- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
Sorry Shawn, but I disagree with your conclusion. And that is okay.
Which conclusion?Shawn wrote:cwald wrote:Sorry Shawn, but I disagree with your conclusion. And that is okay.
Which conclusion?
Every one of them. Let’s just say that I also disagree. Completely. This is not a debating forum, and I’m not going to address your interpretation of Joseph Smith here. Let’s just say that Joseph had a wide variety of teachings on any given topic. Once Joseph Smith anthropomorphized god in saying that God was an exalted man and was once like us, and once he stated definitively that god was material, the creedal definitions of omni-whatever are gone forever.When you say that the Nicene creed is false, how is this so? do you know what makes it false?
You quote D&C 88:6. How is the idea of a god that is in and through all things consistent with section 131 and other LDS teachings about the corporality of God?
Let’s let this rest — you have taken a notion of what I have tried to do to help those struggling with the idea that god directs all affairs in the face of grave evil and turned it into an apologetic defense of the omni-whatever. The point of my post, “the God Within”, is to realize that regardless of whether or not there is a god ‘out there’, we have a god ‘in here’, even according to LDS scripture and doctrine, who is ‘not us’ in terms of our conscious mind, but truly deals with us day by day — and for the most part, is the only god with whom we have to do. And in knowing this, we can have a better understanding of our own path in this life — we are truly not alone, but truly have a constant companion. In your attempt to defend your concept of an omni-whatever, I believe my message of comfort is completely lost on you.
I can’t help you if your cup is full, and since you don’t seem to want to share with me in a way that edifies, then let’s just part at that.
Yes, this is not a site for debate, especially when more than one point of view can be backed reasonably by competing quotes. We will leave this thread open, but it will be closed if it continues only in a debate mode.
Old-Timer wrote:Yes, this is not a site for debate, especially when more than one point of view can be backed reasonably by competing quotes.
We will leave this thread open, but it will be closed if it continues only in a debate mode.
It is difficult to determine where a discussion becomes a debate.I came here and provided my views on the subject. I received responses that can easily be regarded as flippant: “uh, huh. Got it. Didn’t say that the father and son dwell in a man’s heart, now, did I?” and “I don’t need to hear the apologetic argument or interpretation of this scripture, thank you.”
I talked about some things that I know to be true, and was told that I, as a matter of fact, do
notknow those things: “even if you had a manifest revelation, and some body in a cloud of light and glory came to you and told you ‘I am Jesus Christ’, you still would not ‘know’ that he is such.” It was asserted that the God I believe in is “logically impossible,” that such beliefs were rejected by Joseph Smith as “the platonic heresy, the apostate view of an impossible god definition.” It was implied that when I “return to the creeds and the absurd, impossible definition of an omni-what-have-you god they embody, (I) deny the Living Christ.” My view was discounted as “an apologetic defense of the omni-whatever.”
After all of this, I am apparently the one who does not want to share “in a way that edifies.” Either way, I will be happy to provide an apology and make changes as needed.
shawn, thanks for sharing, no apologies necessary. I agree, shawn, that you don’t need to apologize – and it takes more than one person to debate. I didn’t mean anything in my comment to be directed at you specifically or individually; it was meant to be a statement about discussion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.