Tuesday, October 14, 2008

In a comment on my post about the heretical hymn "Praise to the man" , Mormon Heretic claims that a recent article in Christianity Today supports or at least suggests support for the mormon doctrine of exaltation. Here is part of the comment:

The article goes on to quote Athanasius and Irenaeus, as I did in my blog. Some key scriptures it points to regarding deification (or mingling with gods, as the mormon hymn points out) are:

John 10:34
Romans 8:291
John 3:2
Gen 1:26
Gen 3:5
1 John 1:5

Now I freely admit that mormons view of exaltation isn't 100% the same as deification. However, the similarites are striking, enough for me not to worry about this hymn you find so troubling.

Do these verses support mormon exaltation?

How about John 10:34. OK, that one is just silly. This is what John 10:34 says: Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? The quote is from Psalm 82:6 but look at the context of the verse by adding in verse 7...

I said, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince." (Psalms 82:6-7) Like other men you will die. The "gods" spoken on here are the human judges over Israel, who die like any other man. Then look at the full context of John 10:34:

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken-- do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." (John 10:34-38)

So what we see is quite contrary to deification. The "gods" spoken of are mere men, magistrates over Israel compared to Christ who IS God. Not only does it not support deification, it also shows that Christ is God.

What about Romans 8:29?

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Romans 8:29)

We here we see a different Biblical doctrine being brought forth, the doctrine of adoption ( in conjunction with the doctrines of election and predestination, which are unexplainable in mormon theology). Adoption tells us that by faith we are adopted into the family of God. A child that is adopted into the family is not genetically a family member, but is brought legally into a family. In the same way, we are adopted by God into His family. That doesn't make us gods, but rather brings us into familial fellowship. Look a few verses earlier in Romans 8...

And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Romans 8:23)

We do not have to be gods to be adopted by God!

Surely 1 John 3:2 must support exaltation? Or does it?

Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

Why are we like God? Because we will have our own worlds? Because we share his attributes? No, because we will see Him for who He is. That is all it promises, we will see Him as He is whereas now we see through a glass darkly. Again, this speaks of adoption not exaltation.

Genesis 1:26 doesn't even make sense.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Genesis 1:26)

We are made in His image, not in His nature. He created us and He is uncreated. We are sinners and He is perfect. He is eternal and we are not. Being made in the image of an eternal, perfect being doesn't make us gods. It makes us creations.

On to Genesis 3:5. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5)

OK, first you are using something Satan says to support your argument. Second, why are we like God? Because Adam and Eve, who did not know good and evil, now DO know good and evil (they knew they were naked and were ashamed) They are clearly not godlike, they lived and died like anyone else. What they did have however was a knowledge of good and evil, as God does, which doesn't make them like God in nature and in fact led to their death.

Finally 1 John 1:5. I am not sure what you mean by this, I think you referenced the wrong verse because 1 John 1:5 reads: This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5). Not sure how that supports your argument.

Just listing a bunch of verses is not an argument. This is why you need to read the Word completely and in context. Prooftexting is always a dangerous thing. When examined in context and read clearly, none of those verse support exaltation, and in several cases show just the opposite.


Mormon Heretic said...

Fo Mo

It is against copyright for me to post the entire article from Christianity Today. Please don't preach to me about taking things out of context. I tried to give you a snapshot of the article, and it is you who are taking things grossly out of context.

If you would like me to send you the whole article, send me an email at mormon heretic at gmail dot com, and I will get you a copy of the article.

Let me quote from my blog, which you obviously avoided quoting:

As Athanasius put it, ‘God became man, that man might become God.’ That’s theosis, or deification.

Well, that strikes the western mind as kind of a problematic way to understand theology and to understand the transforming effect of grace. The eastern mind though sees that as the real purpose of Christ coming into the world, to transform us that we become like him. In some ways, we can see that if we’re talking about union with Christ, or becoming more and more like Christ or becoming more and more like God. But in the eastern expression of theosis, it is stated so strongly that Christ became man, that we might become God that most western thinkers pull back from that. It sounds like a kind of heresy of some sort. I expect closer examination of the eastern idea of theosis, will reveal that the eastern theology doesn’t for the most part, go over the line, but it uses language that can be suggested of something that western Christians would want to avoid.


I found this interesting quote from St Ireneaus (who lived 130-202 AD.) He is considered a saint in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. “St. Irenaeus explained this concept in Against Heresies, Book 5, in the Preface, “the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”

So, please tell me your take on theosis. In your beliefs, is theosis a heresy, or part of salvation? Are the Eastern Orthodox Christians heretics too? Is the writer of Christianity Today a heretic for supporting theosis?

Now whether you believe in theosis or not, it is quite apparent to me that the early christian church didn't have the problem you seem to have. Perhaps I am mistaken in your position. Do you believe in theosis? If so, what does it mean to you? If not, why not?

Mormon Heretic said...

Let me quote Paul, in Philippians 2:6-7

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Christ didn't think it was robbery to equal with God, and Paul tells us "let this mind be in you."

I can quote more scriptures if you like and will put them back in context and quote early church fathers if you like.

Arthur Sido said...

"Please don't preach to me about taking things out of context."

Well it IS my blog, so I will preach to you about whatever I want!

Just kidding.

I didn't avoid quoting your blog, I just didn't read it. I have eight kids and reading time is somewhat limited. I would maintain that the verses you listed and that the writers of Christianity Today cite as a whole do nothing to support deification or even theosis. I hardly consider Christianity Today to be authooritative and in recent decades their standards of publication have bowed so deeply to ecumenism that the Christian identity of the magazine has fallen into question. CT is not authoritative for Christians in the way the Ensign or other church publications are for mormons.

I am not that well versed in Eastern Orthodoxy, but it clearly is outside of the scope of evangelical doctrine. Their emphasis on works, including what is apparently a form of baptismal regeneration, would place them into what I would classify as a church that is teaching a divergent Gospel. The Gospel is defined not by what the oldest churches teach, or what some early writers thought, or who has the biggest church or who has the fastest growth. It is defined by the Biblical record, what Christ declared and did and what the apostles testified of. I would say that I always find it odd that mormons use the doctrines of churches that they claim are apostate to support mormonism, or quote atheists or muslims.

I would disagree with the most extreme versions of theosis, including mormon exaltation. What Athanasius said is not terribly relevant to me, because the Bible makes no indication that man becomes like God in nature. The Gospel is not that sinners, created beings become gods or even godlike, but that God sent His Son, who is God, and He took on flesh and made atonement for the sins of His people. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that through Him we may be made the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21) Jesus Christ came to save sinners (1 Tim 1:15), not to make created beings into little gods.

Arthur Sido said...

"Christ didn't think it was robbery to equal with God, and Paul tells us "let this mind be in you."

I am not sure which translation you used, but this is how it reads in the ESV, looking at aa bigger swath of Scripture to get the point of what Paul is writing:

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.(Philippians 2:5-11)

That is quite a leap to suggest that Christ being equal with God, because He is God, is the same as us seeking to become like God. The point here is to keep these things in mind about Christ, who humbled Himself to take on flesh so that He could save His people. See below in Hebrews:

Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2:17)

Christ came down to us because we could not go up to Him. Man is unable to become like God, so God sent His Son to become like us, so that through Him we could be saved and so He could fulfill the role of High Priest (the singular High Priest, there is one and only one High Priest and one and only one priest after the order of Melchizidek).Paul is telling us to keep this in mind. In fact his is a call to humility, not to exaltation.

Mormon Heretic said...


Thanks for admitting you didn't read my blog. I didn't want to jump to that conclusion, but suspected you did not read it. Of course, I heartily recommend my blog, and encourage you read those 2 particular blog posts, perhaps on a weekend when you're not chasing your kids. :)

You seem to have a poor view of any denomination which is not your own. I feel a little better that you don't look down upon just mormons, but you look down on many other denominations as well. At least you are consistent. I would encourage you to be a little more tactful, but your candor is refreshing too. From your comments, you seem to imply that Eastern Orthodox are guilty of rank heresy too, so at least mormons have some company. :)

It doesn't seem that you really want to debate theosis/exaltation, so I'll refrain. My main point was to illustrate that mormons are not the only denomination to believe this rank heresy. I think I have succeeded in that regard. Of course, you believe theosis is not biblical, and on that point we will disagree. I could engage in a Bible Bash, but I don't really see the point. I'd rather respectfully say I disagree with your position, and that I am confident that the bible does contain scriptures supporting theosis/exaltation.

I never quite understand why non-mormons have a problem with mormons quoting heretics. I am positive you are familiar with the mormon idea of "apostasy." If the original church fell away from the true teachings of Christ, of course mormons are going to quote the heretics who "had it right." Mormons claim to restore original teachings which have been lost or suppressed. We have never claimed to be "traditional" christians. It makes perfect sense to me that mormons support the heretics, not the traditionalists.

I am certain you support many of the traditionalist views, such as the non-biblical trinity. As a mormon, I would say that the Council of Nicea was a room full of heretics. Really, you and I have completely different views on who the heretics really are. Ok, I'm not here to debate the trinity, but hopefully you can understand my point, which is that the people you call heretics, we call orthodox, and vice-versa. And when I use the term "orthodox" I am referring to "straight-thinking" as the definition, not "traditional christianity".

Can you answer a few questions for me? I've always found "evangelical" to be a very generic term. Which denominations are considered evangelical, and which are not? Also, do you mind telling me your affilation?

Finally, I have just one minor rebuttal in regards to your final comment. "In fact his is a call to humility, not to exaltation."

"He that exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted;"

As a "good mormon". I quote KJV, but I must say that I like other versions better--which is why I'm a heretic! :)

Arthur Sido said...

"It doesn't seem that you really want to debate theosis/exaltation, so I'll refrain."

What ever gave you that idea? That is precisely the sort of thing I want to look at. I am not all that interested in the Eastern Orthodox view of theosis, this is the Fo-Mo Chronicles, no the Fo-E-Orth Chronicles. What I am concerned with is what the Bible says and comparing that to what mormonism teaches. Indeed, inspired by you I am working on a blanket post regarding deification and the accompanying issues.

As far as this question:

"Can you answer a few questions for me? I've always found "evangelical" to be a very generic term. Which denominations are considered evangelical, and which are not? Also, do you mind telling me your affilation?"

I don't per se refer to any denomination as "evangelical". Most mormons overemphasize the visible church: This organization is the true church, that is not. The "church" consist of all born-again believers in Jesus Christ, regardless of denomonation. I am a Baptist by conviction, but there are members of Baptist churches who are not saved and therefore not in the church. There are certainly people who are saved and as such are Christians in all sorts of denominations, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, even in Roman and Orthodox churches.

Have to get back to work, I will deal with your other comments presently.

Mormon Heretic said...


Your introduction says your aim is "to witness to current mormons about the errors of mormonism and the truth of Biblical Christianity."

You don't really seem interested in trying to understand mormons. As such, a debate seems futile. You seem more interested in spouting your point of view, than truly debating the issue. You denigrate mormons, Eastern Orthodox, non-saved Baptists, Christianity Today, and anybody who does not agree with your point of view.

Now I'll admit, I am new to your blog, but I have never heard you once say something positive about a person or denomination that holds a different point of view. Maybe if I get to know you better, I'll see a little more compliments from you for people of different opinions, but at this point, I'm afraid debating with you is not going to be very fruitful. You've got your mind made up, and I don't really see us coming any closer to a consensus on the issue.

You know it all, so what is there for you to learn? I would hope that a true debate would allow us both to learn, but I don't think that you share that point of view. Hence, any debate that we might have is really just an argument, and I'm not really interested in arguing religion. However, I do enjoy sharing points of view respectfully, with the intent to understand other points of view.

I find it funny that you are so quick to dismiss Eastern Orthodox and early church fathers, yet you admit you know virtually nothing about them. (Most mormons dismiss other denominations just as quickly as you have, so it appears mormonism has rubbed off on you, but I don't think that is something you should be proud of.) I'd rather debate someone with a little more humility. Even though you preach humility, you certainly seem to be exalting your intelligence, while admitting at the same time that you don't know everything. Don't you see the paradox here?

It is ironic to me that you don't even want to read the article from Christianity Today. You already know it is wrong, so I guess there's no use reading such garbage. You obviously have nothing to learn from them or me.

P.S. Can you check my question on the other blog post about the missionaries?

Arthur Sido said...


"You don't really seem interested in trying to understand mormons."

I think I understand mormons pretty well, and mormonism even better. Just because I don't agree with mormonism doesn't indicate ignorance of mormonism.

"Now I'll admit, I am new to your blog, but I have never heard you once say something positive about a person or denomination that holds a different point of view."

Actually my best friend is a Presbyterian, as is the man I consider the wisest saint I know. I have books on my shelves from all sorts of people, of all sorts of denominations: baptist, lutheran, anglican, presbyterian, reformed, even a couple of charismatics! This is a new blog for me, my other blog contains all manner of other stuff. This blog is a way for me to write about mormonism exclusively.

I really don't see where you find an unwillingness on my part of debate and discuss. I love talking about what the Bible teaches, and I want this to be an open forum. I don't moderate comments and will not remove or edit comments unless something crosses a boundary. I actually read CT every now and again when there is an article I find interesting, as I do with articles in places like First Things which is a Roman Catholic publication.

I would certainly welcome a chance to discuss things as you feel inspired to do so. As I said, my focus is on comparing the teachings of mormonism and the teachings of the Bible, but I also make no secret that my agenda is to see mormons hear the Gospel and if it is God's will have them come to faith in Christ. Your comments are welcome here at any time.

Mormon Heretic said...

Arthur, I did not mean to imply you are ignorant of mormonism; the opposite is true of my opinion. On the other hand, you do seem to have completely rejected exaltation, and I am surprised that you find it completely unbiblical. I would expect you to be more open to the idea of exaltation/theosis, even if you don't agree with it.

I can see that we come at religion from 2 different perspectives. While your blog is devoted exclusively to mormonism, my blog is open to pretty much everything: Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Mormonism, etc. I try to find the good in all of them, while I feel you have no desire to acknowledge good in anything else. Proclaiming "errors of mormonism" is inherently negative.

Your blog just strikes me as inherently negative, towards all denominations, with a special emphasis on Mormons. I guess that is my biggest problem with participating here, is that I feel a lack of respect for my position.

I'm glad you have protestant friends. If you would have read my blog post, you will notice that the italicized quote in my 1st comment on this post is from a Presbyterian Seminary. Frankly, I love the podcasts they provide, and my scripture study has been greatly enhanced by them. Sure, I'm still a mormon, and have no plans to change, but that doesn't mean I can't learn from them, and respect their opinions. I'm just not seeing much respect from you for different opinions here. Showing me the "errors of mormonism" is inherently disrespectful; this is the reason for my hesitancy to debate/argue with you. I really feel is will be more of an argument than a debate.

Arthur Sido said...


Sorry to take so long getting back to you, I was at a theology conference Friday and Saturday so things have been busy...

"I can see that we come at religion from 2 different perspectives. While your blog is devoted exclusively to mormonism, my blog is open to pretty much everything: Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Mormonism, etc. I try to find the good in all of them, while I feel you have no desire to acknowledge good in anything else."

Well, yes this blog IS exclusively devoted to mormonism, I just said that in the prior comment. I have another blog I have been writing on since 2004, http://thesidos.blogspot.com/ , that covers al sorts of stuff from religion to politics to sports. The whole point of this blog is to specifically address mormonism.

I don't find any ultimate good outside of Christianity. They may have some world trappings that are positive, but they deny the true God and His Son. As such I have no interest in finding the good in them. That is like Elijah trying to find the positives in Baal worship or Moses seeking the upside of the golden calf. That sounds harsh to the ears of Americans in 2008, but where do you get the idea that God is interested in us "finding the good" in religions that deny His revealed truth?

Arguing, conversing, debating, whichever, you are welcome to comment here!

Mormon Heretic said...

No thanks.

Perhaps when you truly become a disciple of Christ and quit antagonizing everyone who disagrees with you, then we can talk.

Blessed are the peacemakers. You, my friend, are not a peacemaker. You are hateful, and Christ would be embarrassed by you, as am I.

Good luck stamping out mormons. I'm afraid your rhetoric will tick off as many, if not more people than you think. How does that phrase go, something about flies and honey? I suppose you like vinegar more. Well, good luck. I'm tired of the vinegar here.

Did you learn anything about being Christlike in your theology conference? If you did, I don't think it took.

Arthur Sido said...

So this boils down to "You're a meanie, I am taking my ball and going home" This in spite of the fact that you have an open forum to debate/discuss/argue as you wish, but you clearly are both unwilling and unable to deal with the issues.

Frankly I am disappointed. If you think being a peacemaker means ignoring heresy, you need to get beyond the postmodern platitudes about who Jesus is and read His Word. Jesus, Peter, Paul didn't pull any puches when it came to proclaiming Christ as Lord and when declaring other beliefs to be false. Among believers there is room for debate and discussion on some ancillary issues, but mormons don't fall into the category of believers. The Gospel command and example is clear, when faced with a false belief we are to show from the Scriptures that Jesus Christ is God and He alone can atone for the sins of sinners, and that any other belief is a damnable error that leads people on the wide path to hell.

If you think debating means I agree that you are right, then you are clearly correct in taking your ball and going home. If you want to debate the issues around mormonism, you are again welcome to post here but I would ask that you a) read what I wrote before responding and b) read my responses to your posts before replying. I pray that God changes your heart, as He changed mine, so that you will turn from your idolatrous self-reliance and come to a saving knowledge of Christ.

Mormon Heretic said...

Jesus didn't pull any punches regarding the Pharisees self-righteousness either. He embraced those sinful Samaritans. If I were to categorize us, you would be a damnable Pharisee, while I would be a sinful Samaritan, but hopefully a Good Samaritan.

You are unbelievably prideful and self-righteous. You see the mote in my eye, but the beam is completely invisible to you in your own eyes.

If you want to talk about these issues respectfully, you will note that I debate lots of people who don't agree with me on my blog, but I don't comdemn them all to hell like you do. I enjoy alternate opinions without denigrating the people or their beliefs.

Yes, I'll take my ball and go home, but if you want to play by more respectful rules, then come visit me on my blog. You only want to play on a blog where you are the chief judge, which ensures you will win any argument. You don't dare come debate issues where you might lose.

Who wants to play with someone who has a 2-sided coin and they get to call heads every time? Not most people.

Pip said...

Wow, Mo-He turned sour real fast didn't he? Yikes...

I agree Arthur, there's no point in noting "the good" in other religions if no one is saved by them! Mo-He said "I don't comdemn them all to hell like you do" and I have to point out that it is actually the Bible that does that, not Arthur. "No one comes to the Father except through Me"

I mean really, "you're hateful...self-righteous...unbelievably prideful (I love that one, btw).." and you continually assert how you are 'better' than Arthur because you 'don't denigrate others' beliefs. Judge not, lest you be judged by the same standard, my friend. And if you are a sinful Samaritan, Jesus doesn't care if you're a Good Samaritan, he only cares if you love Him and know that He is the only Way and the Truth.

I get the feeling that you (Mo-He) haven't read Arthur's bio, especially with comments like "you don't really seem interested in trying to understand mormons". Well, best of luck and I pray that someday you truly accept the real Jesus of the Bible as your Savior, and the ONLY way to reach heaven.

Arthur Sido said...

"You only want to play on a blog where you are the chief judge, which ensures you will win any argument. You don't dare come debate issues where you might lose."

Huh? What rules? I mean it IS my blog, but again I don't moderate comments, don't delete them and allow anonymous comments. I guess short of letting you post without rebuttal, I am not sure how much more fair I can be. You haven't debated a single thing I have said, you have just complained about my pride and hate and failed to deal with anything I posted. You seem a lot more interested in debating about my personality than you do with dealing with anything I have posted.

Mormon Heretic said...


"Mo-He turned sour real fast didn't he?"

I'm just reflecting what I see here--a sour blog, using the Bible to bludgeon people. I don't think that's what Christ intended.

And please, this blog is all about judging people. Perhaps I am guilty too, but you guys are judging entire groups of people without even attempting to be fair.

Please, I have already called myself sinful. But you guys are all perfect. Didn't Christ say "Why callest thou me good? There is none good, but the Father." However, you all seem to be proclaiming how good and saved you are. Seems like a pretty big contradiction here.


"You seem a lot more interested in debating about my personality"

Glad you got the message. First, become a true disciple of Christ, and then we can debate the theology issues. You haven't an ounce of Christianity in your personality. Read the Good Samaritan again, or when Christ didn't condemn the adulterous woman from the Pharisees, and become more like that ideal of Christ. Instead you are the one who is happy to pick up the first stone.

Sorry, I don't intend to keep getting bludgeoned. But I do want to point out the beams you can't see. Is it still invisible to you? Are you a sinner? Do you see any of your sins on this blog? If not, you are definitely a lost cause.

Arthur (aka Pharisee), got any rebuttals? Are you more like a Pharisee, or a Samaritan?

Arthur Sido said...

My sins on this blog? Such as? Not agreeing with you? I wasn't aware that was a sin. Referencing the Word of God to support my claims? I am pretty sure that isn't a sin either.

Let me assure that I am painfully aware of how great a sinner I am, and by extension how great a Savior Christ is to have saved me in spite of my sins. You apparently haven't actually read anything I have written, so I guess I shouldn't expect you to recognize that. Being saved is not about how "good" I am. I am not sure why I am bothering to try to explain this to you if you won't even interact with what I am saying.

It seems far more likley that you refuse to debate the issues at hand because you cannot. Defending the indefensible is a lot harder than calling me names. You make grandiose claims proclaiming the depth of your scholarship, and when I invite you to present your position you retreat into name calling. At least you haven't thrown out the "There is a spirit of contention on this blog" line yet.

Mormon Heretic said...


I have already outlined your complete lack of respect, and you have defended it with some sort of lame Biblical presedent with the early apostles. If you can't see this disrespect as a sin, there is no need to debate anything, because our points of view are so divergent that it is pointless. It will further devolve into a mudslinging match.

Are you still blind to the beam of disrespect in your eyes? (Please answer.) My guess you will keep your "meanie" (your terminology) dialogue. It is not a matter of "political correctness" as you say, but rather one of politeness and respect. You have no respect for me, so why should I pretend to have any for you, by dignifying any sort of debate with you? Besides, you didn't even bother to answer my pharisee/samaritan question, so you don't seem very interested in debate either.

You certainly seem aware of my disrespect of your opinions, but you have no clue of your disrespect for my conclusions. I'm tired of arguing.

Good day.

Arthur Sido said...

"Are you still blind to the beam of disrespect in your eyes? (Please answer.) "

Where am I being disrespectful to you? You haven't put forth any cogent positions, and your entire stance is that I am a mean person and you won't argue with me, but then you keep coming back and accusing me of being disrespectful and a Pharisee.

The issue at hand was supposed to be a refuting of the list of Scriptures you listed in defense of the mormon doctrine of exaltation. You haven't done a thing to show where my interpretation is wrong. You ignore what I write and accuse me of all manner of sins without providing any specifics.

Mormon Heretic said...

"Where am I being disrespectful to you?"

I've already answer that question, too many times to count.

Arthur Sido said...

"I've already answer that question, too many times to count."

You have only commented 9 times, surely that is not more than you can count. You can take your shoes off if need be.

(Now see, THAT was disrespectful!)

Mormon Heretic said...

Blessed are the Peacemakers, not the Antagonizers. I encourage you to work on your peacemaking skills. Unfortunately, you have mastered antagonism on this blog, which is why I won't engage anymore.

I pray that you may you be blessed with a spirit of peace and reconciliation.

Anonymous said...

Frorinsassy xaikalitag Quaguexorgelo [url=http://usillumaror.com]iziananatt[/url] bibSpootSed http://gussannghor.com Unrersefemo