In article <C5KDzK.497@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says: >     Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to >     differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may >     not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith >     on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is >     truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.     I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing heresy.  I assumed that heresy meant a departure from orthodoxy, in which case generally accepted belief is indeed an important issue.  In this case, the definition of the word "create" is of great importance, since creation is the issue being discussed.  > >     Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created >     and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon >     belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to >     have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address >     and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the >     conclusion that you grant.    I should have said "given the Mormon belief."  If you disagree with the Mormon belief that creation is more a function of organization of eternally existent substance than one of ex nihilo creation, then that is the important point.  >     The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus >     is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS >     belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.    Correction: you interpret the Bible to mean something very specific by such terms.  >     The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is >     nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible >     says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God: >    It always cracks me up when anti-Mormons presume to tell Mormons what they believe.  Mormons do, in fact, believe that all people, including Christ and Lucifer, are children of God in the sense that we were all created (or organized or whatever) by Him.  We also believe that being "offspring" of God has a symbolic sense when applied to being spiritually "born again" of Him.  Thus the same word can be used to convey different meanings.  This is how language works, Robert, and it's why making someone an offender for a word is dangerous.   >     This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but >     rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read >     something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches. For <...> >     We first look to the Bible to see what it teaches. To discount, or not >     even address, what the Bible teaches because there are some groups that >     have differing views is self-defeating. To see what the Bible teaches, >     you have to look at the Bible.     On the contrary, Robert, it is not a red herring at all to show that those who rely wholly on the Bible cannot seem to agree on what it says.  You say that one must simply "look at the Bible" to see what it teaches, but centuries of people doing just that have sho0wn that no one is really sure what it says. Are we to believe that you are the only one who really understands the scriptures?  >     I find this rather curious. When I mentioned that the Mormon belief is >     that Jesus needed to be saved, I put forward some quotes from the late >     apostle, Bruce McConkie. The curious part is that no one addressed the >     issue of `Jesus needing to be saved.' Rick comes the closest with his "I >     have my own conclusions" to addressing the point.    Let me clarify this one more time.  You did not refer to the Mormon belief that Jesus needed to be saved, but rather to McConkie's belief in same.  We keep trying to point out to you that Bruce McConkie is not the source of Mormon doctrine, and you keep ignoring it. (see below)  > >     Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of >     Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't >     think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the >     issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this >     subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may >     certainly be.    On the contrary, Robert, if you are quoting McConkie's words as Mormon canon then the question of whether they are canon or not is of *great* importance.  The fact is that they are not.  Whether or not they indicate general Mormon belief would only be ascertainable by interviewing a large number of Mormons. > > >============================= >Robert Weiss >psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu