Mormonism is polytheistic?

[RandFan]

If that were true, then you certainly would know better than to make some of the claims that you have made. For example, you would know that of the five enumerated statements that you have made here of alleged LDS doctrine, only one is correct.

? What in the sam hell are you talking about?

I made no such claims? Are you saying that the quotes are not true? Yes or no? What claims are you talking about?

• Take a deep breath.
• Take another.
• Slow down.
• Think, THINK about what I've actually written and NOT what you think I wrote.

Bob, if you want to be taken seriously then you've got to be intelectually honest. I made NO SUCH CLAIMS!

Your last claim, in particular, is disturbingly incorrect. It implies that we assume every word every spoken by any prophet or other high-level leader to be doctrinally authoritative, and it is on this basis alone that you represent the remaining three points as LDS doctrine.

There you go again. I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM!

I quoted a church authority.

Nobody is a “mouth piece of God”. Nobody. A prophet is one who receives instruction from God, which he passes on to the rest of us. But this does not deny him the capacity to hold, express, and even publish beliefs of his own. There is a specific process by which revelation is authenticated and established as doctrinally authoritative. Anything which has not been established through this process is not doctrine.

When shown that this was wrong in another thread you simply ingored the facts. Will you do that again?

If you had the background that you claim to have, then you would know this; and you would understand that several of the points that you have claimed to be doctrine, not having been established through this process, are not doctrine at all.

You are being dishonest? When did I "claim" something to be doctrine?

My post was specifically to point out the beliefs of Church members and prominent authorities in the Mormon Church and the inability or unwillingness for the Church to correct or address them. It is disengenous of you now to simply attack me with words I intentionaly did not use and claims I did not make.

• I made no claims.
• I made no claims.
• I made no claims.

Is that getting through?

 

[Jackalgirl]

Aw! Don't worry, you can be my goddess any day.

What a sweetheart. I shall let you live when I become Goddess.

(Oh, wait, the whole "be subordinate to a man" bit turned me off. Sorry!)

; )

Seriously, tho, this is a very interesting thread. I'd be quite interested if Hal came back and corrected any issues with what Rob's explained, because it's fascinating (really).

Edited to add: oops, need to read through the rest of the posts before posting. I see Hal is, indeed, active. Interesting.

 

[RandFan]

What a sweetheart. I shall let you live when I become Goddess.

(Oh, wait, the whole "be subordinate to a man" bit turned me off. Sorry!)

; )

Seriously, tho, this is a very interesting thread. I'd be quite interested if Hal came back and corrected any issues with what Rob's explained, because it's fascinating (really).

Edited to add: oops, need to read through the rest of the posts before posting. I see Hal is, indeed, active. Interesting.

Who is Hal?

 

[RobRoy]

Who is Hal?

I'm going to assume Bob Blaylock, but so far he hasn't offered anything that contradicts what I've stated.

ETA: I did not say the above to enrage Bob Blaylock, or to make the claim that I am correct. My hand is still extended in friendship, and if Bob can show we're I'm wrong with supporting doctrinal evidence, I'm more than happy to learn from him, or anyone else, who has superior knowledge in this area. I'd rather learn to be right, than simply assume that I am. However, I have made no claims that are based on assumption alone, but rather my many years of study and close interaction with many LDS members.

 

[RandFan]

I'm going to assume Bob Blaylock, but so far he hasn't offered anything that contradicts what I've stated.

ETA: I did not say the above to enrage Bob Blaylock, or to make the claim that I am correct. My hand is still extended in friendship, and if Bob can show we're I'm wrong with supporting doctrinal evidence, I'm more than happy to learn from him, or anyone else, who has superior knowledge in this area. I'd rather learn to be right, than simply assume that I am. However, I have made no claims that are based on assumption alone, but rather my many years of study and close interaction with many LDS members.

Bob seems to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. I bear him no ill will. My posting style often riles people up but that's not my intention. It's something I've worked on for years and have yet to perfect.

There was another Mormon poster on this forum who was very nice and accommodating and very able to argue his positions even if those positions were often untenable (IMO). Not all Mormons see themselves as persecuted but those that do are very difficult to have a discussion with and impossible with someone like me.

 

[RobRoy]

Bob seems to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. I bear him no ill will. My posting style often riles people up but that's not my intention. It's something I've worked on for years and have yet to perfect.

Just for the record, I wasn't trying to compare myself with you, and if that's what came across, even inadvertantly, then I apologize. I find that your explanations are generally in line with my own understanding of the LDS faith, and a reasonable, logical, informed answer to questions posed.

There was another Mormon poster on this forum who was very nice and accommodating and very able to argue his positions even if those positions were often untenable (IMO). Not all Mormons see themselves as persecuted but those that do are very difficult to have a discussion with and impossible with someone like me.

Yes, I've had discussions with LDS members who were very willing to open up and answer questions without taking umbrage where none was intended.

 

[RandFan]

Just for the record, I wasn't trying to compare myself with you, and if that's what came across, even inadvertantly, then I apologize. I find that your explanations are generally in line with my own understanding of the LDS faith, and a reasonable, logical, informed answer to questions posed.

No need to apologize. I only note that I wish I could develop a style that was a bit less provocative. I note it simply because I find your style less confrontational and I very much appreciate your honest intention not to agitate. I don't see Mormons as the enemy. I don't care for that kind of black and white thinking. From time to time I go on anti-Mormon forums and defend Mormons. Not their beliefs but I defend the people. I really do. Mormons are humans like any other group. Nearly everyone I know and love are Mormon. Just because they are Mormon doesn't make them inherently flawed and there are many good traits about them. It's just that their religious beliefs are demonstrably wrong.

Yes, I've had discussions with LDS members who were very willing to open up and answer questions without taking umbrage where none was intended.

My mother and I have some great discussions. I'm really happy we can love and respect each other and disagree.

So I guess the purpose of my post to you was actually to thank you and agree with you. I just did it poorly.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Who is Hal?

Er, yes. I meant "Bob". It's been a long week. : (

 

[Lonewulf]

Er, yes. I meant "Bob". It's been a long week. : (

I'm sorry, I can't do that, Jackalgirl.

(This joke would be far better if there was something for me to actually refuse doing)