Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I am quite sure he was expressing how he feels about what he believes about himself and others.
Really, I've never seen Mike say anything to the effect that he's grateful he's more enlightened than the rest of us -- unlike Thoreau, who said almost exactly that. Mike may strongly believe that Catholicism is the Church Jesus Christ established as part of His earthly ministry, but I've never seen that conviction cross the line into condescension towards other people, or to be expressed as gratitude that he's on a higher spiritual plane than the rest of us, and that his views are impervious to public scrutiny.
Honestly? I don't care that much. But you were the one that "challenged" me to provide a quote. I linked to the document on the BYU web site.
At this point, it's over, as far as I care. Nothing more will be accomplished, I believe.
You're really something else, BF. Yes, you posted a link to a document, but that document never said what you're claiming it did. You even noted the page numbers where Joseph Smith supposedly said what Matt Slick attributed to him, but neither those pages nor any other pages of that document say anything about Mormon men believing they're going to get their own planet when they die. Matt Slick may say it's right there in black and white, but it's not! Are you seriously as clueless as you're coming across?
I said nothing bad about you, just that you are misguided. I am not the one standing on a pulpit for Church doctrines and see the Catholic Church as an instrument of God. From that exalted pedestal, anyone falling short is bound to meet with your disdain since you adhere to it as best you can. Am I wrong???
Obviously, Mike's going to think you are, and as an outsider looking in, I think you are, too. There's nothing wrong with having strong convictions. It's the "I'm so glad I'm not like the rest of you" attitude that Thoreau has that's so offensive. My gut feeling is that you just don't like Mike and are letting your personal feelings towards him color what he said.
Obviously, Mike's going to think you are, and as an outsider looking in, I think you are, too. There's nothing wrong with having strong convictions. It's the "I'm so glad I'm not like the rest of you" attitude that Thoreau has that's so offensive. My gut feeling is that you just don't like Mike and are letting your personal feelings towards him color what he said.
I have no animus toward Mike, but the Catholic Church has been responsible for an awful lot of evil. Okay, Katz, if I am wrong about Mike consider me appropriately chastised. But Mike does seem all too indoctrinated to Catholic dogma which intrinsically fosters a certain sense of superiority about the truth.
You're really something else, BF. Yes, you posted a link to a document, but that document never said what you're claiming it did. You even noted the page numbers where Joseph Smith supposedly said what Matt Slick attributed to him, but neither those pages nor any other pages of that document say anything about Mormon men believing they're going to get their own planet when they die. Matt Slick may say it's right there in black and white, but it's not! Are you seriously as clueless as you're coming across?
I challenged anyone reading my post to go and read the document he cited. I posted a link to it. I even quoted from it, showing that it says what he paraphrased the document to say.
But sure, ok. As I said...at this point it's really just not worth it.
But Mike does seem all too indoctrinated to Catholic dogma which intrinsically fosters a certain sense of superiority about the truth.
I take issue with your characterization of my declaring and defending what I believe to be true as "a sense of superiority". I don't believe I'm superior to anyone.
You've got your mantras (i.e. dogmas) that you repeatedly assert and defend. Would it then be right for us to accuse you of having a "sense of superiority"?
What I do believe is that the teachings, beliefs, traditions, dogmas, etc of the Catholic Church are TRUE, and indeed far superior in many different ways to anything else I've ever come across.
You are welcome to challenge these things as being either untrue or inferior; you're welcome to assert you own views of what you believe is True. I wouldn't accuse you of having a "sense of superiority" for doing that. I would just accuse you of actually believing something. Heaven forbid somebody actually believes something.
The LDS doesn't really appeal to me for a number of reasons, namely-
founder Joseph Smith had multiple wives and was killed in a gunfight which doesn't sound very holy to me.
Also we non-mormons are called 'fools' for thinking we don't need the Book of Mormon- "Whoever thinks the Bible is sufficient and infallible are fools" (Book of Mormon II Nephi 29:3-10)
I challenged anyone reading my post to go and read the document he cited. I posted a link to it. I even quoted from it, showing that it says what he paraphrased the document to say.
Do you know the difference between quoting and paraphrasing, BF? Obviously not. When you quote someone, you put their exact words in quote. When you paraphrase, you state what you thought that person meant to say but you don't use quotes. Jack slick took it to a whole other level. He paraphrased Joseph Smith's words (and did so very poorly, at that) and then had the audacity to attribute his (Jack Slick's) words to Joseph Smith, by putting them in quotes.
Quote:
But sure, ok. As I said...at this point it's really just not worth it.
Of course it's not worth it. You just got your ass handed to you, pal.
Do you know the difference between quoting and paraphrasing, BF? Obviously not. When you quote someone, you put their exact words in quote. When you paraphrase, you state what you thought that person meant to say but you don't use quotes. Jack slick took it to a whole other level. He paraphrased Joseph Smith's words (and did so very poorly, at that) and then had the audacity to attribute his (Jack Slick's) words to Joseph Smith, by putting them in quotes.
Of course it's not worth it. You just got your ass handed to you, pal.
Who is Jack Slick?
It's amazing the hatred you have for this man, and you can't even remember his name.
Did you look at the page I linked to on CARM? He didn't use quotes. He didn't suggest that he was actually quoting it. He paraphrased it.
The one that was quoted was from D & C 132:20. Google the reference and you get: "20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them."
Maybe you missed it, but on post 49 I posted directly from the "Teachings of Joseph Smith", quoted. I'll quote my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
You want to turn this into a "let's attack Matt Slick" game in order to sidetrack this discussion, ok. Sure. Go for it. That doesn't address the issue, though. Honestly. I don't get why you have an issue with the issue just being addressed. But bashing Matt Slick for quoting from an LDS source does not change the facts. No matter how much you hate the evil Matt Slick.
Have you checked the citation? I did.
Katzpur: I bear no ill will toward you. If this is out of context, let's talk. Just own it. It's not bashing to discuss honestly what your church's founder said.
I found this: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder
heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent15 today, and the great God who holds this
world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds16 and all things by his power, was to make himself
visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form17—like yourselves
in all the person, image, and very form as a man;18 for Adam was created in the very fashion, image
and likeness of God,19 and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him,20
as one man talks and communes with another.21"
Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God;9 and you have got to learn how
to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God,10 the same as all Gods have done before
you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one;2
from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead,
and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned
in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me
Again...if your church has historically taught it, just own it. Admit it. Let's move on. Not sure why you're so hesitant to say it.
The LDS doesn't really appeal to me for a number of reasons, namely-
founder Joseph Smith had multiple wives...
as did many Old Testament prophets.
Quote:
...and was killed in a gunfight which doesn't sound very holy to me.
Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob of roughly 200 people. That hardly constitutes a "gunfight."
I will agree with you, though, that murder is not "holy." Jesus was also killed by a mob. Does that mean Christianity is flawed?
Quote:
Also we non-mormons are called 'fools' for thinking we don't need the Book of Mormon- "Whoever thinks the Bible is sufficient and infallible are fools" (Book of Mormon II Nephi 29:3-10)
Like BaptistFundie, you seem to be a little bit confused as to when quotes are appropriate and when they aren't. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it say, "Whoever thinks the Bible is sufficient and infallible are fools." Verses 7 and 8 of the passage you mentioned actually say, "Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.
Personally, I do believe that only a fool would presume to put a gag order on God. If God wants to speak to more than one group of people, He certainly shouldn't have to put up with our concluding that He has no right. The Bible itself says that if all of Jesus' words and actions had been recorded, they would more than fill all of the books in the world. You are entitled to believe that He said nothing of substance that is not found in the Bible, but the Bible certainly doesn't make that claim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But Mike does seem all too indoctrinated to Catholic dogma which intrinsically fosters a certain sense of superiority about the truth.
