Dear Mormons

[Cow Poke]

Beyond these 3 things, I find Mormons holding varying theoretical opinions concerning how exaltation will work.

That's because it's yet another thing that Smith didn't quite think through.

[Sparko]

That's because it's yet another thing that Smith didn't quite think through.

Eggzakkly.

[Cow Poke]

Was Paul chosen by God?

I believe he was, yes. And after being called by God, there was obvious repentance and a complete consistent turnaround. Not so with Smith.

Didn't Paul describe that there was experience and knowledge about Heaven or the next life that he could not even describe?

Sure, but he didn't lay out a bunch of bungled conflicting theories, as did Smith.

You continue with the double standards. Also, consider article 9 of the LDS Articles of Faith:

And you can continue trying to compare Smith to REAL apostles -- he's gonna fall flat on his face every time.

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

The problem with that is not that God will reveal much more later, but that He did NOT reveal all that Smith claimed He did.

So, we can all understand that Mormons don't pretend to know everything.

I never assumed they did.

I think that this would be especially true of Eternal Life, something that is likely to be, in many ways, incomprehensible to us while in mortality.

-7up

I make no pretense of understanding everything -- or even a substantial part -- of eternal life. However, I do NOT make up stuff like "eternal sealings" which can be "canceled", but the whole family including children are sealed, then unsealed, and can be sealed to another father, and it gets so complicated that the only answer Mormons come up with is, in effect, "we'll let God sort that out".

Smith created some really screwy doctrines that simply did not come from God.

[Bill the Cat]

Well, I don't consider myself an atheist, so I guess I am.

Are you agnostic? Or do you positively affirm the existence of a deity?

Although I really don't see how my personal worldview affects the validity or invalidity of the points I made.

It doesn't. What it does do, like Ke said, is affect where you can post. We have rules that you agreed to when you signed up, and that is one of them.

[seven7up]

I make no pretense of understanding everything -- or even a substantial part -- of eternal life.

Thank you.


That is the correct answer. And thus you have demonstrated that you were attempting a double standard.


The rest of your posts were misdirection and an attempt to change the subject.


-7up

[carbon dioxide]

Become a God of a planet?
Seriously?You see no problem with that?

I think it would be worlds without number and not just a planet. Anyway if one believes that God is all powerful, why can't God bless us with being like him if that is his choice?

[Bill the Cat]

I think it would be worlds without number and not just a planet. Anyway if one believes that God is all powerful, why can't God bless us with being like him if that is his choice?

Because 2 "all powerful" beings is a logical contradiction.

[Cow Poke]

Thank you.

Why SURE!

That is the correct answer.

Of COURSE it is!

And thus you have demonstrated that you were attempting a double standard.

Nope. Not even a SMIDGEN of double standard.

The rest of your posts were misdirection and an attempt to change the subject.


-7up

Smith was a fraud, and the Book of Mormon is a product of his wild imagination. That speaks directly to the subject.

[Cow Poke]

Thank you.


That is the correct answer. And thus you have demonstrated that you were attempting a double standard.


The rest of your posts were misdirection and an attempt to change the subject.


-7up

Sparko!
When I click on the hyperlink at the end of my name in seven7up's "quote" of me in Post #35, it goes to something completely different than what he quoted me as saying.
This is not the first time this has happened.
Is there any way to tell if he's abusing the quote function, or if this is a bug in the system?

His quote says "I make no pretense of understanding everything -- or even a substantial part -- of eternal life."
But when you click on the hyperlink, it goes to "That's because it's yet another thing that Smith didn't quite think through."

I'm pretty sure that other quotes he has used of mine have gone to people OTHER than me.

And I want to be clear -- I don't think he's doing anything dishonest -- at worst, I would think he's a lousy quoter but it's possible there's a bug in the system.

[Bill the Cat]

Sparko!
When I click on the hyperlink at the end of my name in seven7up's "quote" of me in Post #35, it goes to something completely different than what he quoted me as saying.
This is not the first time this has happened.
Is there any way to tell if he's abusing the quote function, or if this is a bug in the system?

His quote says "I make no pretense of understanding everything -- or even a substantial part -- of eternal life."
But when you click on the hyperlink, it goes to "That's because it's yet another thing that Smith didn't quite think through."

I'm pretty sure that other quotes he has used of mine have gone to people OTHER than me.

And I want to be clear -- I don't think he's doing anything dishonest -- at worst, I would think he's a lousy quoter but it's possible there's a bug in the system.

I think he doesn't use the quote function the way it was intended.

[Cow Poke]

I think he doesn't use the quote function the way it was intended.

That's what I'm hoping.

Thanks, Bill

[Sparko]

7up. Stop trying to cut and paste the quote tags within your post if you are responding to more than one person. The first quote tag links back to the post you are quoting from. If that is from a post of mine, and then within that post you want to quote CP, and you copy the initial quote tag, it will link to my post again instead of CP's.

The quote tag is easy. Just select the text in your reply box, then click the cartoon quote symbol in the tool bar above and it will put the quote tags around the selected text. If you want to refer to a specific person as being who you are quoting, you can add their name in the first quote tag of that section like this [quote=Cow Poke]

[seven7up]

Because 2 "all powerful" beings is a logical contradiction.

If they are "one" in will and purpose; a harmony of mind, if you will, then it is not a logical contradiction. They will never use power contradictory to the other.

-7up

[Sparko]

If they are "one" in will and purpose; a harmony of mind, if you will, then it is not a logical contradiction. They will never use power contradictory to the other.

-7up

They would have to be one in essence. They would be one being. Gee it starts to sound like the trinity, huh?

But the LDS idea of exalting people to Gods would end up with an infinite number of Gods, all who are all powerful. Just can't happen.

[Bill the Cat]

If they are "one" in will and purpose; a harmony of mind, if you will, then it is not a logical contradiction. They will never use power contradictory to the other.

-7up

2 separate beings can not possess "all power" as that would means that neither is more powerful than the other. I think this sums it up:

If a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents were even possible, then possibly, at a time, t, some omnipotent agent, x, while retaining its omnipotence, endeavors to move a feather, and at t, another omnipotent agent, y, while retaining its omnipotence, endeavors to keep that feather motionless.

Intuitively, in this case, neither x nor y would affect the feather as to its motion or rest. Thus, in this case, at t, x would be powerless to move the feather, and at t, y would be powerless to keep the feather motionless!

But it is absurd to suppose that an omnipotent agent could lack the power to move a feather or the power to keep it motionless. Therefore, neither x nor y is omnipotent. This line of reasoning appears to reduce the notion of a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents to absurdity.

So, despite their "willingness" to cooperate in situations, the potential for non-cooperation exists, and the conundrum shows. For, if they lack the capability to disagree, then they are not "all powerful".