I find it strange

[James Banta]

That a religion that sends tens of thousands of children (calling them elders) on mission each years refuse to answer questions that are brought up about that religion.. So why when given a forum to state the truth and their reasons for faith do they turn their back on the opportunity? Oh well like the JW forum they seem to believe that we sit here and lie about them when all we really do is compare their religion to the Faith God has given us that exists only in His Son.. IHS jim

[theway]

That a religion that sends tens of thousands of children (calling them elders) on mission each years refuse to answer questions that are brought up about that religion.. So why when given a forum to state the truth and their reasons for faith do they turn their back on the opportunity? Oh well like the JW forum they seem to believe that we sit here and lie about them when all we really do is compare their religion to the Faith God has given us that exists only in His Son.. IHS jimPlease James.... No one here has ever even asks questions of the LDS.
If someone were to surprise me and actually ask a question, I'd be so shocked that I'm not sure what I would do?

[RealFakeHair]

Please James.... No one here has ever even asks questions of the LDS.
If someone were to surprise me and actually ask a question, I'd be so shocked that I'm not sure what I would do?

I got one, I got one. Were you begotten by your father in the same natural way the mormon jesus was begotten by his mormon father? PS a yes or no will do.

[James Banta]

Please James.... No one here has ever even asks questions of the LDS.
If someone were to surprise me and actually ask a question, I'd be so shocked that I'm not sure what I would do?

The question have been asked and ignored. Why does the LDS church teach that the Father has a body of flesh and bone when Jesus so clearly taught that He is Spirit.. That a spirit has NOT flesh and Bone.. Why do the LDS confirm and at the same time deny that the Father had sexual relations with Mary as Jesus was begotten in her womb? Why do the LDS cling to the teaching that there are three GodS with whom we have to do instead agreeing with God through His word that there is ONE GOD; that created ALL things visible and invisible? The same questions I have been asking for years. Questions I have never seen an answer to.. I doubt I will now.. You will again ignore the scripture that commands us to "Be ready to give everyone who asks an answer for the hope within you" (1 Peter 3:15).. That says anyone not just those you judge to be the true of heart. But what difference does that make you don't believe the Bible.. Jesus was no begotten of the Holy Spirit. He became a god after the Father was already God.. The Bible is not believable to the LDS is is only good to twist and modify to support the OTHER GOSPEL invented by Joseph Smith.. IHS jim

[theway]

Lets try a little experiment to demonstrate what I am talking about.


The question have been asked and ignored. Why does the LDS church teach that the Father has a body of flesh and bone when Jesus so clearly taught that He is Spirit.. That a spirit has NOT flesh and Bone as He has.. The LDS teach that the Father has a body of flesh and bone because of modern revelation.
Your belief that He does not is based on a mistranslation by most Bibles of the word ghost.
In reality that scripture says the exact positive of what you are contending, and actually supports the LDS.


Why do the LDS confirm and at the same time deny that the Father had sexual relations with Mary as Jesus was begotten in her womb? The LDS have NEVER confirmed that the Father had sexual relations with Mary.


Why do the LDS cling to the teaching that there are three God with whom we have to do instead agreeing with God through His word that there is ONE GOD; that created ALL things visible and invisible? I not sure I understand your question????
When you say the God that created all things, were you talking about the Father or the Son?


The same questions I have been asking for years. Questions I have never seen an answer to.. I doubt I will now..I have given you two plain answers.
I will make it three as soon as you clarify the third question for me.
In any case you can no longer say that a Mormon has never given you an answer.


You will again ignore the scripture that commands us to "Be ready to give everyone who asks an answer for the hope within you" (1 Peter 3:15).. That says anyone not just those you judge to be the true of heart. But what difference does that make you don't believe the Bible.. Jesus was no begotten of the Holy Spirit. He became a god after the Father was already God.. The Bible is not believable to the LDS is is only good to twist and modify to support the OTHER GOSPEL invented by Joseph Smith.. IHS jimLOL...
Remember when I told you the reason why I seldom read your posts further than the first sentence and gave you the reason why? It's because all your posts are exactly the same.

1. You start off with a meandering rant which seldom makes any sense.
2. You will then post a scripture which almost always is nothing more than a pla***ude, and which adds nothing to the discussion.
3. You'll then end with a "Joseph Smith was a bad man" statement.

Good to see nothing has changed and I can continue ignoring the vast majority of your posts and miss nothing of importance.

[RealFakeHair]

The LDS have NEVER confirmed that the Father had sexual relations with Mary.
LOL...
.

was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers." (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).

Maybe you can explain in what other natural way you were begotten of your father then the use of his talliewacker?

[nrajeffreturns]

was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers." (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).

Maybe you can explain in what other natural way you were begotten of your father then the use of his talliewacker?

THE BIRTH of Jesus was like all other human births were. There was a time when some Christians (such as the Gnostic ones, who believed that physicality was inherently evil) believed that Jesus was some kind of non-material being, because He was too holy to actually have been a real mortal. They believed that He created the illusion of physicality, and He just APPEARED to be a tangible person who grew up and walked and talked and had an actual mortal body. The LDS church was not, and is not ashamed to proclaim to the world that Jesus, the Son of God, really, truly was incarnated as a human baby and was born like other human babies are born, just like the Gospels teach. It wasn't an illusion.

You can be a sicko and interpret such a statement like a person whose mind is in the gutter would do, but that doesn't mean it's LDS doctrine. It's anti-LDS doctrine, in a way.

[RealFakeHair]

THE BIRTH of Jesus was like all other human births were. There was a time when some Christians (such as the Gnostic ones, who believed that physicality was inherently evil) believed that Jesus was some kind of non-material being, because He was too holy to actually have been a real mortal. They believed that He created the illusion of physicality, and He just APPEARED to be a tangible person who grew up and walked and talked and had an actual mortal body. The LDS church was not, and is not ashamed to proclaim to the world that Jesus, the Son of God, really, truly was incarnated as a human baby and was born like other human babies are born, just like the Gospels teach. It wasn't an illusion.

You can be a sicko and interpret such a statement like a person whose mind is in the gutter would do, but that doesn't mean it's LDS doctrine. It's anti-LDS doctrine, in a way.

It's laughable coming from a LDSinc. member calling a non-LDSinc. member (sicko) When it was Brigham Young, who brought up the subject. Maybe BYU should change its name to SBYU.

[James Banta]

[theway;148911]Lets try a little experiment to demonstrate what I am talking about.

This is not an experiment or a demonstration of anything other than your ability to disbelieve God's word..


The LDS teach that the Father has a body of flesh and bone because of modern revelation.
Your belief that He does not is based on a mistranslation by most Bibles of the word ghost.
In reality that scripture says the exact positive of what you are contending, and actually supports the LDS.

I am not going to use the word Ghost or even Spirit to try to explain this to you. I will only use the Bible..

Col 1:13-16
For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him

Are you going to be one that tells be that because God isn't standing right before me that He is invisible? If that were the case I am also invisible to you.. No, invisible doesn't mean that; it means that which can not be seen. Jesus then is the image of the God who can't be seen.. A body of flesh and bone is never invisible..

If I include the word Spirit (NUMA). Which you see fit to call a ghost which is more literally the word wind. Jesus used that word to tell us about the nature of God.. He later told His disciples that such a person has no physical body, no body of flesh and bone like His own.. So in context how is NUMA mistranslated as Spirit? Show me how the word "wind" works in those context where Jesus draws a line between those persons who have no body and those that do.


The LDS have NEVER confirmed that the Father had sexual relations with Mary.

When a doctrine is taught openly by the Prophet seer and revelator of the LDS church in Conference of that church. is that not confirmation? I don't see that it can be anything else.. It was taught by Young, in 1862 and in 1870, published in the JofD..

He [Jehovah] was the Son of our Heavenly Father, as we are the sons of our earthly fathers. God is the Father of our spirits, which are clothed upon by fleshly bodies, begotten for us by our earthly fathers. Jesus is our elder brother spirit clothed upon with an earthly body begotten by the Father of our spirits. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 2, September 28, 1862)

we actually believe that God the Father is our heavenly Father, that we are His children; and we believe that Jesus Christ is our elder brother—that he is actually the Son of our Father and that he is the Savior of the world, and was appointed to this before the foundations of this earth were laid. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, pp. 235-256, February 20, 1870)

In more modern times an apostle of the LDS church taught that:

God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says. (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742)

It would seem that the doctrine we read from the accounts of President Young continues in to the modern era when Elder McConkie was a central figure of the LDS church.


I not sure I understand your question????
When you say the God that created all things, were you talking about the Father or the Son?

Seems clear enough to me..
"Why do the LDS cling to the teaching that there are three Gods, with whom we have to do, instead agreeing with God through His word that there is ONE GOD; that created ALL things visible and invisible?"

I did add one s and a couple of comas for you.. Hope that helps..

As I said there is one God, that God is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. By the context of the verse it is clear that the Person of Jesus is the Person that actually preformed the creation. That doesn't mean the Father ans the Holy Spirit were not just as responsible..


I have given you two plain answers.
I will make it three as soon as you clarify the third question for me.
In any case you can no longer say that a Mormon has never given you an answer.

You have offered your opinion. When I asked for answers I did says those answers had to be Biblically based.. So what is your Biblical basis for your opinions.. Give me something that shows you are based in God's word not what you have been taught in Sunday school.. Sorry but you haven't even tried to answer my questions.. I will still say that on LDS poster here has ever answered one of my questions with the authority of the scripture..


LOL...
Remember when I told you the reason why I seldom read your posts further than the first sentence and gave you the reason why? It's because all your posts are exactly the same.

1. You start off with a meandering rant which seldom makes any sense.
2. You will then post a scripture which almost always is nothing more than a pla***ude, and which adds nothing to the discussion.
3. You'll then end with a "Joseph Smith was a bad man" statement.

Good to see nothing has changed and I can continue ignoring the vast majority of your posts and miss nothing of importance.

The truth is truth.. It doesn't change.. Thank you for seeing that my posts agree and follow God's example and they don't change either.. If stating God's word is the use of p l a t i t u d e s I will use p l a t i t u d e s. It using a p***age that teaches that God is invisible has nothing to do with a discussion about the nature of God then you again lack understanding, not just of me but of God's word..

Most of my post don't mention Smith at all other than to quote his teaching and compare them to the Bible.. When I speak about polygamy, the BofM, or the LDS attacks against the Christian Church, it is hard to leave his name out.. Just as what I have to endure from the LDS here as they attack Christianity though attacking the reformers.. IHS jim

[theway]

This is not an experiment or a demonstration of anything other than your ability to disbelieve God's word..



I am not going to use the word Ghost or even Spirit to try to explain this to you. I will only use the Bible..

Col 1:13-16
For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him

Are you going to be one that tells be that because God isn't standing right before me that He is invisible? If that were the case I am also invisible to you.. No, invisible doesn't mean that; it means that which can not be seen. Jesus then is the image of the God who can't be seen.. A body of flesh and bone is never invisible..

If I include the word Spirit (NUMA). Which you see fit to call a ghost which is more literally the word wind. Jesus used that word to tell us about the nature of God.. He later told His disciples that such a person has no physical body, no body of flesh and bone like His own.. So in context how is NUMA mistranslated as Spirit? Show me how the word "wind" works in those context where Jesus draws a line between those persons who have no body and those that do.



When a doctrine is taught openly by the Prophet seer and revelator of the LDS church in Conference of that church. is that not confirmation? I don't see that it can be anything else.. It was taught by Young, in 1862 and in 1870, published in the JofD..

He [Jehovah] was the Son of our Heavenly Father, as we are the sons of our earthly fathers. God is the Father of our spirits, which are clothed upon by fleshly bodies, begotten for us by our earthly fathers. Jesus is our elder brother spirit clothed upon with an earthly body begotten by the Father of our spirits. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 2, September 28, 1862)

we actually believe that God the Father is our heavenly Father, that we are His children; and we believe that Jesus Christ is our elder brother—that he is actually the Son of our Father and that he is the Savior of the world, and was appointed to this before the foundations of this earth were laid. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, pp. 235-256, February 20, 1870)

In more modern times an apostle of the LDS church taught that:

God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says. (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742)

It would seem that the doctrine we read from the accounts of President Young continues in to the modern era when Elder McConkie was a central figure of the LDS church.



Seems clear enough to me..
"Why do the LDS cling to the teaching that there are three Gods, with whom we have to do, instead agreeing with God through His word that there is ONE GOD; that created ALL things visible and invisible?"

I did add one s and a couple of comas for you.. Hope that helps..

As I said there is one God, that God is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. By the context of the verse it is clear that the Person of Jesus is the Person that actually preformed the creation. That doesn't mean the Father ans the Holy Spirit were not just as responsible..



You have offered your opinion. When I asked for answers I did says those answers had to be Biblically based.. So what is your Biblical basis for your opinions.. Give me something that shows you are based in God's word not what you have been taught in Sunday school.. Sorry but you haven't even tried to answer my questions.. I will still say that on LDS poster here has ever answered one of my questions with the authority of the scripture..



The truth is truth.. It doesn't change.. Thank you for seeing that my posts agree and follow God's example and they don't change either.. If stating God's word is the use of p l a t i t u d e s I will use p l a t i t u d e s. It using a p***age that teaches that God is invisible has nothing to do with a discussion about the nature of God then you again lack understanding, not just of me but of God's word..

Most of my post don't mention Smith at all other than to quote his teaching and compare them to the Bible.. When I speak about polygamy, the BofM, or the LDS attacks against the Christian Church, it is hard to leave his name out.. Just as what I have to endure from the LDS here as they attack Christianity though attacking the reformers.. IHS jim
Really James???
You do realize that I already just told you that I have no intention of reading anything you write?
My life is not that empty that I need to fill it with the boring diatribe of an Apostate... Sorry you wasted your time.

I only posted to prove my point that nobody here asks questions.

To ask a question means that you seek an answer; nobody here cares one wit about an answer to their question, or about the truth.
Anti-Mormons "question"; there is a big difference.
This means that any question they ask is rhetorical; they believe they already have the correct answer to the question so they pretend to ask questions in order to try and trip you up, or make you "question" what it is you believe.
This is what lawyers do... The number one cardinal rule of any lawyer in court is NEVER ask a question that you don't already know beforehand how the person on stand is going to answer it.

And just like a Lawyer, it is not the real truth you are concerned with, it is merely trying to win by suppressing the other guys truth.

I stopped playing that game with you guys years ago because I saw the futility of it... I am here only for the entertainment value. And believe me.., the silly rantings of Anti-Mormons is very entertaining.
I told you guys from the very beginning.
Don't pretend you are going to school me on the Bible, the gospel, or my religion.
I know every quote and move you are going to make because I am always three steps ahead of you. This is why it is not necessary for me to even read what you wrote.

[nrajeffreturns]

Theway has a point: It seems disingenuous for an anti to ask a fallacious "question" such as "Why do you cling to a religion that teaches nothing but lies?" and then wonder why no one will answer that question.

[RealFakeHair]

Theway has a point: It seems disingenuous for an anti to ask a fallacious "question" such as "Why do you cling to a religion that teaches nothing but lies?" and then wonder why no one will answer that question.

This may sound strange, I personally don't care if you cling to a religion of Joseph Smith jr. lies, I wished you didn't, but that's life. As to clinging to a religious bag over your head, and not admitting to facts such as Joseph Smith jr. being a sexual predator, and Brigham Young, teaching your mormon god having sex with Mary. That is a pet peeve of my own.
There is nothing of my faith I wish to hide or try and excuse away. I might differ from yours, but it is out in the open for every one to judge.
PS it does hurt my feelins if anyone doesn't read my writings.

[Billyray]

Theway has a point: It seems disingenuous for an anti to ask a fallacious "question" such as "Why do you cling to a religion that teaches nothing but lies?" and then wonder why no one will answer that question.
Why do you say that it is a "fallacious" question?

[Billyray]

To ask a question means that you seek an answer; nobody here cares one wit about an answer to their question, or about the truth.
I care about getting answers from LDS and I care about the truth. Are you ready to answer some questions?

[Billyray]

The LDS have NEVER confirmed that the Father had sexual relations with Mary.
BRIGHAM YOUNG
"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

It seems that Brigham said that is how it happened.

[James Banta]

Really James???
You do realize that I already just told you that I have no intention of reading anything you write?
My life is not that empty that I need to fill it with the boring diatribe of an Apostate... Sorry you wasted your time.

I only posted to prove my point that nobody here asks questions.

To ask a question means that you seek an answer; nobody here cares one wit about an answer to their question, or about the truth.
Anti-Mormons "question"; there is a big difference.
This means that any question they ask is rhetorical; they believe they already have the correct answer to the question so they pretend to ask questions in order to try and trip you up, or make you "question" what it is you believe.
This is what lawyers do... The number one cardinal rule of any lawyer in court is NEVER ask a question that you don't already know beforehand how the person on stand is going to answer it.

And just like a Lawyer, it is not the real truth you are concerned with, it is merely trying to win by suppressing the other guys truth.

I stopped playing that game with you guys years ago because I saw the futility of it... I am here only for the entertainment value. And believe me.., the silly rantings of Anti-Mormons is very entertaining.
I told you guys from the very beginning.
Don't pretend you are going to school me on the Bible, the gospel, or my religion.
I know every quote and move you are going to make because I am always three steps ahead of you. This is why it is not necessary for me to even read what you wrote.

So you are wanting to see TRUTH, even the LDS version, revealed here.. Ok that is fine.. BYE.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Theway has a point: It seems disingenuous for an anti to ask a fallacious "question" such as "Why do you cling to a religion that teaches nothing but lies?" and then wonder why no one will answer that question.

I never asked that question.. I question now, why do you believe Smith was a true prophet in the light of D&C 84, and D&C 124 when the Bible teaches that:

Deut 18:20-22
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to p***, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Number 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

We can repent and be healed. Again to be in turn with God's real intent which is always to save us and bring us to Himself.. Has God ever changed from that purpose? Even when He turned from destroying Niniva it was an act of His mercy to save people. When Moses prayed to God to save Israel, again God relented His wrath and turned to His primary purpose to save. God has made good His primary purpose in the Person of the Son.. He put down the most powerful army in the world when Moses lead the children of Israel out of Egypt. He crushed the walled of Jericho to bring Israel home to Her land. God never lost sight of His primary purpose. He never turned from it.. But Smith told us that God was going to have "His children" (the LDS People) build a temple and a great city in Far West Missouri. He was going to do this within the generation of the people that started that work, But because of enemies of the LDS church God turns from the work that He had commanded and excused the workman because He apparently couldn't defeat a 19th century army set against His purposes.. What kind of cheep inept god do the LDS worship anyway.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

BRIGHAM YOUNG
"The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).
It seems that Brigham said that is how it happened.

What seems to you he said, and what he actually said, are two different things.

Young was right, and is supported by the Bible. Jesus's BIRTH was indeed as natural as anyone else's birth. And Jesus DID become a flesh-and-blood being. That's the whole point of the Nativity stories in the Gospels.

[nrajeffreturns]

I never asked that question..
I said questions SUCH AS that one. It was an example of the TYPE of questions that don't deserve a response other than "That is a dumb question."


I question now, why do you believe Smith was a true prophet in the light of D&C 84, and D&C 124 when the Bible teaches that:
Because I believe he meets the qualifications for a true prophet. Apparently you don't, presumably because you think some of his prophecies were false ones, which is debatable, or because you mistakenly call some of his statements prophecies when they weren't. Such is life.

[nrajeffreturns]

Why do you say that it is a "fallacious" question?

Because the claim that the LDS church teaches NOTHING but lies is a demonstrably false claim. That's why.

[James Banta]

I said questions SUCH AS that one. It was an example of the TYPE of questions that don't deserve a response other than "That is a dumb question."


Because I believe he meets the qualifications for a true prophet. Apparently you don't, presumably because you think some of his prophecies were false ones, which is debatable, or because you mistakenly call some of his statements prophecies when they weren't. Such is life.

What question is there that ponders a man's eternal destiny that can be considered dumb?

He does? I take it that you have never read the Old Testament where the qualifications for a prophet are given.. You don't need to read it all just enough of Deut 18 to see that any prophet that worship false gods is a false prophet. Any prophet that says he has received a word from God that turns out to be false is also a false prophet. Then turn to the references I gave you in the D&C and understand a temple was never built in Far West. That God decided to change his mind concerning a good work of building that temple because of the persecution of a 19th century army.

Tell me is this a prophecy or is it not:

D&C 84:2-5
Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
For verily this generation shall not all p*** away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house

It would appear that the "Such is life" is a good teaching of mormonism if such a word from a prophet can be so easily made and so easily dismissed as it was in D&C 124.. The LDS God is more powerful than a 19th century state militia? My God is.. But unlike your God my God gives no commandments unto the men, unless He prepares a way for them to keep the commandments He gives to them.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Because the claim that the LDS church teaches NOTHING but lies is a demonstrably false claim. That's why.
Is it false to say that they teach SOME lies?

[James Banta]

Is it false to say that they teach SOME lies?

When the whole reason for the LDS church to exist is false, the foundation of the church is a lie.. Tell me what part of the LDS church teaches truth? They do teach good moral principles but so does Islam. They teach honest, abstinence from alcohol. Good principles but what about Islam is the truth? They deny that Jesus is God.. Mormonism denies that He is the one true and living God. I don't see anything true in mormonism other than they believe in good moral character.. As I have shown that doesn't make their message the truth.. I liked what you said before. There is NO TRUTH IN MORMONISM.. That is a statement much closer to the truth than saying there is some truth in mormonism.. They can say all day that there is some truth in other religions but all the time we know they deny that.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

When the whole reason for the LDS church to exist is false,
That whole reason is to bring people to Christ. Why are you calling that a false thing? What better thing could a church do, in your opinion?

[Billyray]

That whole reason is to bring people to Christ.

The problem Jeff is that it doesn't bring people to the true Christ but rather to a false one.

[James Banta]

That whole reason is to bring people to Christ. Why are you calling that a false thing? What better thing could a church do, in your opinion?

WOW you are right! Your church is there to bring people to a Christ who is our elder spirit brother. The brother of the spirit child that became Satan when his plan of salvation was rejected. A Christ that became a god though obedience to the Laws of the Father.. The LDS church denies the Christ who is, was, and will always be GOD.. They deny that He created all things sense some things, other than God, are eternal in their nature. Oxygen, Nitrogen and all the other elements are eternal, right? Being eternal they were never created. Sorry but the Bible teaches that Jesus created ALL THINGS visible and invisible.. I deny the teachings of mormonism and trust the Bible.. Jesus is the eternal God and created all things.. Anything different than that simple Biblical truth teaches a different Jesus and has no relationship to the true God, the true Jesus..

It would be better to teach God, the God revealed in the Bible and some gods invented by Joseph Smith.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

The problem Jeff is that it doesn't bring people to the true Christ but rather to a false one.
That would be a bad thing if it was true. Or, it would be a bad thing if the Christ we bring people to was more false than the one you are trying to bring people to. Fortunately, that is not the case.

[James Banta]

That would be a bad thing if it was true. Or, it would be a bad thing if the Christ we bring people to was more false than the one you are trying to bring people to. Fortunately, that is not the case.

Strange we can biblically support the teaching that Jesus has always been God.. We can biblically support the teaching that Jesus created all things. Hey that would include the spirits of men that He created within us! We can biblically support the teaching that Jesus and the Father are one.. We have no need to add the extrabiblical phrase "In Purpose" to the end of that teaching.. Instead mormonism teaches that Jesus was a spirit child born of the Father and His "Mother in heaven" just as it teaches we all were.. That makes Jesus our spirit brother and not our Mighty God, not our everlasting Father. That Jeff makes the LDS Jesus a false Jesus, not the one that is taught to us in the Bible.. Not the Word that was made flesh and DWELT AMONG US.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Strange we can biblically support ...

It's not strange that you can, through eisegesis, find verses that seem to support your beliefs. It's pretty un-surprising, actually, especially when we see how ambiguous some verses are.

[Billyray]

That would be a bad thing if it was true. Or, it would be a bad thing if the Christ we bring people to was more false than the one you are trying to bring people to. Fortunately, that is not the case.

The LDS jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible in many ways Jeff that is why I say that he is a false one. Do you want to discuss some of the LDS beliefs as they pertain to Christ and see if you can show support from the Bible?

[nrajeffreturns]

The LDS jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible in many ways Jeff that is why I say that he is a false one. Do you want to discuss some of the LDS beliefs as they pertain to Christ and see if you can show support from the Bible?
I bet that for any official LDS doctrine you can name, I can find something in the Bible that could support it. But that game is just a time-waster. I already concede that for any official doctrine of apostate Evangelicalism that I can name, you could find a Bible verse that could seem to support it.

So why not just save time and call it a stalemate and discuss something else?

[Billyray]

I bet that for any official LDS doctrine you can name, I can find something in the Bible that could support it.
Fair enough. Can you show me where it says that Jesus and Satan are brothers from a heavenly father and heavenly mother?

[nrajeffreturns]

Fair enough. Can you show me where it says that Jesus and Satan are brothers from a heavenly father and heavenly mother?

John 16:12
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
-
John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Acts 1:3
To these also He showed Himself alive after His p***ion by many infallible proofs, being seen by them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

[RealFakeHair]

John 16:12
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
-
John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Acts 1:3
To these also He showed Himself alive after His p***ion by many infallible proofs, being seen by them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Next question, do you think these verses were translated correctly?

[James Banta]

John 16:12
“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
-
John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Acts 1:3
To these also He showed Himself alive after His p***ion by many infallible proofs, being seen by them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Jeff the absence of a statement against your antibiblical doctrines is NOT proof to substantiate them as God's truth.. Why would Jesus suddenly deny His word (He is God), and tell us that He DIDN'T create all things, when His word teaches that He DID? That He really hasn't been eternally God when His word says that He has.. No, not every word Jesus ever spoke was recorded. But that which has been recorded is the standard by which we can know something about that which was left out.. Jesus didn't change His teaching that God is One Lord. He didn't suddenly start teaching that God is a tangible physical Being. What God has told us is His word. He doesn't lie, He doesn't change (Mal 3:6). Back in the early days of the LDS church (November 1, 1831) even Joseph Smith agreed with that:

D&C 1:38
What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth p*** away, my word shall not p*** away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

In the light of that statement do you still believe that a change in God's word, a change that effects it's meaning, ever occurred in the Bible which you also believe is His word? Can you believe that anything Jesus said that wasn't recorded could have changed what was recorded? That Jesus could have been spirit brothers with the angelic being that became Satan rather than His creator? Your text in no was shows that God changed the teaching that are given to us in the Bible.. Jesus is God, and God's word endures forever (1 Peter 1:25).. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Like I said, thanks to 2 things, it is possible to "find" support in the Bible for lots of things, including God's approval of slavery and genocide, and an earth-centric universe. Those 2 things are:

1. The ambiguity of many Bible verses.

2. The desire or proclivity of some people to misinterpret things.

One could even be led to believe that the 3 persons of the Godhead are literally one being, if one is not careful.

[RealFakeHair]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Like I said, thanks to 2 things, it is possible to "find" support in the Bible for lots of things, including God's approval of slavery and genocide, and an earth-centric universe. Those 2 things are:

1. The ambiguity of many Bible verses.

2. The desire or proclivity of some people to misinterpret things.

One could even be led to believe that the 3 persons of the Godhead are literally one being, if one is not careful.

Aint it funny how you can find controverial things in the Holy Bible, but not support for polygamy, eternal marriage, God the Father having a father, LDSinc. Temple whatever goes on in there, and last but not least, your mormon god having sex with his earthly daughter Mary......

[Sir]

Aint it funny how you can find controverial things in the Holy Bible, but not support for polygamy, eternal marriage, God the Father having a father, LDSinc. Temple whatever goes on in there, and last but not least, your mormon god having sex with his earthly daughter Mary......

Wrong.

Just off the top of my head I can cite biblical verses to support the notion of polygamy and eternal marriage for example.

And also it is quite telling that you claim ig.norance to what goes on in the temple but think the Bible doesn't support what goes on inside. You should read Temple and Cosmos by Hugh Nibley, for starters. Quite interesting read about it.

As for God having sex, you seem to be the only one fixated on sex around here. You might consider looking into that issue and figuring out a solution to that problem.

[RealFakeHair]

Wrong.

Just off the top of my head I can cite biblical verses to support the notion of polygamy and eternal marriage for example.

And also it is quite telling that you claim ig.norance to what goes on in the temple but think the Bible doesn't support what goes on inside. You should read Temple and Cosmos by Hugh Nibley, for starters. Quite interesting read about it.

As for God having sex, you seem to be the only one fixated on sex around here. You might consider looking into that issue and figuring out a solution to that problem.

I'll be around all day, if you got those scriptures. Oh, I guess Brigham Young and I must have something in common.

[Sir]

I'll be around all day, if you got those scriptures.

Nah. No point. The point is I can use the Bible to support such beliefs. That was what Jeff is saying. Obviously you will disagree with the verses I cite to support it, which was the other part of Jeff's point.

[RealFakeHair]

Nah. No point. The point is I can use the Bible to support such beliefs. That was what Jeff is saying. Obviously you will disagree with the verses I cite to support it, which was the other part of Jeff's point.

Oh shoot, another LDSinc. cop-out.

[Sir]

Oh shoot, another LDSinc. cop-out.

Nice try.

It's not a cop-out. The issue is whether or not the Bible can be used to support LDS beliefs. I can do that with polygamy, eternal marriage, etc.

The issue isn't to try and get you to agree with me since you won't. Besides, these issues have been hashed out many times before with the same results. It becomes a merry-go-round.

You seemed to have missed the point of the conversation.

[RealFakeHair]

Nice try.

It's not a cop-out. The issue is whether or not the Bible can be used to support LDS beliefs. I can do that with polygamy, eternal marriage, etc.

The issue isn't to try and get you to agree with me since you won't. Besides, these issues have been hashed out many times before with the same results. It becomes a merry-go-round.

You seemed to have missed the point of the conversation.

I never have been accused of missing a point, ah what did you say?
However, in the word of Joseph Smith jr. Me think you is beating around the bushes......

[Sir]

I never have been accused of missing a point, ah what did you say?
However, in the word of Joseph Smith jr. Me think you is beating around the bushes......

There you go.

See? Even in just explaining my motives, you will see a way to disagree with and not believe me. How much more do people do that with their interpretation of the Bible; believe their interpretation is right and supports their beliefs and others are wrong.

That was the point.

Thank you for the great example

[RealFakeHair]

There you go.

See? Even in just explaining my motives, you will see a way to disagree with and not believe me. How much more do people do that with their interpretation of the Bible; believe their interpretation is right and supports their beliefs and others are wrong.

That was the point.

Thank you for the great example

You are welcomed. Now back to the scriptures, which scriptures teach eternal marriage and commandment of polygamy?
I like the story of the angel with th sword over Joseph Smith jr. Head, don't you? I don't think my wife would ever buy it though.

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;148999]Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Like I said, thanks to 2 things, it is possible to "find" support in the Bible for lots of things, including God's approval of slavery and genocide, and an earth-centric universe. Those 2 things are:

1. The ambiguity of many Bible verses.

Good time to be asking the God the Holy Spirit to teach you His truths.. He knows His word better than you do and to Him it wouldn't be ambiguous..


2. The desire or proclivity of some people to misinterpret things.

One could even be led to believe that the 3 persons of the Godhead are literally one being, if one is not careful.

Does the Bible teach genocide? Yes.. Do we understand the reasons God commanded that and saw the murder of a few babies at Bethlehem as a big deal? Nope, I could guess, but I have no Biblical reason for God's will in the matter of the genocide that He commanded.. I will just say He has the right to command the death of anyone He chooses.. You have no right to question Him UNLESS you are going to turn atheist denying God completely.. Then you can question Him, but my answer will not change..

Through the ages man has used slavery the same way employers in our time have employees. The Bible does report on man inhumanity to his fellows. God never approves of inhumanity. God's message to us included information about this planet. Not it's place in the solar system. But the Bible was the very first book that gave any indication of how the Earth fits at all scientifically in the cosmos.. (Isaiah 40:22, *** 26:7). Yes there is some more romantic language about the four corners of the earth, and the pillars where it rests. But those have been common metaphors in literature for thousands of years even by those that had no knowledge of the Bible. Nut still when God chose to instruct us in science His knowledge is made known.. If you read His word and allow Him to teach you His truth you will see easily that The Lord the True and Living God is one Lord.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Nah. No point. The point is I can use the Bible to support such beliefs. That was what Jeff is saying. Obviously you will disagree with the verses I cite to support it, which was the other part of Jeff's point.

All you have is God instruction to David to care for those who couldn't care for themselves.. The wives of Saul.. God gave then to David, He never said to makes them His wives (2 Sam 12:7-9).. You have done what a lot of people have done through the ages.. You have stopped listening and made up what you want the scripture to say instead of what it does say.. Time to reread the p***age.. IHS jim

[Sir]

All you have is God instruction to David to care for those who couldn't care for themselves.. The wives of Saul.. God gave then to David, He never said to makes them His wives (2 Sam 12:7-9).. You have done what a lot of people have done through the ages.. You have stopped listening and made up what you want the scripture to say instead of what it does say.. Time to reread the p***age.. IHS jim

No, I proved EXACTLY what Jeff's point is. And YOU proved it too, by claiming that "a lot of people" have used such verses to justify their belief in polygamy. You believe your interpretation is correct and others are wrong. Others believe their interpretation is correct. One verse is used to condone or condemn polygamy, depending on your viewpoint.

[James Banta]

It's not strange that you can, through eisegesis, find verses that seem to support your beliefs. It's pretty un-surprising, actually, especially when we see how ambiguous some verses are.

I don't find any that are ambiguous.. But then the Holy Spirit teaches them to me.. Seem you must depend on the reason of men (LDS Prophets and Apostles) for the what they believe the truth to be.. Strange that all the people I have spoken to here and on many others site that look to Jesus as their God, their Lord, and savior all have the same message from the scripture. Only the LDS seem to have the strange interpretations that come to them by way of mere men.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

No, I proved EXACTLY what Jeff's point is. And YOU proved it too, by claiming that "a lot of people" have used such verses to justify their belief in polygamy. You believe your interpretation is correct and others are wrong. Others believe their interpretation is correct. One verse is used to condone or condemn polygamy, depending on your viewpoint.

The only religions that have done so are those based in the messages of Joseph Smith Jr.. No Christian church see that as permission to live in polygamy.. Only those that see him as a prophet use that verse to justify his teachings.. Sorry you have run into a dead end with that strange idea.. IHS jim

[Sir]

The only religions that have done so are those based in the messages of Joseph Smith Jr.. No Christian church see that as permission to live in polygamy.. Only those that see him as a prophet use that verse to justify his teachings.. Sorry you have run into a dead end with that strange idea.. IHS jim

Wow. Talk about missing the point.

[James Banta]

Wow. Talk about missing the point.

If I did it's because you moved the target a couple of miles away.. The p***age I quoted is the autho***y the followers of Smith use to prove that God commanded polygamy.. You told me that other religions use it as their authority for polygamy, I answered and said that it's only those that follow Smith.. Target hit, even in your insentient desire to move it.. IHS jim

[Sir]

If I did it's because you moved the target a couple of miles away.. The p***age I quoted is the autho***y the followers of Smith use to prove that God commanded polygamy.. You told me that other religions use it as their authority for polygamy, I answered and said that it's only those that follow Smith.. Target hit, even in your insentient desire to move it.. IHS jim

Not even close.

[James Banta]

Not even close.

Do you need to see that mormonism teaches polygamy? Oh and BTW I do need to see some evidence that other churches other than those that look to Joseph Smith as their founder that EVER taught polygamy as a tenant of their religion.. This look like a direct hit to anyone other than those that believe the importance of plural marriage in an eternities.. IHS jim

[Sir]

Do you need to see that mormonism teaches polygamy? Oh and BTW I do need to see some evidence that other churches other than those that look to Joseph Smith as their founder that EVER taught polygamy as a tenant of their religion.. This look like a direct hit to anyone other than those that believe the importance of plural marriage in an eternities.. IHS jim

Yes, a direct hit to a strawman.

But you still appear to have missed the entire point completely.

Oh well.

[James Banta]

Yes, a direct hit to a strawman.

But you still appear to have missed the entire point completely.

Oh well.

I could make such unqualified statements just as you do.. I could say that your post make completely unsupported and unsupportable claims but what good is that if I neglect to provide evidence of such a statement.. That is why your insistence that what I am saying here is a strawman or that the point was missed.. That last statement I do agree with.. OH WELL... IHS jim

[Billyray]

How much more do people do that with their interpretation of the Bible; believe their interpretation is right and supports their beliefs and others are wrong.


So the Bible nor any of your scriptures can be understood as written. Is that your new position?