If you are unwilling, or can't add anything of value to the discussion of "Can Men Become Gods" - maybe you should be a good mormon, quit trying to derail, and gracefully exit this thread.

It's good to be able to change minds, but ... you and I aren't the center of the universe.

He who says the truth in the debate has won.

Absolutely! Of course, anyone could use this quote to support their own position.

Ok.

Now take the next step.

Figure out if you live in a reality where the truth forces everyone to believe it because it's the truth.

Open your eyes and observe a bit. See if that dog will hunt.

You mean like you're doing with this very post I've quoted?

If what you believe that caused you to post this is true, why are you trying to recruit people to believe what you do?

Agreed. It is good. But I still maintain my original contention that no one posting here is likely to have their mind changed based on the video.


ETA: Flashman, are you going full Matrix on us here?

Look at Fat Lil Kim in best Snow tea Korea.

Or even hollywood/social media puppets like Charlamame Tha god.

Why that motherfucker hasn’t been struck by lightning yet!!!

I’ve made peace with my spiritual beliefs. I am where I believe I should be. Been to who knows how many churches in the process though.

The context of "true believers" was set by the OPer. LDS would be excluded from that context.

It’s a Mormon bashing thread. He can’t outright say that it is, so he’s gaslighting people by saying “This isn’t Mormon bashing, it’s a discussion on if men can become gods”. Anybody with two brain cells however, can see this for what it is.

The matrix is wrong on philosophy.

We live in a world where something can be true and nobody will believe it, regardless of the evidence for or against it.

Thus the mere fact that people won't believe something says nothing about it's truth or falsity.  It just says people won't or don't believe.

... Man, people get touchy and defensive and act a bit scared when you get serious about these sort of topics.

I wasn't even headed that route.

Tanner was willing to step into the debating ring. He evidently didn't consider it a "LDS" bashapalooza.

Where's the bashing?

If someone's bashing - being a jerk about it for no good reason and to no good end - hit the report button.

I recall for a fact that we have mods on this forum who are borderline obsessive about defending mormonism, so you can bet if there were the slightest bit of that, this thread would get locked up and deep-sixed faster than an IRS agent jumping on a tax return.

That's how I see it. Having said that, every single Mormon I have known were sincere, good people.

As a Catholic I have a lot of respect for Dr White. He is serious and his exegesis appears to be well thought out. He appears to be the only Protestant I have come across who understands the depth and complexity of the Catholic Church, up to and including the issues with the current pope.

I said something like this in the other thread but I will say it this way here.

The issue is about the answer to the most important question there is:  "Who is Jesus Christ?"

The Mormon answer and the historically orthodox Christian answer are not compatible in ANY WAY other than the same "phrases" and words are used but have vastly different meanings.

Mormons believe ultimately that Jesus is a created being.  He is not eternal.  He is the "son of God who died for our sins on the cross and rose 3 days later".  But the problem is that the nature of the Mormon "Son of God" is a very different Christ from that of historical orthodox Christianity.  

Orthodox Christians define Him as the eternally preexistent one of the God head, the Son of God who has always and will always have ALL of the attributes of God who at a point in history became flesh for the purpose of being our perfect law keeper which qualified Him to be our perfect sin bearer.

John 1:1, 14
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Greek literally reads:  In Beginning the Word was in a continual state of being, and the Word was in a continual state of being with God, and the Word was in a continual state of being God.

That is NOT the Christ of Mormonism.

It doesn't matter who you call the son of God and who is on the cross if it isn't exactly how He is revealed in scripture.  

I just once in these threads would like a Mormon to be intellectually honest and admit that the Christ of Mormonism and the Christ of Orthodox Christianity are not compatible.  I'm not even going to say who is right or wrong.  

Just admit they are not the same.  I have had Mormon missionaries in my living room time and time again who will finally admit it but it is like pulling teeth.  My Mormon extended family, dad, and 3 siblings admit it.  

But for some reason on this forum the thread never lasts long enough for any of our fellow Mormon gun lovers to admit it.  Either they can't see it, they don't understand it, or they do understand it and just don't want to admit it.

Patrick

Francis's comments about conservatism on sixty minutes ...

I think we are going to see the loss of a lot of people in the RCC. He's packing out the instituioon and I cannot see them putting a ratzinger or JP2 in again. It's going to be a wild eyed ignorant leftist. Boston college RCC seems to be winning.

I had a good hard reflexive laugh at  franci's comment. It was so classically leftist-ignorant.

One of the first posts already described Mormonism as a “demonic fake gospel”. I fully expect to see more as this thread goes on. The last one made it ~20 pages, curious to see how long this goes on for.

James White believes there are elect infants and unelect infants. Those infants that God deems unelect will be damned for all eternity “as a demonstration of His glorious grace.”

James White is a sick man, he really believes in Infant Damnation. That statement was an attack on his personal beliefs, and not anyone else…unless you also believe in Infant Damnation.

We also got luciferian and satanic in there too.

(ETA: autocorrect)

In order for that to be bashing you have to be able to assign intent to it.

I happen to agree with that regarding what the words themselves mean. It destroys peoples souls and leads them off to hell, it is not good, and people need to be saved out of that belief.

The basher would say the exact same phrase, but not believe the last sentence I posted and would only be posting those three words to bludgeon people.

I don't believe this just because you say it.  I also know enough to say, I don't think you can provide a source for this, especially not an original source.  I've been down this road before.

It always has ended for me and for everyone who I have ever seen anyone go down it with... You know what. I don't have to say.  

You'll probably go there.


Yep ... already headed that route.

I beleive in election, double predestination, and I'm a supralapsarian.

Go on than.

Say it.

ETA: this is not my first rodeo. I know the lies that people beleive and how the dehuminzation is prefectly ok from the anti-side but somehow magically evil for the other side (and ironic because my side isn't dehumanizing anything).

Did the dead infants at the time of Noah's flood go to heaven? How about the dead infants of the Canaanite's. The dead infants in Egypt in the days of the 10 plagues?

You don't simply "win" these discussions,... ever.

I could be wrong, but it appears to me that Francis (and many of his cardinals) are scheming to change the very nature of the official Catholic Church. That is, as it has been handed down from Trent. I see him and his synodal model's end goal as becoming very similar to the (official) Anglican/Episcopal Church.

It will be interesting to see how long before he (or his replacement) start persecuting the SSPX. Although, perhaps he wants all orthodox Catholics to be forced to join SSPX parishes as a means of "corralling" us then marginalizing us... and maybe even eventually excommunicating us.

I see Francis (and his administration) as being to the Catholic Church what Biden and his administration are to the United States of America.    

What's your answer?

Mine is that all those infants (and all infants who die) went to heaven. Yeah, even the Egyptian and Canaanite infants.

Mormons don’t want to seem like they hold crazy beliefs so they try to downplay, gaslight, or bold face lie about some segments of their doctrine.

Here’s one of their beloved and supposed “prophets, seers, and revelators” who as the head of the Mormon church clearly understands the doctrine better than anyone else and according to Mormons is a direct conduit to god and continual revelation.




Now compare that to the correlated doctrine taught to Mormons. It is absolutely clear what Mormons believe but instead their top leader chose to “lie for the lord”. That is Mormonism. Everyone who is a faithful member of Mormonism will never tell you the complete truth because “milk before meat” and “death oaths” prevent them from doing so.


In case anyone actually believed Hinckley's carefully worded denial.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-5-the-grand-destiny-of-the-faithful?lang=eng

And of course there's always the chapter on Exaltation in mormon Gospel Principles.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

It would be welcome if you tried to support Tanner's position - so far every Mormon in this thread has only attempted to derail this discussion. Again, if you can't add anything of value to the discussion of "Can Men Become Gods", then exit this thread gracefully as a good mormon would.

To this outsider, it looks like vatican 2 already changed it, and francis along with others of his ilk are just the symptoms.  Also, the acorn to the oak where newman had to find a way to try and say there was continuity.

It's been a long time coming.

So God judge everyone of those infants, by flood, sword, and plague in this life, but in the next life they are saved? That's your position?

My position is that God saves all His elect. Who are the elect? Everyone that God has determined. Do I know who the elect are? No.

Please don't take this as some kind of attack or insult but I have followed James White over the years as his teaching has developed and I genuinely may have missed this but can you cite where he taught infant damnation?  I did not know this and I just did a bunch of searching and I can't find a citation for this.

He may really believe that, there are what I call "hard core" Calvinists who might say something like this but all the reformed folks I know believe that all infants die under the New Covenant.  

Patrick

I was just asking a simple tag along question.  

What I believe is for me, I am not trying to ask that anyone else does the same.  I do me, you do you.  

My religion doesn’t recruit, in the past we were either force coverts or killed.  

I believe all the things required for people who say stuff like him to try and slap you with that lie.

To the best of my knowledge, J.w. believes what I do on the topic: that we don't know who God saves or does not save regarding the unborn and those unable to make a profession of faith.

He could save them all, he could save none of them, he could save some and not others. We are not told.

... but it's easier and more emotion grabbing to whip out the slander and sling it around.

What's a "hard core" Calvinist? Someone who believes in original sin, and salvation of the elect?

No, matter of fact that hubris pisses the dear lord off

Every time a government puts someone in jail or executes them, even if it's because they stole and refused to repay, or if they wrongfully killed someone, that's the state forcing those beliefs on that person.

You can't have a worldivew and not recruit for it. It's not possible. If you believe something you will work against it's contradictory.

https://x.com/Soteriology101/status/1752698956948422968

Can’t find the older ‘90s clip I’ve seen from when he used to openly defend it.

Now James likes to slither around the subject because “making babies just to burn them in eternal hellfire for His glory” both doesn’t “sell well” and is not consistent with God’s nature as revealed through Christ.

It is the logical, theoretical end of a different religion…consistent Calvinism.

Those infants, like all infants, died free of sin.

Again, what's your belief on the eternal destiny of these infants?

What scripture says they were free of sin? If they were free of sin, did God wrong them by including them in His fierce judgement? Is it true...that the wages of sin is death? If so, why did they die at the DIRECT (in many cases) hand of God?

I edited the previous answer to include my position.

Babies doomed from the womb. Oof.

I believe is the inexhaustible mercy and grace of a loving God.

Not one that murders a two year old just to roast him for eternity.

Quit derailing this thread. Instead of attempting to attack and discredit the character of the debaters, lets discuss their arguments. What do you think about the debate between James White and Martin Tanner on "Can Men Become Gods"?

Ezekiel 28:15 and Matt 18:3 both allude to the sinlessness (is that a word?) of infants. Sadly, there is no direct Biblical mention of this doctrine.

God didn't wrong them. He can choose to take anyone from this Earth whenever he wants. They returned to God. Trying to argue that they died due to the wages of sin is death, is a non sequitur.

You didn't answer the question. You tried to weasel out of it. Every one of your responses is a question.

Let me use small words here: What do you (Tom) believe happens to these infants in eternity?

It's two hours, man. Things to do, meetings tonight, etm. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.

Hey, now - no need to pick on the proselytizing atheists.

It is not.

I am a consistent calvinist.

You're repeating a lie.

And I'm shocked, shocked I say, to find out that you couldn't find the source.

... and that you're linking soteriology 101.

Death is the sign of sin.

Our nature is broken from conception.

God cannot and will not accept people who have a sinful nature as people who do not have a sinful nature.

We do not know if God chooses to save the unborn or not. He straight up does not tell us. ETA: biblically, he can save them if he chooses to. That is consistent with election.

He would be morally right and good if he saved none of them, he would be morally right and good if he saved some of them and not others, and he would be morally right and good if he saved them all.

People whip out the infant thing because they are trying to sinfully manipulate people's emotions.

Not because they have a good argument to make.

That's a shame...you accuse me of "weaseling". I did give my position, but just so you don't accuse me of sin again. God saves the elect, God determines who the elect is, He knows His. Do I know who the elect are? No

As for the sinlessness of infants...that's borderline Pelagianism, if not outright Pelagianism.

Here read this...Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

Now do you want to make the case that the Psalmist wasn't talking about you or everyone else?

Enjoy your debate with the LDS. Since you accused me of sin, I don't think I need to watch that video tomorrow. I've heard James debate before, and agree with most of his views.

Two questions.

1. Why is this thread not in the religion forum?  Mods asleep?

2. How do you interpret Genesis 1:27?  “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

In what ways are we in the image of God?

We are God's irritated nerve endings.

Oh no, you're going to die! Someone is discussing something that isn't your religion in public! GASP!

We should know our place as morlocks and go hide from you!

An image is not the thing it reflects or is like. <---- baseline.

The image is that we have logic, we have language, we think, we plan, and we create. In a lesser reflection of the way God is and has these things. He *is* logic, he forms the basis for language and thinking, he plans, and he creates from no previous existing material. We cannot do those things and we are not the basis for those things.

The image has nothing to do with our bodies, because God doesn't have a body. God is spirit - non-material, not physical.