence. On the other hand if one suspects LDS theology to be garbled mess then you( or I ) might choose not to take the word of a person with many wives who claimed only one. .
I would say that it was the Holy Spirit prompting you and leading you out. Scripture was doing as it says in Heb. 4:12. I would suspect that at some point in the future, you may be prompted to revisit those verses. Maybe???
How so? The LoF chestnut is dead. What else you got?
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Last I checked, you had no answer to my response on the LoF.
That is simply because it is a waste of time. Your one liners are worthless really. The interchange got boring. But you mind is made up on this issue and I guess so is mine. I find your argument weak. One reason is I use to make a similar argument as you do but I saw the weakness of it so I abandon it. It is clear that the Lectures mean. If you want to spin it to mean something that came later more power to you.
However there is no limit to the preztel contortions LDS apologist can go through to say Isaiah is experessiing thre belief in many gods when he speaks of God knowing no other god.
No contortions necessary. The doctrine simply must conform not only with the Isaiah chapters but also with verses like John 20:17 and Deut 32:7-9 etc. The Bible clearly teaches the plurality of Gods.
I thought Mormons denied to be polytheists. Are you disputing this?
For what reason did you think your post would bring ridicule your way, KA?
Maybe something like bcspace's smug accusations of KA's "sin" and biblical illiteracy?
From experience, I tend to take these exit stories with a huge grain of salt. There are more excuses than truth.
Yes, bcspace has us all nailed. We are all liars engaging in willful self-deception to excuse away our lust for sin.
One more data point that what we're dealing with here is an ignorant nincompoop!
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
However there is no limit to the preztel contortions LDS apologist can go through to say Isaiah is experessiing thre belief in many gods when he speaks of God knowing no other god.
No contortions necessary. The doctrine simply must conform not only with the Isaiah chapters but also with verses like John 20:17 and Deut 32:7-9 etc. The Bible clearly teaches the plurality of Gods.
I thought Mormons denied to be polytheists. Are you disputing this?
You know Jason I suspect you have a good point there. Perhaps the best LDS reply to th Isaiah passage is to say their theology is one God in many persons. An expanded trinitarian view.
huckelberry wrote:Yes I am sure Isaiah 43:10 says, "before me no god was formed. nor will there be one after me. " because it is speaking of Jesus who became divine by receiving divinity from his father who received divinity from his father. I can see that is what it really means.
Orwell.
One needs to read the marginal notes along with the main text to understand what the manuscripts were saying on this particular point. Unfortunately, the church's new KJV version does not reproduce the marginal notes.
I just wanted to chime in here one more time to say that I almost always appreciate the threads you begin. They have to do with relevant real life matters, they're honest and I think there are lurkers out there who would benefit from knowing that they're not alone in what they're facing.