10 facts

[Libby]

How do you know it was their own tangents? Maybe you're the real prophet?

Nope, I'm no prophet.

I know they went off on their own tangents, because some of what they taught (like Brigham's Adam-God theory) is not in the standard works or considered doctrine, today.

[Libby]

Official statement from the First Presidency:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily cons***utes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[Billyray]

Official statement from the First Presidency:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily cons***utes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine
So would you say that official publications would be considered doctrine?

[Libby]

So would you say that official publications would be considered doctrine?

lol.....I don't know, Billy.

[James Banta]

So would you say that official publications would be considered doctrine?

Lets give Libby and her prophet the benefit of the doubt.. If one leader said it one time, even it that was the president of her church, we won't call it doctrine. BUT IF THE PROPHET OF HER CHURCH TEACHES A DOCTRINE FOR YEARS AND YEARS THEN IT IS DOCTRINE.. I think that is fair.. Libby I could set a trap for you and your LDS brothers and sisters to fall into here but lets put our cards on the table.. From April 9, 1852 during the General church Conference, (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50) until 1873 Young earnestly taught that "Adam is our Father and God." (Deseret News, June 18, 1873.) Young taught again and again that Adam is our Father and our God. In that article Young proclaimed that "God revealed" to him that "Adam is our Father and God." .

According to Libby's insistence the Adam-God doctrine is the doctrine of the LDS church since it was 1. Taught as being God's own truth by the leader and prophet of the church not once or twice but he taught that God revealed it to him for 21 YEARS.. Ask any mormon you know if it is and they will all say NO! Ask any of them what is done with a man that believes Young over the false prophets of the LDS church today, those Young would call false teaches of a lie, and you will find out that they would be excommunicated from the church due to believing and teaching apostasy.. Well again Libby shows the uneducated side of herself in believing something that a modern LDS leader would say about their history.. Libby doesn't know that these men would lie to defend their position and their wealth.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Wow, James, you are really becoming blatant with your false witness, now.

None of the above (regarding myself) is true. Not "my" church nor my beliefs.

Very sad performance, James.

[James Banta]

Wow, James, you are really becoming blatant with your false witness, now.

None of the above (regarding myself) is true. Not "my" church nor my beliefs.

Very sad performance, James.

Your actions are screaming so loud that I can't hear your denials.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Why do you hate it so much, when I simply tell the truth? I have not said one thing that is not true, about the LDS Church. If you want to criticize the LDS Church (and there is plenty to criticize), at least, start with the truth and know what you are talking about. Otherwise, you just look foolish.

[James Banta]

Why do you hate it so much, when I simply tell the truth? I have not said one thing that is not true, about the LDS Church. If you want to criticize the LDS Church (and there is plenty to criticize), at least, start with the truth and know what you are talking about. Otherwise, you just look foolish.

If you look at my posts I always leave the reference from where the information I use can be found.. You do that too RARELY.. But I lie because I use their own teachings against them.. I do that to make them see their error.. Then you come along and call my posts lies. You say I sin agaist the commandments of God in bearing false witness.. You haven't the proof or the witnesses to make the charge stick and that according to the Bible.. You need others to also bring the charge, and you need to Prove that what I have said is a lie.. You can't do it.. But by all means don't stop, your charges make you look so foolish that no one will believe a word you say.. IHS jim

[Libby]

And, for the record, I am no longer LDS. I have been out of the LDS church for five years or more. I have many issues with, both, church doctrine and history. So, anyone claiming that I am still LDS (or pander to their doctrine) is bearing false witness. I started many threads, in the past, outlining my various problems with the church and why I left. That still stands.

I am a Christian and my beliefs are all within mainstream Christian doctrine.

[James Banta]

And, for the record, I am no longer LDS. I have been out of the LDS church for five years or more. I have many issues with, both, church doctrine and history. So, anyone claiming that I am still LDS (or pander to their doctrine) is bearing false witness. I started many threads, in the past, outlining my various problems with the church and why I left. That still stands.

I am a Christian and my beliefs are all within mainstream Christian doctrine.

This statement doesn't agree with Libby's statements on this channel as she has agreed again and again with the LDS.. her love for those of us that love our Lord seems to have left her.. Our love for her remains as we try to get her to understand that agreeing with the LDS in any of their unique doctrines is pandering to them.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

And, for the record, I am no longer LDS. I have been out of the LDS church for five years or more. I have many issues with, both, church doctrine and history. So, anyone claiming that I am still LDS (or pander to their doctrine) is bearing false witness. ......>......and for the record.....er..ok I got nothing to add...

[neverending]

Why do you hate it so much, when I simply tell the truth? I have not said one thing that is not true, about the LDS Church. If you want to criticize the LDS Church (and there is plenty to criticize), at least, start with the truth and know what you are talking about. Otherwise, you just look foolish.

Isn't the whole reason for this forum to debate about Mormonism? And I'd like to know WHAT James has lied about when it comes to commenting and pointing out the falsehoods of Mormonism. He uses ONLY Mormon sources, unless their standard works are not Mormon sources these days. Libby, I know what is being posted by James, he is my husband and we do share what we're posting here. So, Libby if anyone looks foolish it is YOU! You don't even know what you believe and have been ****n by every wind of doctrine getting involved in weird religions and non-religious organizations. If you were Born Again, and truly had accepted Jesus Christ, you would never have wandered around to other places but would have stayed with a Bible based church and taught what you needed to know to grow in the Lord. Worshipping other gods is a sin you must know that much.

[alanmolstad]

[SIZE=3]
Isn't the whole reason for this forum to debate about Mormonism? And I'd like to know WHAT James has lied about when.....]
I think we should just let it go.

With a word from Libby I too will put him on IGNORE and at that point James can go on posting his 'version" of reality all he wants.....

[alanmolstad]

[SIZE=3]
Isn't the whole reason for this forum to debate about Mormonism?]...Mormonism is but one topic....
And due to the real lack of posters on this Walter Martin forum, we tend to cut people slack and just try to be content with whatever people wish to talk about.....as long as they show good manners...

[Libby]

I'm going to answer to some of this, NE, but then I would really like an end to personal "****ysis" and attacks. That's all I have really asked of James. He takes it upon himself to, not only judge, but make stuff up about me, personally.

I am NOT LDS, nor do I "pander" to their beliefs. Being friendly and kind is not "pandering". I believe it is a part of displaying the fruits of the spirit. As I told James, I have listed my complaints about LDS doctrine, on this very board, many times. That has not changed.

I attend a Christian Reformed Church with my husband and I go to a Bible study, at that church, every Thursday night. I am very interested in learning more about the Bible, but a "Bible scholar" I am not. Neither are you or James, from what I can see. I have not "attacked" Christians or Christian doctrine. I have, sometimes, questioned it, very vigorously, but then so do MOST Christians, including my Pastor. He has been kind enough to tell me that if you're not questioning, you're not learning. You become dogmatic and judgmental.. and dead in the religion. There is soooooo much to learn from the Bible, we cannot ever possibly be done with that, in our short lifetimes. Better to turn the spotlight on our own weaknesses and deal with that, than constantly pick at others (as James tends to do).


You don't even know what you believe

I know that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I have known that for a long time. He knows my heart, my strengths and my weaknesses. He knows I am very much a work in progress....just as you and the rest of us. He still uses me, somehow.

Some days, I think we all have to wonder HOW, considering the state of our hearts and minds...but, he does use the weak things of this world, as it says in His Word.


If you were Born Again, and truly had accepted Jesus Christ, you would never have wandered around to other places but would have stayed with a Bible based church

Oh really? I've seen your testimony and you claim to have known Jesus long before you came out of the LDS Church. You cannot judge people by the relatively small amount of information you see here on this board. As you should know, there is much more to everyone of us, than what you see here.

I don't see a lot of very "Christian" behavior, on this board (nor over at CARM), but I do try to keep in mind that boards only give us a small glimpse of a person.

BUT, since that is true (the small glimpse) we would all be wise to make that glimpse a good one, a kind one, a comp***ionate one, and not tear at one another and p*** judgments that we have no business p***ing. And, especially, not to tell untruths about people, and gossip about them.

[Libby]

>......and for the record.....er..ok I got nothing to add...

I am really sorry your thread has been turned into a personal vendetta against me, Alan. The above post will be the end of it. If James and NE don't believe me, so be it.

Back to the topic of this thread.

[neverending]

I think we should just let it go.

With a word from Libby I too will put him on IGNORE and at that point James can go on posting his 'version" of reality all he wants.....

Alan, hey, put me on ignore too. I find it awfully childish to tell someone that as if it is going to hurt. OUCH!! Anyway, I will accept that this subject be closed and agree with Libby as to doing that. Good night. Oh, and know this, it was YOU a couple of months ago with your rudeness that I decided to leave. Remember, someone who lives in a gl*** house shouldn't throw stones. Enough said!

[alanmolstad]

[SIZE=3]Alan, hey, put me on ignore too. .....
Sorry but you have to earn that...

[Christian]

and yet it is you who respond it bolded green. ;)

I was politely asked not to use blue because it made it difficult for another poster to see (an eye problem, I guess).

I use bolded green to distinguish it from the parts posted by the previous poster. . .makes it easier to decipher who posted what. . .


....spoken like a true Pharisee.

Or like a true CHRISTIAN who has refuted you time and time again. . .

(In other words, you have refuted me only in your mind, just as the Pharisees believed they refuted Christ by what they believed the Bible said--because they did not see what He did. But James does not stand up for what he believes, but rather bears false witness again and again against another's beliefs, regardless of how many times he has been corrected.)

You are NOT Christ and Billyray did not claim to have refuted Christ. HE REFUTED YOU. Your false comparisons demonstrate the desperation in your attempt to dismiss what he has said. Your fantasies about 'false witness. . .against [your] beliefs demonstrate the fact that you cannot face the EVIDENCE AGAINST YOUR FALSE RELIGION so you hide in fantasies instead.

< snip>


And I must admit, when I stand up for what I know here, it feels like there are many who stand in wait to cast stones. In a very small way, I can understand what it means to know truth by the power of the Holy Ghost and be rebuked for it.

So far you have not demonstrated a SHRED OF EVIDENCE that YOU have any relationship with the Holy Ghost, OR that you have responded to HIS REBUKE OF YOU. Instead you demonstrate only rebellion against GOD and HIS PEOPLE, us CHRISTIANS.

Your colors are showing. . .


I see you STILL cannot deal with the charges, so you must try to divert us by trying to change the subject.

[James Banta]

I'm going to answer to some of this, NE, but then I would really like an end to personal "****ysis" and attacks. That's all I have really asked of James. He takes it upon himself to, not only judge, but make stuff up about me, personally.

I am NOT LDS, nor do I "pander" to their beliefs. Being friendly and kind is not "pandering". I believe it is a part of displaying the fruits of the spirit. As I told James, I have listed my complaints about LDS doctrine, on this very board, many times. That has not changed.

I attend a Christian Reformed Church with my husband and I go to a Bible study, at that church, every Thursday night. I am very interested in learning more about the Bible, but a "Bible scholar" I am not. Neither are you or James, from what I can see. I have not "attacked" Christians or Christian doctrine. I have, sometimes, questioned it, very vigorously, but then so do MOST Christians, including my Pastor. He has been kind enough to tell me that if you're not questioning, you're not learning. You become dogmatic and judgmental.. and dead in the religion. There is soooooo much to learn from the Bible, we cannot ever possibly be done with that, in our short lifetimes. Better to turn the spotlight on our own weaknesses and deal with that, than constantly pick at others (as James tends to do).



I know that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I have known that for a long time. He knows my heart, my strengths and my weaknesses. He knows I am very much a work in progress....just as you and the rest of us. He still uses me, somehow.

Some days, I think we all have to wonder HOW, considering the state of our hearts and minds...but, he does use the weak things of this world, as it says in His Word.



Oh really? I've seen your testimony and you claim to have known Jesus long before you came out of the LDS Church. You cannot judge people by the relatively small amount of information you see here on this board. As you should know, there is much more to everyone of us, than what you see here.

I don't see a lot of very "Christian" behavior, on this board (nor over at CARM), but I do try to keep in mind that boards only give us a small glimpse of a person.

BUT, since that is true (the small glimpse) we would all be wise to make that glimpse a good one, a kind one, a comp***ionate one, and not tear at one another and p*** judgments that we have no business p***ing. And, especially, not to tell untruths about people, and gossip about them.

Here are a few questions for you Libby
1. Do you believe the Bible to be the word of God. Not parts of it, not even most of it but all of it.. God is revealed to us even in the genealogies. There His name and purposes for Our salvation is lifted up again and again..
2. Have you rejected the gods of mormonism, and their teaching that we existed before the creation of this world, co-eternal with the Father?
3. Do you still hold the doctrine that Jesus is our heavenly brother a spirit creation of the Father as they believe we are?
4. Have you put to rest all the eastern philosophies repenting to Him all the error in which you had entangled yourself, and returned to the one true and living God. the Father Son, and Holy Spirit?

Libby I never saw Jesus turn away from and honest man. Even though He called the Pharisees vipers and children of Satan, when Nicodemus came to Him Jesus taught him the way of life.. I have a hard time with your treatment of mormonism, not mormons. But even that wouldn't mean that you are unsaved and I am sorry I used words that identified you as a cultist. I know you are not LDS.. I am not sorry for taking your acceptance of their unique beliefs as just another Christan teaching.. We aren't here to discuss the different side doctrines of the Church. We are here discuss the deadly primary false teaching of Mormonism.. Issues about who and what God is. How we can access His grace and thereby His salvation. If you could join me in that it would be wonderful.. I see that you find that work distasteful. That is why I ask you to leave.. Mormonism is a religion that is guiding many a fine person, people of my family that I love, people in my neighborhood whom I call friends, directly into the Lake of Fire.. For that I can't love, like, or even tolerate mormonism. I still doubt you can see the different between that level of disdain for mormonism and my love for the people that it has swallowed into it's error.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

I was politely asked not to use blue because it made it difficult for another poster to see (an eye problem, I guess).

I use bolded green to distinguish it from the parts posted by the previous poster. . .makes it easier to decipher who posted what. . .



I see you STILL cannot deal with the charges, so you must try to divert us by trying to change the subject.


She is just green with envy. lol

[neverending]

I'm going to answer to some of this, NE, but then I would really like an end to personal "****ysis" and attacks. That's all I have really asked of James. He takes it upon himself to, not only judge, but make stuff up about me, personally.

I am NOT LDS, nor do I "pander" to their beliefs. Being friendly and kind is not "pandering". I believe it is a part of displaying the fruits of the spirit. As I told James, I have listed my complaints about LDS doctrine, on this very board, many times. That has not changed.

I attend a Christian Reformed Church with my husband and I go to a Bible study, at that church, every Thursday night. I am very interested in learning more about the Bible, but a "Bible scholar" I am not. Neither are you or James, from what I can see. I have not "attacked" Christians or Christian doctrine. I have, sometimes, questioned it, very vigorously, but then so do MOST Christians, including my Pastor. He has been kind enough to tell me that if you're not questioning, you're not learning. You become dogmatic and judgmental.. and dead in the religion. There is soooooo much to learn from the Bible, we cannot ever possibly be done with that, in our short lifetimes. Better to turn the spotlight on our own weaknesses and deal with that, than constantly pick at others (as James tends to do).



I know that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I have known that for a long time. He knows my heart, my strengths and my weaknesses. He knows I am very much a work in progress....just as you and the rest of us. He still uses me, somehow.

Some days, I think we all have to wonder HOW, considering the state of our hearts and minds...but, he does use the weak things of this world, as it says in His Word.



Oh really? I've seen your testimony and you claim to have knowbybyn Jesus long before you came out of the LDS Church. You cannot judge people by the relatively small amount of information you see here on this board. As you should know, there is much more to everyone of us, than what you see here.

I don't see a lot of very "Christian" behavior, on this board (nor over at CARM), but I do try to keep in mind that boards only give us a small glimpse of a person.

BUT, since that is true (the small glimpse) we would all be wise to make that glimpse a good one, a kind one, a comp***ionate one, and not tear at one another and p*** judgments that we have no business p***ing. And, especially, not to tell untruths about people, and gossip about them.

Libby,
If you felt I have spoken any untruths about you, then I am sorry. I would however disagree that I've gossiped about you; in fact, I have commented on something you've posted only a handful of times. The at***udes of many here are sometimes very disturbing and comments do get out of hand. How difficult it is to try and convey what is in your heart with using this type of communication. Since you and I, Julie and sometimes Apologette are the only women who come here, I would hope we could share in good faith and not take offense.

It is good to be kind and comp***ionate when talking to anyone we meet. What I do know of you is that you've wandered around looking for some place to worship and I find that odd when one has admitted to accepting Christ as their Lord and Savior but went off and got involved in Hinduism and I don't know what else. You see Libby, coming out of Mormonism for me was not easy. I was har***ed daily by my mother for 2 years as she tried her best to make me feel guilty for leaving her church. It finally came to a head one day when she told me that she and my Dad would be writing me out of their will. That was the last straw as I told my Mom that I didn't care about their money and if that is what they wanted to do so be it, we could go our separate ways. So you can see I lost my family, I even lost a life long friend as well. We had neighbors who stopped talking to us and horrible rumors as to why we were Ex'd. Mormons can and are very cruel to those who leave. I even had nightmares for months. For James it was easy. His family didn't care what he did as they were never a close family.

What is important is that James and I found a church and began our journey of learning more about the true Jesus Christ of the Bible. After staying at that church for 5 years we were asked to help with starting up a new Baptist Church, which we did. We were there for just over 5 years too as James was asked to be a Deacon and I was teaching Sunday School and was also the Choir Director. It was an interesting 10 years and we learned so much. We are back at the original church where we started and have done much to be of help there.

I only wish you the best and pray that you've found a church home, a place where you feel comfortable and can learn more about our Savior. We will never know everything there is about God until we are face to face with Him. Have a good day and a special Mother's Day tomorrow. Today it is our son's birthday but since he lives in Ohio, we can't be together. Neither one of our children live here, it can and does get very lonely.

[Libby]

NE, most of what I said was about James, not you. You had asked why I was accusing him of telling untruths about me, so I was responding to that request.

In the last post of his (that I saw) he was calling me LDS and the LDS Church "my" church. That is blatantly untrue. He, also, continually, accuses me of pandering to LDS, just because I respond with kindness...and try to define their beliefs, as honestly as I can. I don't think most critics bother to do that. They get a little piece of information, taken out of context, and **** it up into something it is not. I know what it is like to have that done to my own beliefs, so I am certainly not going to do that to LDS or anyone else. I think "criticism" of ANY religion has to start with the TRUTH.

James has also accused me of teaching "error", which is also untrue...at least, not during my current conversations here.

Yes, I attended a Christian-Hindu Church for a few months (about a year and half ago). This was a church I had attended many years ago, in my 20's. The change was, in part, due to some frustrations I was having with Calvinism....but, in large part, just a matter of curiosity, as to how this church was doing and how I might feel about it, at this point in my life. Although I enjoyed the meditations and even some of the philosophy, I knew, relatively quickly, that this could never, again, be my permanent home. Shortly, thereafter, my husband and I both returned to the Christian Reformed Church, and have been there for over a year, now. I've attended this church for over three years, total. I attended another Christian Church, for a year, the first year I was out of Mormonism. And, also attended Calvary Chapel for a short time.

You're right, that there are not many women here, and I agree we need to stick to together. :) Although, I disagree with much that is taught in the LDS Church, I have always enjoyed having Julie here. I have been friends with many of the LDS on this board, for years....since before I left the church....and I try very hard not to treat my friends disrespectfully...and I don't like it when others do.

Sorry to hear your children are not close. I'm sure that is difficult. I have all of my children and grands very close by and see them often. I feel very blessed in that. Wishing you a very Happy Mother's Day! God bless!

[Libby]

NE, I am also very sorry to hear about the effect, leaving the church, had on you and your family. I know that is not unusual, as I listened to many horror stories about leaving. It is never easy to leave (it wasn't for me), but doubly difficult, when your whole family are true believing Mormons.

[James Banta]

NE, most of what I said was about James, not you. You had asked why I was accusing him of telling untruths about me, so I was responding to that request.

In the last post of his (that I saw) he was calling me LDS and the LDS Church "my" church. That is blatantly untrue. He, also, continually, accuses me of pandering to LDS, just because I respond with kindness...and try to define their beliefs, as honestly as I can. I don't think most critics bother to do that. They get a little piece of information, taken out of context, and **** it up into something it is not. I know what it is like to have that done to my own beliefs, so I am certainly not going to do that to LDS or anyone else. I think "criticism" of ANY religion has to start with the TRUTH.

James has also accused me of teaching "error", which is also untrue...at least, not during my current conversations here.

Yes, I attended a Christian-Hindu Church for a few months (about a year and half ago). This was a church I had attended many years ago, in my 20's. The change was, in part, due to some frustrations I was having with Calvinism....but, in large part, just a matter of curiosity, as to how this church was doing and how I might feel about it, at this point in my life. Although I enjoyed the meditations and even some of the philosophy, I knew, relatively quickly, that this could never, again, be my permanent home. Shortly, thereafter, my husband and I both returned to the Christian Reformed Church, and have been there for over a year, now.

You're right, that there are not many women here, and I agree we need to stick to together. :) Although, I disagree with much that is taught in the LDS Church, I have always enjoyed having Julie here. I have been friends with many of the LDS on this board, for years....since before I left the church....and I try very hard not to treat my friends disrespectfully...and I don't like it when others do.

Sorry to hear your children are not close. I'm sure that is difficult. I have all of my children and grands very close by and see them often. I feel very blessed in that. Wishing you a very Happy Mother's Day! God bless!

You said that you try honestly to define their beliefs. have you really done so or have you defended their beliefs.. I have actually seen you defend their three Gods doctrine.. I have seen you defend the concept of a preexistence, that Jesus is our elder brother.. That is not defining mormonism it is pandering to mormonism.. I have held out an olive branch to you now several times, you keep slapping it away. Be an ostrich and hide your hed from what it going on around you. Trouble with that is you might get run over.. IHS jim

[Libby]

You said that you try honestly to define their beliefs. have you really done so or have you defended their beliefs.. I have actually seen you defend their three Gods doctrine.. I have seen you defend the concept of a preexistence, that Jesus is our elder brother..

Quote me, James. This is simply not true, since I do not believe the Trinity is three separate gods, nor do I believe that Jesus is our "brother". I understand how some people might come to that conclusion (even some mainstream Christians hold that belief), BUT it is not *MY* personal belief. You simply misunderstand...almost everything I write.


I have held out an olive branch to you now several times,

You mean, your olive branches full of threats and invitations to leave? Right.

[Libby]

I just looked through this whole thread and I have relatively few posts here, until just recently. My first couple of posts had to do with time/space as it relates to God. The last one was a simple comment on blood atonement (that it was not church doctrine, which it is not).

No mention of God as three separate gods nor any mention, whatsoever, of Jesus as our "brother".

You simply make stuff up, James.

[James Banta]

I just looked through this whole thread and I have relatively few posts here, until just recently. My first couple of posts had to do with time/space as it relates to God. The last one was a simple comment on blood atonement (that it was not church doctrine, which it is not).

No mention of God as three separate gods nor any mention, whatsoever, of Jesus as our "brother".

You simply make stuff up, James.

I am getting pretty sick of being called a liar.. I have made nothing up. Even you have confessed that the doctrine of Blood atonement was taught by the leaders of the Church.. You have been shown that Young said that anything he taught and had a chance to check it, it is as good as any doctrine of the church.. It was Young that taught these things and he taught them for YEARS ON YEARS. That makes these teachings doctrine until their God changes His mind AGAIN!.. I have never heard that the doctrine of Blood Atonement has ever been changed, have you? You are accusing me of Bearing False Witness, which by the Law it's self is not allowed with just one person's testimony.. I know you won't apologize but you can stop calling me a liar RIGHT NOW!

Of course you won't admit that I said I was sorry for calling you a mormon. That doesn't matter to you.. I don't expect anything from you other than to stop saying things about me. Things that point to me breaking the Ten Commandments.. I demand it.. But if you won't I will see you as an unbeliever.. That is scriptural (Matthew 18:17).. I except that I won't see this again from you.. If not I will start calling you on it in it's own thread.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Taken to private message.

Apologies, on my part, for taking this thread even further off topic.

[James Banta]

I will, when you stop telling untruths about me.

I did not see your apology, that I recall. I've had you on ignore for a lot of the time I have been here, plus I tend to scroll most of your posts, unless I notice you are speaking about me, again.

I accept your apology, when you apologize for every single untruth you have told about me, James. Admit that I have not been speaking against Christians, that I have not been pandering to LDS doctrine, that I have never said that I believed the Trinity was three separate gods! And, I have never said I believed Jesus was our brother! Those are the ones I can remember, at the moment...I'm sure there were more!

I am not saying that you are unsaved because you side so often with the LDS.. But because you see me calling that alliance with them as pandering you call me a liar? Then keep calling me a liar.. Pandering means: to give gratification (to weaknesses or desires). That is just what you have done for the LDS when you agreed with them how wrong it is to point out the changeable doctrines of Mormonism like the Adam-God doctrine, the finite nature of God, or their belief in three Gods.. That is what I call pandering.. You believe that doing that is right I don't, and that will not change on my side.. I don't know what you will do.. IHS jim

[Libby]

I am not saying that you are unsaved because you side so often with the LDS.. But because you see me calling that alliance with them as pandering you call me a liar? Then keep calling me a liar.. Pandering means: to give gratification (to weaknesses or desires). That is just what you have done for the LDS when you agreed with them how wrong it is to point out the changeable doctrines of Mormonism like the Adam-God doctrine, the finite nature of God, or their belief in three Gods.. That is what I call pandering.. You believe that doing that is right I don't, and that will not change on my side.. I don't know what you will do.. IHS jim

You haven't mentioned the many others things you have said and I asked you not to continue this here, please. It's personal and it's very disruptive.

And, if you do, in whatever vain, have the decency to quote me, before you make accusations, and then we will talk about it.

[Libby]

I am not saying that you are unsaved because you side so often with the LDS..

Quotes, James...where?


That is just what you have done for the LDS when you agreed with them how wrong it is to point out the changeable doctrines of Mormonism like the Adam-God doctrine, the finite nature of God, or their belief in three Gods.. That is what I call pandering.. You believe that doing that is right I don't, and that will not change on my side.

Where, James? Quote me.

I haven't done this, which is why I call you on it. Provide quotes where you find me saying anything like that or else you are just ****ing in the wind.

[James Banta]

Quotes, James...where?

Where, James? Quote me.

I haven't done this, which is why I call you on it. Provide quotes where you find me saying anything like that or else you are just ****ing in the wind.

Looks like we are back on the main channel.. Ok..

This exchange between you and Alan is what I am talking about in saying you side with mormonism.. Alan said "well...there are many Bible verses to support my views....as you likely guessed as i only believe what i can prove with the scriptures......"

You respond..
The thing is, it also supports the views of those who believe all sins are equal and will result in equal punishment (which is spiritual death). My intellect understands what you're saying and I do believe a "Just" God would have different consequences according to the severity of the sin. But, I can also see why people come away with the idea that all sin is equal and will have equal consequences (without Christ).

This is a very good example of what I was talking about, in regards to varying interpretations and beliefs that Christians can come away with, from reading the Bible. Everything is not perfectly clear, as some claim. It's only "perfectly clear", if you pick and choose certain verses to focus on. From the whole, there are many contradictions and things that are difficult to understand."


Libby mormonism believes in this doctrine so much that Smith created a graded heaven that separates people based on their level of sin, faith, and works. I see that you at lease reject the idea that there is greater eternal punishment for sin, And yes in mortality there are many that will be given few stripes and others will receive many, but God's eternal punishment is the Lake of Fire.. Anyone found in sin no matter how serious or not so serious we might see that sin is cast INTO that Lake. No one is allowed to just sit on it's banks and dangle their legs in the flames.. Sin any sin is so serious that God has told us that "the soul that sins, that soul shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4).

IHS jim

[Libby]

I have just a minute or two, before my kids and grands get here, so very quickly.


I see that you at lease reject the idea that there is greater eternal punishment for sin,

Exactly, and yes I do reject it. So, how is this proving that I "pander to Mormonism", James? I don't think I even had Mormonism in mind, when I posted that. Yet, from "this", you somehow make those accusations?

This is exactly what I'm talking about, when I say you make false accusations.

(Happy Mother's Day to your wife and all the Mothers out there! Have a great day!)

[James Banta]

I have just a minute or two, before my kids and grands get here, so very quickly.



Exactly, and yes I do reject it. So, how is this proving that I "pander to Mormonism", James? I don't think I even had Mormonism in mind, when I posted that. Yet, from "this", you somehow make those accusations?

This is exactly what I'm talking about, when I say you make false accusations.

(Happy Mother's Day to your wife and all the Mothers out there! Have a great day!)

Read my full post it explains it.. IHS jim

BTW IHS Means In His Service..

[Libby]

Read my full post it explains it.. IHS jim

I read your post in full. You are explaining YOUR opinion on "sin", which is actually exactly the SAME as mine!

What you failed to explain is where you find me "pandering to Mormon belief"!! Which was your accusation! Which was "false"...even by your own admission of what I said MY belief was!!

[Apologette]

Quote me, James. This is simply not true, since I do not believe the Trinity is three separate gods, nor do I believe that Jesus is our "brother". I understand how some people might come to that conclusion (even some mainstream Christians hold that belief), BUT it is not *MY* personal belief. You simply misunderstand...almost everything I write.



You mean, your olive branches full of threats and invitations to leave? Right.

I've seen you deny Christian beliefs, as well, in order to compromise with Mormonism. And how about Yogananda's teaching that you are god, and I'm god, everybody's god?

[Libby]

Yep, I have been there, that's for sure, but not in almost two years. I've had many questions, no doubt about it, but I have NOT been (so called) "pandering to Mormons" on this thread, as James has accused. I haven't ever really done that. I am friends with most Mormons on these boards, but my friendships and my kindness towards them have nothing to do with my beliefs about "Mormonism".

[James Banta]

Yep, I have been there, that's for sure, but not in almost two years. I've had many questions, no doubt about it, but I have NOT been (so called) "pandering to Mormons" on this thread, as James has accused. I haven't ever really done that. I am friends with most Mormons on these boards, but my friendships and my kindness towards them have nothing to do with my beliefs about "Mormonism".

You do seem a bit dense.. That is an observation. To deny that the scripture is fully the word of God, To believer that any of the Bible has been changed from it's original meaning isn't pandering to the LDS.. Is where that observation comes from. That is their main objection to the Bible and you have aided and comforted them in that terrible error.. I don't care if you see that as pandering or not, that is the meaning of the word in this context.. I was, no, I am NOT LYING when I use it.. You disagree and call me a liar as I do so. I disagree and tell you even in doing that, when I speak only the truth of God's word your attack on me is also pandering.. That's right the mormons believe I am a liar.. You agree with them and post it on the main channel emboldening them. Thus you are aiding, that is pandering..

There you go two reasons that PROVE that you pander to the LDS.. You say you are just discussing with them in friendship.. No you are agreeing with them in their sin.. You have come here from a philosophy that taught that all of us are part of the GOD that is in all things. That is saying that God is also sin. That is more than mere pandering that in Blasphemy. You were in Idolatry and have never brought that sin out to those that were hurt by it. When you announces it as you left here, I was hurt that you being taught the truth would so quickly be caught up is the worship of false Gods.. You could have come back and said that you were sorry and you knew that what you did was wrong.. That it was serious sin. Did you? NO, you just went on like you had the right to jump back into the Christian world without any questions.. You have now gotten what you deserve.. Your "Holier than thou" at***ude is a joke.. You are still in your sin, you unconfused sin of having other Gods, before YHWH is still on you.. You are guilty of allowing nonbelievers to be built up in their arrogant rebellion against the truth..

I have changed my Mind this broad is for Christian who will defend the faith to take it's truth to nonbelievers.. If you won't repent and turn whole heatedly to Jesus and reject the teaching of any and all cultist you should leave.. IHS jim

[Libby]

I knew you couldn't stay away for long.

That's okay. Do your thing, but you are still telling untruths about me. That much is obvious to anyone who reads here (and is not "pandering" to you).

[James Banta]

Yep, I have been there, that's for sure, but not in almost two years. I've had many questions, no doubt about it, but I have NOT been (so called) "pandering to Mormons" on this thread, as James has accused. I haven't ever really done that. I am friends with most Mormons on these boards, but my friendships and my kindness towards them have nothing to do with my beliefs about "Mormonism".

You denial of Jesus is pandering to the LDS.. They are at least honest in their denial.. They come right out and teach that Jesus is the creation of yet another created god.. You sneak off, accept the teaching of other Gods, and then come back here and try to tell Christians that they are in sin.. What is that in your eye a splinter of wood or a plank? have I lied in my life.. YES!! and I have confessed it publicly here among believers and nonbelievers.. I still have many of the nonbelievers judging me for a sin that I have brought to God.. have you really done this or didn't you think it was wrong to deny His word, deny that Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN, That there is one God and not millions of them as your Eastern cults teach. And I almost let yiou get away with it.. Get behind me Satan! get stright with God then come back and tell us that you are sorry for the pain you cause us here on WM then we can deal with you.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

You haven't mentioned the many others things you have said and I asked you not to continue this here, please. It's personal and it's very disruptive.

And, if you do, in whatever vain, have the decency to quote me, before you make accusations, and then we will talk about it.

Get used to it, your idolatry is blatant.. Until you deal with it I will not welcome you here.. I was also taken back by Alan's concealed statement that lead us to wonder if he puts the act of water baptism over the blood shed Jesus on the cross.. Does he really believe that there is something we can do that makes us acceptable to God? That is as big of a question as I have now about your level of repentance for putting other God above YHWH.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Taken to private message.

Apologies, on my part, for taking this thread even further off topic.

You brought it back and here it will stay.. I am not the one living in unconfused sin. That is you.. When you get it taken care of them come back and accuse me.. I stand ready to forgive you of the damages you have caused since you went off worshiping false gods.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

I knew you couldn't stay away for long.

That's okay. Do your thing, but you are still telling untruths about me. That much is obvious to anyone who reads here (and is not "pandering" to you).

If heaven is made up of the James' of the world and hell is made up of those whom James labels as sinners, I would choose to be with you. (and I think God would too ;) ....or in other words, heaven would be hell and hell would be heaven...) Thanks for being honest in the dialogue Libby.

[James Banta]

If heaven is made up of the James' of the world and hell is made up of those whom James labels as sinners, I would choose to be with you. (and I think God would too ;) ....or in other words, heaven would be hell and hell would be heaven...) Thanks for being honest in the dialogue Libby.

Pandering isn't it to have a cultist like Julie on your side Libby? You are in total denial that your trip into idolatry is still hanging over you.. You can judge your position by who your friends are looks like you are much close to the LDS than you are to Jesus.. You think you are right in calling me a liar.. I am convinced that I am right calling you an Idolator.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Quite a piece of garbage!

You still HAVE NOT LOOKED UP the Council of Trent. why should I do that for you?

BTW church history IS OBJECTIVE, especially if three (or more) independent sources state that X, Y and Z happened at Trent.

Your statement above indicates that you prefer to bloviate lies instead of dealing with the truth. That is quite the testimony. Therefore in my opinion, it is not wrong to call you a habitual liar, who prefers to remain in darkness than to see the truth and light.

I have looked up the council of Trent. I am asking if you agree of disagree with it. If you are Catholic, it would make sense of your outrage that no books were removed. If you are not, how do you see the council as this was (according to history)...
The holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully ***embled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, keeps this constantly in view, namely, that the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the Church after the errors have been removed.

...

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, ***, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to ***us, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

So, I will ask again. Do you agree with the Council of Trent..why or why not?

And as far as objective history with three reliable witnesses---I wonder how native Americans would feel about our "reliable" "objective" history--oh, that I have watched change over time--at least in the perspective in which it is viewed. :)

[Apologette]

I have looked up the council of Trent. I am asking if you agree of disagree with it. If you are Catholic, it would make sense of your outrage that no books were removed. If you are not, how do you see the council as this was (according to history)...

So, I will ask again. Do you agree with the Council of Trent..why or why not?

And as far as objective history with three reliable witnesses---I wonder how native Americans would feel about our "reliable" "objective" history--oh, that I have watched change over time--at least in the perspective in which it is viewed. :)
Since the Council of Trent was NOT one of the Ecumenical Councils, why would you ask a Christian if he believed in it? You don't know your church history at all.

[Apologette]

I have looked up the council of Trent. I am asking if you agree of disagree with it. If you are Catholic, it would make sense of your outrage that no books were removed. If you are not, how do you see the council as this was (according to history)...

So, I will ask again. Do you agree with the Council of Trent..why or why not?

And as far as objective history with three reliable witnesses---I wonder how native Americans would feel about our "reliable" "objective" history--oh, that I have watched change over time--at least in the perspective in which it is viewed. :)

Speaking of Native Americans, do you believe their skin is darker due to sin? Are they filthy or loathsome?

[BigJulie]

Since the Council of Trent was NOT one of the Ecumenical Councils, why would you ask a Christian if he believed in it? You don't know your church history at all.

Oh, are Catholics considered non-Christian?

[Libby]

Pandering isn't it to have a cultist like Julie on your side Libby? You are in total denial that your trip into idolatry is still hanging over you.. You can judge your position by who your friends are looks like you are much close to the LDS than you are to Jesus.. You think you are right in calling me a liar.. I am convinced that I am right calling you an Idolator.. IHS jim

I'll take a "cultist" like Julie any day over your arrogant babblings, James.

[James Banta]

I'll take a "cultist" like Julie any day over your arrogant babblings, James.

Well as long as you are unwilling to call my "arrogant babblings" incorrect as I say you are pandering to the LDS I am happy.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Well as long as you are unwilling to call my "arrogant babblings" incorrect as I say you are pandering to the LDS I am happy.. IHS jim

I think she is willing to call your arrogant babblings incorrect....;)

[Libby]

I think she is willing to call your arrogant babblings incorrect....;)

I have James on ignore, so I didn't see that! That's our James, always trying to tell people what to do! But, don't you dare tell him that he might be wrong, because that means you are "pandering"...even if he really IS wrong. :)

[BigJulie]

I have James on ignore, so I didn't see that! That's our James, always trying to tell people what to do! But, don't you dare tell him that he might be wrong, because that means you are "pandering"...even if he really IS wrong. :)

:)

Here is what James said originally:


Quote Originally Posted by James Banta View Post

Well as long as you are unwilling to call my "arrogant babblings" incorrect as I say you are pandering to the LDS I am happy.. IHS jim

I had to comment because he got himself in trouble with a double negative and I don't think he realized it.

[Billyray]

Oh, are Catholics considered non-Christian?
There are many Catholics who are Christian but the Catholic church has many false teachings.

[Billyray]

So, I will ask again. Do you agree with the Council of Trent..why or why not?

Are you still trying to argue about the Apocrypha?

[BigJulie]

There are many Catholics who are Christian but the Catholic church has many false teachings.

So, with their false teachings--where does that leave Catholics in the eternities--according to you--heaven of hell?

[James Banta]

So, with their false teachings--where does that leave Catholics in the eternities--according to you--heaven of hell?

The Catholic church is a cult, but it is a Christian cult.. So if a person believes in Christ and only in Him for their salvation they are saved.. To do that they must reject many of their church's tenants. But in doing that the church isn't offended.. If you don't believe in praying to saints, or believing that Mary the mother of Jesus is special, that church doesn't care.. A person can be a "good" Catholic and be a Born Again Christian by God's grace though Faith in Jesus.. A member of the LDS church has no way to remain a believing member as hold that as the means of salvation.. No one is saved by being a Catholic, no one is saved by being a Baptist. In mormonism, church membership is an important step in salvation.. It is taught that there is no salvation outside the LDS church (Elder Bruce R. McConkie Mormon Doctrine, p.670). No one can enter God's highest heaven unless that Join the LDS church. It is taught that "We Must Be Baptized to Enter the Celestial Kingdom" (Gospel Principles (https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng)Chapter 20: Baptism). Catholics don't believe a person must be Catholic to be saved.. I guess that is all lies too isn't it? IHS jim

[BigJulie]

The Catholic church is a cult, but it is a Christian cult.. So if a person believes in Christ and only in Him for their salvation they are saved.. To do that they must reject many of their church's tenants. But in doing that the church isn't offended.. If you don't believe in praying to saints, or believing that Mary the mother of Jesus is special, that church doesn't care.. A person can be a "good" Catholic and be a Born Again Christian by God's grace though Faith in Jesus.. A member of the LDS church has no way to remain a believing member as hold that as the means of salvation.. No one is saved by being a Catholic, no one is saved by being a Baptist. In mormonism, church membership is an important step in salvation.. It is taught that there is no salvation outside the LDS church (Elder Bruce R. McConkie Mormon Doctrine, p.670). No one can enter God's highest heaven unless that Join the LDS church. It is taught that "We Must Be Baptized to Enter the Celestial Kingdom" (Gospel Principles (https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng)Chapter 20: Baptism). Catholics don't believe a person must be Catholic to be saved.. I guess that is all lies too isn't it? IHS jim


Other than your consistency in criticizing the LDS faith, your beliefs seem to move all over the place.

Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand.

[Billyray]

So, with their false teachings--where does that leave Catholics in the eternities--according to you--heaven of hell?
You are not saved by a church--that is a mormon belief. As I said before there are many Catholics who are Christian and will be saved. Now can you tell me why you asked "Oh, are Catholics considered non-Christian?"

[BigJulie]

You are not saved by a church--that is a mormon belief. As I said before there are many Catholics who are Christian and will be saved. Now can you tell me why you asked "Oh, are Catholics considered non-Christian?"

So, to you, someone can believe in "false beliefs" and be saved---or are they really Catholic if they "reject many of their tenants"? Can someone be Catholic and reject the teachings of their church?

I don't think any Mormon would ***ert that they are saved by their church, but rather by believing what Christ taught, which is embodied in His church--which is why Mormons church is called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

So, I find it fascinating that you believe you can belong to a church and either reject its tenants or not reject its tenants and be saved. Seems pretty wishy-washy to me.

[Billyray]

So, to you, someone can believe in "false beliefs" and be saved---or are they really Catholic if they "reject many of their tenants"? Can someone be Catholic and reject the teachings of their church?

They sure can just like a you can be "mormon" and "reject many of their tenants"


I don't think any Mormon would ***ert that they are saved by their church, but rather by believing what Christ taught, which is embodied in His church--which is why Mormons church is called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Are you saying they dropped the "only true church on the face of the earth" mantra with the true "priesthood authority"?


So, I find it fascinating that you believe you can belong to a church and either reject its tenants or not reject its tenants and be saved. Seems pretty wishy-washy to me.
As I said before salvation is based on placing your faith in the true Christ of the Bible. The problem with mormonism is that their gods are false gods that are not in line with what the Bible teaches.

[Billyray]

I don't think any Mormon would ***ert that they are saved by their church, but rather by believing what Christ taught, which is embodied in His church--which is why Mormons church is called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

But you don't believe what the Bible teaches nor do you believe what Christ has taught. That is why Christians don't consider lds as Christians.

[BigJulie]

They sure can just like a you can be "mormon" and "reject many of their tenants" So, to you then, someone can be "Mormon" and be saved if they reject the tenants. So, to you--the words "Catholic" or "Mormon" don't really mean that a person espouses to a set of beliefs, but rather is just...what exactly?

Are you saying they dropped the "only true church on the face of the earth" mantra with the true "priesthood authority"? We believe it is the only true church as it is the only church that has Christ's power here on earth, which is the priesthood. That does not mean that only Mormons will be saved, because you and I both know that Mormons believe that we are held accountable for what God teaches us. As such, Mormons don't go around noting who will go to hell and who won't the way some "christians" do.

As I said before salvation is based on placing your faith in the true Christ of the Bible. The problem with mormonism is that their gods are false gods that are not in line with what the Bible teaches.

Okay, so how can a Catholic be "Christian" according to you, if they have false tenants and do not believe as you do regarding the Bible? In fact, this discussion got started because it was noted that the Catholic Bible is not the same Bible and that the Council of Trent was not considered legit to Christians.

Is the way you see a Catholic or Mormon saved as being a Catholic or Mormon in name only and not really believing what their church teaches?

[BigJulie]

But you don't believe what the Bible teaches nor do you believe what Christ has taught. That is why Christians don't consider lds as Christians.

Actually, we have had long discussions that I do believe that the Bible is consistent with what I believe.

But now you have me really curious. You just said that you don't consider LDS as Christians---but you acknowledge Catholics can be Christian but have a false set of beliefs. Do they have to give up their tenants to be considered Christian? This is a simple yes or no here really.

In fact, you said
Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post

They sure can just like a you can be "mormon" and "reject many of their tenants" So, couldn't someone also be "Mormon" and be Christian likewise?

[BigJulie]

But you don't believe what the Bible teaches nor do you believe what Christ has taught. That is why Christians don't consider lds as Christians.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Sometimes you refer to "Lds" as an individual...that someone who is "Mormon" can give up their beliefs, just like someone who is Catholic--but then you lump Mormons together by saying
But you don't believe what the Bible teaches nor do you believe what Christ has taught. That is why Christians don't consider lds as Christians.

Which is it? You start by making it personal about my beliefs, then you generalize that to all Mormons. But you don't do the same to Catholics, it appears. Which is it?

[Billyray]

So, to you then, someone can be "Mormon" and be saved if they reject the tenants.

I think that this is rare but certainly possibility. Grant Palmer comes to mind.



So, to you--the words "Catholic" or "Mormon" don't really mean that a person espouses to a set of beliefs, but rather is just...what exactly?

BigJ this may be news to you but their are a lot of people who attend a certain church but don't necessarily hold to all of their doctrine. I have a Catholic friend who attends a Catholic church but does not believe all that they teach. As I said earlier Grant Palmer doesn't believe what mormonism teaches.

[BigJulie]

BigJ this may be news to you but their are a lot of people who attend a certain church but don't necessarily hold to all of their doctrine. I have a Catholic friend who attends a Catholic church but does not believe all that they teach. As I said earlier Grant Palmer doesn't believe what mormonism teaches.

So, basically---being "Mormon" or "Catholic" doesn't really mean anything--what is important is what someone believes. And what beliefs are those exactly, as they are not tied to a "church" to you (as you believe someone can belong to a church and not believe the doctrines taught in that church.)

[Billyray]

Okay, so how can a Catholic be "Christian" according to you, if they have false tenants and do not believe as you do regarding the Bible?
The Catholic church may teach false tenets but the person may reject those tenets. You keep thinking organization but as I said before an organization doesn't save you. You have been brain washed into thinking this way.

[Billyray]

So, basically---being "Mormon" or "Catholic" doesn't really mean anything--what is important is what someone believes.
Why do you continually believe that an organization saves you? It doesn't. The main problem is that if you go to an organization such as the mormon church you will be much less likely to be saved because you are taught false doctrine but it is possible to find the Biblical Jesus while mormon. I was mormon when I found the true God and many other ex lds have the same experience--but most leave and find a Bible based church. However there may be some who stay due to family reason etc. but don't hold to the lds teachings.

[Billyray]

Okay, so let me get this straight. Sometimes you refer to "Lds" as an individual...that someone who is "Mormon" can give up their beliefs, just like someone who is Catholic--but then you lump Mormons together by saying

Which is it? You start by making it personal about my beliefs, then you generalize that to all Mormons. But you don't do the same to Catholics, it appears. Which is it?
You for sure don't believe the Bible nor Jesus because I have discussed these issues with you at length so I know where you stand. And when I say mormon I am referring to the official lds teaching and those who are in line with those teachings--such as yourself. This isn't that hard to understand BigJ--what part are you having a hard time understanding thus far?

[James Banta]

Other than your consistency in criticizing the LDS faith, your beliefs seem to move all over the place.

Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand.

I love it when you and others who are my critics say these kind of things.. Look at the doctrines I showed as being what the LDS believe

1. That the LDS can't believe that salvation is by God's through Faith plus nothing. It is strange that I used LDS.org to find this evidence. If the LDS church says this is what they believe who am I to argue.


Joseph Smith perverted the KJV of the Bible in Roman 4:16 to allow that both Grace and Works.. The KJV says:



KJV Romans 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace...


Then in Smith's perversion of the translation He adds works


JSP Romans 4:16
Therefore ye are justified of faith and works...


What did the Holy Spirit teach us as the relationship of Grace and Works for salvation?



Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. (The JSP didn't change this p***age at all)


Since the REAL Bible teaches that salvation is either by Grace or through good Works the teaching of Smith found in his perversion of the Bible is flat UNBIBLICAL. Ok That takes care of my first objection I listed here.. Seems I was Biblical and truthful in every way in what I said..

2. In mormonism, church membership is an important step in salvation.. It is taught that there is no salvation outside the LDS church (Elder Bruce R. McConkie Mormon Doctrine, p.670).

Since I referenced an apostles of the LDS church in this statement how can it be anything but a doctrine of the Church.. I have never heard the president of the LDS teach that this statement is in error.. In fact statement three supports this teaching..

3.No one can enter God's highest heaven unless they Join the LDS church. It is taught that "We Must Be Baptized to Enter the Celestial Kingdom" (Gospel Principles (https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng)Chapter 20: Baptism). This is again recovered from the Church's official home page.. Does the LDS place data on that site that lies about the beliefs of the church?

It is up to you now to look up these references and show where I have misused them. Show where works is not taught to be as important for salvation as Grace.. Show that the LDS church believes that there is salvation for non LDS other than mere resurrection in LDS teachings.. Then show where the LDS teaches that baptism is not required for salvation into God's presence.. If you can't then show me how my statement are like those of a foolish man.. Sounds to me that only a FOOLISH man that would change the Scripture to teach what he wants instead of allowing it to remain as the Holy Spirit gave it and believe that salvation is by faith outside the works of the Law.. Again you make accusations without merit.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Is the way you see a Catholic or Mormon saved as being a Catholic or Mormon in name only and not really believing what their church teaches?
I think that majority of mormons hold to the official lds doctrine--but not all do. Again this may be news to you. However those who find the true Christ usually leave and find a Bible based church--some don't and attend lds service and retain lds membership but don't buy the lds false teachings.

[BigJulie]

I think that majority of mormons hold to the official lds doctrine--but not all do. Again this may be news to you. However those who find the true Christ usually leave and find a Bible based church--some don't and attend lds service and retain lds membership but don't buy the lds false teachings.

So, to you, someone who is "Christian" is someone who goes to one church and believes something else? Is that how it is for all Christians---they go to a church, but they only hold on to what is right? (by your definition, at least.)

If that is the case, then wouldn't it be true that you would not be able to judge anyone by the church they attend?

[BigJulie]

The Catholic church may teach false tenets but the person may reject those tenets. You keep thinking organization but as I said before an organization doesn't save you. You have been brain washed into thinking this way.

Oh, I don't think a "church" saves you. But I find it interesting that you believe a person can attend a Catholic church and still be saved as long as they reject the tenants of the Catholic church. So to you what the Catholic church teaches is not Christian...just as you believe what the LDS church teaches is not Christian, right?

[BigJulie]

Why do you continually believe that an organization saves you? It doesn't. The main problem is that if you go to an organization such as the mormon church you will be much less likely to be saved because you are taught false doctrine but it is possible to find the Biblical Jesus while mormon. I was mormon when I found the true God and many other ex lds have the same experience--but most leave and find a Bible based church. However there may be some who stay due to family reason etc. but don't hold to the lds teachings.

You are putting me into a paradigm of what you think but doesn't fit. So, to you a Catholic persons is "less likely" to be saved because of what they are taught? Can I make that ***umption? So, to you, the Catholic church teaches false doctrine and therefore is not a Christian church. Would that be a fair ***essment?

So, to you the "council of Trent" (as part of the church doctrine) is false doctrine....or at least, their choice of scripture was wrong. Is that what you believe?

[neverending]

So, to you, someone can believe in "false beliefs" and be saved---or are they really Catholic if they "reject many of their tenants"? Can someone be Catholic and reject the teachings of their church?

I don't think any Mormon would ***ert that they are saved by their church, but rather by believing what Christ taught, which is embodied in His church--which is why Mormons church is called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

So, I find it fascinating that you believe you can belong to a church and either reject its tenants or not reject its tenants and be saved. Seems pretty wishy-washy to me.

Can a person truly be a Mormon if they DON"T believe every teaching of Mormonism? Please don't try and fool me or anyone who knows about what Mormonism teaches. YOU KNOW FULL WELL that your church teaches it is, "THE ONL TRUE CHURCH" here on earth and belonging to any other will not give anyone salvation and certainly no exaltation. Is this not true?

As for what you call yourselves who cares? You believe in a false Christ so Mormons, call yourselves anything for your church is being dishonest and deceitful. With many different denominations in the world, the ones who teach ONLY the Bible and teach that people must have, a belief in Jesus Christ, accept who He is and accept Him as their Lord and Savior then there is no need for anything else. What did Christ say to Nicodemus? That we must be born again. And of course Nicodemus didn't understand what Christ was trying to tell him. Christ had to tell him that being born again was not being reborn, coming forth from Nicodemus' mother's womb; but born again of the spirit. This is what ALL BORN AGAIN Christians believe. Romans 10:9 reveals what we all need to do in order to be saved. It is plain and simple.

Now, what if a Mormon sits quietly through Sacrament meeting every Sunday but there are some doctrines that that person secretly doesn't believe in. How would anyone know what this person is thinking? They seem very much into the faith. I had several doubts when a Mormon. For one, I never believed Joseph Smith was a prophet, never did. Yes, I can call myself a hypocrite for going through the motions when I was a Mormon but when you truly look at your life, can you honestly say you do all things according to your church without ever doubting why? Were you married in the temple? Did the ceremony not bother you the first time you went through? DO you sometimes do things because you have to, because it's what's expected? Like many kids who go off on missions? My brother went on a mission ONLY to make my father happy, it was not what my brother wanted to do. So how successful was my brother then, going door to door when he didn't want to be there? Even as a young girl, when it came time to be baptized, I was afraid, and felt I was being forced to do that and wasn't able to decide for myself. Was this fair to me? What does an eight year old child understand about baptism? What can an eight year old child understand about the sacrifice Christ made for him/her? Why do Mormons force their children to be baptized when they are to young for such things and shouldn't these children be old enough to decide for themselves?

What is important Julie is that every person understands that they are a sinner. It is because of sin that Christ came to earth, taking on a physical body and living a SINLESS life and going to the cross and dying in extreme pain for us. He did that taking upon himself ALL SIN, every SIN of EVERY person who had lived, or would live. This He did because of His great love for us. It is NOT a church that matters or what a church calls itself, for the only one who does matter, is JESUS CHRIST!!

We attend a Baptist Church so according to you: "but rather by believing what Christ taught, which is embodied in His church......" we then must have the true church. "...And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:47) So, it is the Lord who adds to His Church daily isn't it? HMMMM.....puts a whole new slant on things does it not? I believe what Christ taught and his teachings are embodied within our church we attend. Are His teachings embodied for real in your church? You said that both grace and works are required for salvation. The Bible disagrees with you in Romans 11:6. I believe in God's grace and believe in HIS word and nothing more. Born Again Christians don't have to rely on extra Biblical anything, we have God's word, it has been there for us and the Lord promised, "My word shall NEVER p*** away."

[BigJulie]

[SIZE=3]Can a person truly be a Mormon if they DON"T believe every teaching of Mormonism? Please don't try and fool me or anyone who knows about what Mormonism teaches.

No, this is the ***ertion Billyray is making. Here is what he said when I asked:

Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post

So, to you, someone can believe in "false beliefs" and be saved---or are they really Catholic if they "reject many of their tenants"? Can someone be Catholic and reject the teachings of their church?

He responded:


Quote Originally Posted by Billyray View Post

They sure can just like a you can be "mormon" and "reject many of their tenants"

[Billyray]

Oh, I don't think a "church" saves you. But I find it interesting that you believe a person can attend a Catholic church and still be saved as long as they reject the tenants of the Catholic church. So to you what the Catholic church teaches is not Christian...just as you believe what the LDS church teaches is not Christian, right?
I find it interesting that you think that everyone who attends a Catholic or Mormon church believes everything that the respective church teaches. Some actually read the Bible and are able to think for themselves--not accepting the false teachings that a particular organization teaches. Too bad you can't do the same. Numerous posters have shown you where you reject the Bible but thus far you have defended the false lds position. Perhaps one day this may change but I am not holding my breath.

BTW below is an example that not all who attend the lds church believe what it teaches.


http://www.newordermormon.org

What is a New Order Mormon?
New Order Mormons are those who no longer believe some (or much) of the dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons. New Order Mormons recognize both good and bad in the Church, and have determined that the Church does not have to be perfect in order to remain useful. New Order Mormons seek the middle way to be Mormon.

[Billyray]

Another example of a mormon who didn't believe a lot of lds teachings is Grant Palmer. Grant has since resigned his membership but this was after repeated attempts by the lds church to silence him. You can read more about him and his communication with lds officials at

http://mormonthink.com/grantpalmer.htm

http://mormonthink.com/gptimeline.htm

[BigJulie]

I find it interesting that you think that everyone who attends a Catholic or Mormon church believes everything that the respective church teaches. Some actually read the Bible and are able to think for themselves--not accepting the false teachings that a particular organization teaches. Too bad you can't do the same. Numerous posters have shown you where you reject the Bible but thus far you have defended the false lds position. Perhaps one day this may change but I am not holding my breath.

BTW below is an example that not all who attend the lds church believe what it teaches.

But if that is true--=that they can read the Bible and reject the tenants, why would they still attend that church?

You have yet to tell me if you see the Catholic church, with all the doctrines it espouses, a Christian church? Do you believe it teaches false doctrines that make it less likely that someone will be saved?

(Yes, don't hold your breath. My faith is very strong and I have had the spirit bear witness to me of the truthfulness of the teachings on many numerous occasions. The end result is a good and happy life.)

[BigJulie]

Another example of a mormon who didn't believe a lot of lds teachings is Grant Palmer. Grant has since resigned his membership but this was after repeated attempts by the lds church to silence him. You can read more about him and his communication with lds officials at

http://mormonthink.com/grantpalmer.htm

http://mormonthink.com/gptimeline.htm
Yes, he resigned his membership. That is my point. So, do you believe the Catholic church is non-Christian as well? That seems to be a question you haven't answered yet.

[Billyray]

Yes, he resigned his membership. That is my point.
And what about the point that prior to his resignation he was lds for many years--YET disbelieved many of the teachings--which is why the church har***ed him and tried to silence him.

[BigJulie]

And what about the point that prior to his resignation he was lds for many years--YET disbelieved many of the teachings--which is why the church har***ed him and tried to silence him.

Okay, so someone can be a member of a church, but disbelieve the church's tenants--and therefore be Christian. That still does not answer my question of whether or not the Catholic church is considered a "Christian" church according to its tenants.

[Billyray]

So, do you believe the Catholic church is non-Christian as well? That seems to be a question you haven't answered yet.
The Catholic church has many false teachings just like the mormon church. However the mormon church is MUCH further away from the truth when comparing the two. Mormonism teaches false gods--Catholicism does not. Although Catholicism teaches many false things I would still include them as Christian. Since mormonism teaches strange gods and virtually everything else that goes against what the Bible teaches they are clearly outside of Christianity.

[Billyray]

Okay, so someone can be a member of a church, but disbelieve the church's tenants--and therefore be Christian.
You are asking if a person can be a Christian and still be a member of the lds church. Sure. I was still a member of the lds church when I became a Christian. A Christian is someone who places their faith in the true Christ of the Bible--not their affiliation with an organization. For some reason you can't seem to separate the two.

[BigJulie]

The Catholic church has many false teachings just like the mormon church. However the mormon church is MUCH further away from the truth when comparing the two. Mormonism teaches false gods--Catholicism does not. Although Catholicism teaches many false things I would still include them as Christian. Since mormonism teaches strange gods and virtually everything else that goes against what the Bible teaches they are clearly outside of Christianity.

Interesting that you can consider a church a Christian church even though you believe it has many false teachings--and that you decide based on the degree of false teachings.

So, that takes me back to the question I gave JohnT which he never answered. You then believe that the council of Trent was false doctrine regarding scripture---or not? Do you disagree with what they chose to include as scripture?

[Billyray]

So, that takes me back to the question I gave JohnT which he never answered. You then believe that the council of Trent was false doctrine regarding scripture---or not? Do you disagree with what they chose to include as scripture?

Yes I do believe that this is false doctrine. Yes I disagree with the fact that they canonized books that were not considered scripture by the early church NOR are they considered scripture by the Jewish faith. And I might add the mormons don't consider these books scripture. Perhaps you also recall what we talked about earlier that Joseph Smith owned a KJV Bible that included the Apocrypha and yet he did not include any of these books in the JST.

[Billyray]

Interesting that you can consider a church a Christian church even though you believe it has many false teachings--and that you decide based on the degree of false teachings.

Why do you find this interesting? Can you elaborate a little bit for me?

[neverending]

.

No, this is the ***ertion Billyray is making. Here is what he said when I asked:


He responded:

This was a poor response. I want to know your thoughts.

[BigJulie]

Yes I do believe that this is false doctrine. Yes I disagree with the fact that they canonized books that were not considered scripture by the early church NOR are they considered scripture by the Jewish faith. And I might add the mormons don't consider these books scripture. Perhaps you also recall what we talked about earlier that Joseph Smith owned a KJV Bible that included the Apocrypha and yet he did not include any of these books in the JST.

Okay, so you believe that the Catholic church have "scripture" that is not scripture and that their false doctrine includes canonizing books that are not scripture and yet you still feel that they are a "Christian" church because they have less falsehoods than other religions.

[BigJulie]

Why do you find this interesting? Can you elaborate a little bit for me?

Yes, I am curious how you determine what is true and what is false. Do you base your beliefs on history? Such that you search out history to determine what was closest to what happened during Christ's time and go with that? And then by degree, anything that veers too much is no longer Christian? (As it appears you determine what is correctly that Bible based on history as noted:
Yes I disagree with the fact that they canonized books that were not considered scripture by the early church NOR are they considered scripture by the Jewish faith.

[Billyray]

This was a poor response. I want to know your thoughts.
I know that you are addressing BigJ but I would like to add a little bit more and perhaps we can get her to comment on it. I was a life long lds--but was inactive for many years after my mission. Despite being inactive I was still on the lds roles and I still believed mormonism up until the point that I became a Christian. At that point I was still lds since I was still a member of record but I didn't believe what mormonism taught. I sought out a Bible believing church quickly thereafter. I would be interested in hearing from other lds who left for Christianity and I would bet that many were converted while they were still lds and then left shortly thereafter for a solid Bible teaching church.

[Billyray]

Yes, I am curious how you determine what is true and what is false. Do you base your beliefs on history? Such that you search out history to determine what was closest to what happened during Christ's time and go with that? And then by degree, anything that veers too much is no longer Christian? (As it appears you determine what is correctly that Bible based on history as noted:
You said that you found my response as interesting. Are you going to elaborate a little bit for me why you find this so interesting?

[BigJulie]

You said that you found my response as interesting. Are you going to elaborate a little bit for me why you find this so interesting?

I just did. See above.

[Billyray]

(As it appears you determine what is correctly that Bible based on history as noted:
The "history" that you are speaking about is about adding books that were never considered canon by the Jews or the early church.

[Billyray]

I just did. See above.
No you didn't tell me why you found my response as interesting. Are you going to tell me or not?

[BigJulie]

No you didn't tell me why you found my response as interesting. Are you going to tell me or not?

I found it interesting because you base what is scripture on your understanding of history. That is what you just told me. When I asked you if you thought the Council of Trent taught false doctrine when determining scripture, you said yes and then explained WHY by your understanding of history. I find that interesting. And yet, with this belief, you still consider them Christian based on not being too far from historically accurate.

Interesting that you didn't catch that in my first response though. ;)

[BigJulie]

The "history" that you are speaking about is about adding books that were never considered canon by the Jews or the early church.

Yes--so, you base it on your understanding of what the Bible should be based on what you understand of history.

[Billyray]

Yes--so, you base it on your understanding of what the Bible should be based on what you understand of history.
Perhaps you can qualify your statement when you say "understand of history". Are you using this phrase to mean interpretation of history? If that is the case what exactly did you have in mind?

[BigJulie]

Perhaps you can qualify your statement when you say "understand of history". Are you using this phrase to mean interpretation of history? If that is the case what exactly did you have in mind?

I mean how you understand history. So, if something came to light about history, would you change your beliefs? Lets say a new m****cript was found that was closer to the time of Christ that was different than the Bible you believe today...would you change what you believe?

[Billyray]

I mean how you understand history Lets say a new m****cript was found that was closer to the time of Christ that was different than the Bible you believe today...would you change what you believe?
So now you are not talking about actual history but specualation?

This whole topic started when you brought up the Apocrypha and questioned why it was not included in the canon of scripture that we have today. What evidence do you have that supports including this as canon--especially since your own standard works do not include it AND the fact that Joseph Smith owned a KJV Bible that included the Apocrypha and he ripped it out of his own Bible?

[BigJulie]

So now you are not talking about actual history but specualation?

This whole topic started when you brought up the Apocrypha and questioned why it was not included in the canon of scripture that we have today. What evidence do you have that supports including this as canon--especially since your own standard works do not include it AND the fact that Joseph Smith owned a KJV Bible that included the Apocrypha and he ripped it out of his own Bible?

I offer no evidence to whether or not it should be included in the canon. The question becomes who decides and determines what should be in the canon. You seem to think it is history--what has been accepted historically. But wouldn't that argument support both you and the Catholics as these books have been around historically and who was to decide that they should not be included? How do you know what is right concerning them? It appears your only answer is to look to history. But I have seen "history" change over time as new insights and artifacts come to light.

[Billyray]

I offer no evidence to whether or not it should be included in the canon.
Then why on earth did you even bring this up since you have no proof at all that these books should be included in the canon.


The question becomes who decides and determines what should be in the canon. You seem to think it is history--what has been accepted historically.

I don't think history is what decides the canon I think God is the one who determines what is in the canon.

Now some questions for you. What books should be in the canon that are not in the current canon? What books do you think should be removed.

[neverending]

Oh, I don't think a "church" saves you. But I find it interesting that you believe a person can attend a Catholic church and still be saved as long as they reject the tenants of the Catholic church. So to you what the Catholic church teaches is not Christian...just as you believe what the LDS church teaches is not Christian, right?

Julie, what you don't seem to know is that there are Christians within the Catholic Church, they're called, Evangelical Catholics. These people profess the same as any other Christians; that one must accept Christ as Lord and Savior, repent of their sins, have faith in Christ, believe that he died on the cross and rose again on the third day. In the Roman Catholic Church, those who accept that praying to idols is necessary, going to confession is necessary, doing Hail Mary's etc. are necessary that the Pope is infallible are NOT Christian! You know that God told us to not worship any graven image nor have any false gods. We know what happened to the Israelites because they melted down all their gold and made a golden calf all the while Moses was speaking with God at the burning bush and receiving the Law.

And sorry Julie, what your church teaches is not Christian since you worship a Christ that never existed. My Christ was always God. He was not anyone's brother. He didn't attain his position in heaven by progressing and progressing til BANG! one day he woke up and he was God. He is not part of a gang of gods either. There is but one God.

Answer this question if you can. If the God we worship progressed over and over til he became the God we worship, is there not a God who He must worship if progression is a constant? Can you see how confusing this idea is? Where does it stop? Is there some really, MIGHTY God out there? If that were so, why don't we know about him and why aren't we worshipping him since he is the highest God there is?

[BigJulie]

I don't think history is what decides the canon I think God is the one who determines what is in the canon.

Now some questions for you. What books should be in the canon that are not in the current canon? What books do you think should be removed.

If God determines what should be in the Canon, then how do you know who God inspired....why reject the Council of Trent?

[BigJulie]

Answer this question if you can. If the God we worship progressed over and over til he became the God we worship, is there not a God who He must worship if progression is a constant? Can you see how confusing this idea is? Where does it stop? Is there some really, MIGHTY God out there? If that were so, why don't we know about him and why aren't we worshipping him since he is the highest God there is?

Ummm, I think you mistake what I believe God to be or who He is.

Because we know God the Father by Jesus Christ---I'll explain my belief regarding God in terms of Jesus Christ. We learn that Christ is the express image of the Father and is the Son of the Father. His very nature is identical to His Fathers. He is like Him in every way. In this way, He is one with God and is from ever lasting to ever lasting.


Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.



Jhn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

But we also learn that Jesus Christ was part of the Godhead from the beginning.



Jhn 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.



1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
So, there are two ways to think of Jesus Christ. One, He was part of the Godhead prior to his coming to earth and was chosen from the beginning to be our Savior.

The second way is to recognize that, although part of the Godhead prior to his birth, he also came to earth, was born, suffered for our sins, died and was resurrected---and is so doing, was exalted.



Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.



Act 2:3 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

So, this "progression" that you speak of---Christ went through it--and yet was the Son of God---always One with God in nature. Yet, went from not having a physical body to having a physical resurrected bodies. And he beckons us to come follow Him.

That "some mighty God" you speak of?--It is God the Father. That is what He taught Abraham--that He is greater than all.

[Billyray]

If God determines what should be in the Canon, then how do you know who God inspired....why reject the Council of Trent?
Because these books are not canonized in the Jewish Bible nor are they accepted by the Jewish community as scripture.

Now are you even going to get around to answering my question? Which books do you think should be included in the Bible that are not in your current KJV? Which books are in your KJV that should not be there?

[BigJulie]

Because these books are not canonized in the Jewish Bible nor are they accepted by the Jewish community as scripture.

Now are you even going to get around to answering my question? Which books do you think should be included in the Bible that are not in your current KJV? Which books are in your KJV that should not be there?

So, it is the Jews that determined your scripture? Even though they rejected Christ? And this body of men is who you believe you should follow when it comes to scripture? That they were inspired to the will of God?

It is easy for me to answer your question. Books considered scripture are those written by and determined to be included by prophets--or those appointed by God to reveal to man the will of God.

[Billyray]

So, it is the Jews that determined your scripture? Even though they rejected Christ? And this body of men is who you believe you should follow when it comes to scripture? That they were inspired to the will of God?

Jesus was a Jew and it was the same canon that he used. He accepted it as scripture and if books were missing He certainly would have made note of it. Don't you think?

[Billyray]

It is easy for me to answer your question. Books considered scripture are those written by and determined to be included by prophets--or those appointed by God to reveal to man the will of God.
Since it is easy for you to answer then perhaps you can finally answer my questions that I have asked you over and over again.

Which books are not included in the current lds Bible that should be there?

Which books are in the current lds Bible that you think should be removed?

[Billyray]

Since it is easy for you to answer then perhaps you can finally answer my questions that I have asked you over and over again.

Which books are not included in the current lds Bible that should be there?

Which books are in the current lds Bible that you think should be removed?
I have been very patient with you BigJ. Please answer these questions.

[neverending]

Since it is easy for you to answer then perhaps you can finally answer my questions that I have asked you over and over again.

Which books are not included in the current lds Bible that should be there?

Which books are in the current lds Bible that you think should be removed?


Billy, these are very good questions. I would like to ask one more. If JS was a prophet, was called by God to restore His Church; then why don't the LDS use JS's translation of the Bible? Why do they continue to use the King James version? WHY?

[neverending]

So, it is the Jews that determined your scripture? Even though they rejected Christ? And this body of men is who you believe you should follow when it comes to scripture? That they were inspired to the will of God?

It is easy for me to answer your question. Books considered scripture are those written by and determined to be included by prophets--or those appointed by God to reveal to man the will of God.

Then Julie, why does your church still use the King James version of the Bible and not JS's translation? Certainly if he were called by God to restore His church, that translation should be the most accurate, wouldn't you say? Your answer to Billy is untrue. LDS have a prophet, have had many prophets so you ALL should be using JS's translation.
Wasn't what JS did good enough? Isn't his translation correct, after all JS saw God and Jesus Christ, was ordained to be the founder of your faith. certainly God wouldn't lead him astray with rewriting the Bible would he?

[neverending]

Ummm, I think you mistake what I believe God to be or who He is.

Because we know God the Father by Jesus Christ---I'll explain my belief regarding God in terms of Jesus Christ. We learn that Christ is the express image of the Father and is the Son of the Father. His very nature is identical to His Fathers. He is like Him in every way. In this way, He is one with God and is from ever lasting to ever lasting.






But we also learn that Jesus Christ was part of the Godhead from the beginning.






So, there are two ways to think of Jesus Christ. One, He was part of the Godhead prior to his coming to earth and was chosen from the beginning to be our Savior.

The second way is to recognize that, although part of the Godhead prior to his birth, he also came to earth, was born, suffered for our sins, died and was resurrected---and is so doing, was exalted.







So, this "progression" that you speak of---Christ went through it--and yet was the Son of God---always One with God in nature. Yet, went from not having a physical body to having a physical resurrected bodies. And he beckons us to come follow Him.

That "some mighty God" you speak of?--It is God the Father. That is what He taught Abraham--that He is greater than all.

Julie, since I don't believe your Book of Abraham, then we'll have nothing in common to refer to. Nothing is ever said to Abraham in the OT that God was greater than all. So, now what do we do with Isaiah when he said these things? "I am the LORD, and there is no other besides me: and there are no gods. I'm strengthening you, although you have not acknowledged me.." (Is. 45:5)
And what of Isaiah 43:10? ""You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."

Isaiah 44:6, "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God." Isaiah 44:8, "Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Seems to me that God was very definite that He knew NO OTHER gods, nor were there any other but Him. LDS idea of progression is just that, an idea. There is NO scripture found in the Bible that supports that idea. I can agree that God is greater than ALL things, I can not agree that my God is greater than all other gods because there are no other gods. Where is your reference?

[James Banta]

Ummm, I think you mistake what I believe God to be or who He is.

Because we know God the Father by Jesus Christ---I'll explain my belief regarding God in terms of Jesus Christ. We learn that Christ is the express image of the Father and is the Son of the Father. His very nature is identical to His Fathers. He is like Him in every way. In this way, He is one with God and is from ever lasting to ever lasting.

But we also learn that Jesus Christ was part of the Godhead from the beginning.

So, there are two ways to think of Jesus Christ. One, He was part of the Godhead prior to his coming to earth and was chosen from the beginning to be our Savior.

The second way is to recognize that, although part of the Godhead prior to his birth, he also came to earth, was born, suffered for our sins, died and was resurrected---and is so doing, was exalted.

So, this "progression" that you speak of---Christ went through it--and yet was the Son of God---always One with God in nature. Yet, went from not having a physical body to having a physical resurrected bodies. And he beckons us to come follow Him.

That "some mighty God" you speak of?--It is God the Father. That is what He taught Abraham--that He is greater than all.

Don't stop with just half of what God says about His nature.. Make it all fit.. When Jesus said that God is spirit, did he really mean that God has a spirit? That He has a physical body as Jesus does or did he mean that God is spirit? That a spirit hasn't a body of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).. If He had a physical body wasn't Jesus wrong in saying that we must worship Him is spirit? If He has a body of flesh and bone, why can't we worship Him in flesh? The LDS meaning of John 4:24 is flawed.. We don't worship God in the flesh because God the Father is not flesh, He is Spirit.. Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. Is He invisible like a spirit is invisible or visible like a tangible man?

“The Father,” said Joseph Smith, “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. …” (D&C 130:22) By LDS logic doesn't that mean that the Holy Ghost (Spirit) also has a tangible Body that can be seen? After all He is spirit. According to the flawed logic of the LDS seen in John 4:24 the Holy Ghost has a physical body as tangible as man's. Yet in all the Scripture the Holy Spirit is never seen, He like the Father are represented by differing manifestations.. The Father is said to be a consuming fire (Heb 12:29). In Psalm 91:4 it is said that God covers us with His feathers, and under His wings we find refuge. Does that mean that God is some kind of a giant bird? Is God Like these things, YES, but is he limited to being just these things? NO.. To understand what He is you have to read the whole of the Scripture and understand that Jesus is God and in the physical representation of the Father who is INVISIBLE.. Smith didn't have a single point of authority to teach that the Father has a body as tangible as man's. He doesn't because just like Smith saying that the Holy Ghost is Spirit Jesus said that same thing about the Father.. Smith is wrong saying that the Father is tangible.. Jesus is right..

Jesus is just part of the Godhead, in Him is the FULLNESS of God.. There is one God and Jesus is the fullness of that God (Col 2:9).. There is no other God that fulfills Jesus.. He is the fullness all by Himself. as are the Father, and the Holy Spirit.. There was never a times when Jesus was made to Progress. He did not do so as the Savior in His atonement for the sins of the world. He fulfilled the purpose of God for His mortal life.. You are right Jesus was always God.. There was never a time when He wasn't so. He was never Born of the Father in a premortal world..There was no council of the "Gods" where He as a mere spirit child of the "Gods" as chosen to be the Savior.. Since he has always been God He chose to enter mortality and come save us from our sins.. He chose. he was never appointed, ordained, or chosen to take on such a duty.. Jesus called Himself the Son of Man.Again I ask is that all He is? or is He also the Son of God? If he can be both of those things He can also be the THE MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, THE PRINCE OF PEACE.. Instead of chopping Him up, why not allow that he is all these things that are ascribed to Him personally and to Him as God in general?

My God is greater than all.. He is greater than Man, greater than all His creation, and He created all things.. By teaching that the LDS plan of salvation is one eternal round then the Father, was once a man as Smith did teach (History of the Church, Vol. 6, Ch. 14, p. 305) Is the one eternal round the teaching that through obedience to all His laws and performance of all required ordinances that we advance to the same level He was when He procreated the spirits of all men, and formed the world as a place for us to complete our mortal probation? Will we not cause those of our spirit children to also advance to that level of power and authority, One eternal round? If that is the case has God been eternally God or was He a mere spirit and then physical creation of another god? Stop trying to hide the weird briefs of mormonism and tell us the full truth just once.. You understand that a half truth is still nothing more than a full lie.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

It is easy for me to answer your question. Books considered scripture are those written by and determined to be included by prophets--or those appointed by God to reveal to man the will of God.
Since this is easy for you and the fact that I am going to give you an easy question--you should have no trouble answering this one.

Are Solomon’s Song of Songs inspired writings?

[BigJulie]

Since this is easy for you and the fact that I am going to give you an easy question--you should have no trouble answering this one.

Are Solomon’s Song of Songs inspired writings?

Ask a prophet :). Or that's right, you don't know any that are alive.

Here is your answer---from a prophet.


Sometimes called Canticles (as in Latin) or Song of Songs (as in Hebrew). Whether Solomon is actually the author is doubtful. The composition has many beautiful phrases and lyrical prose, often quoted in nonreligious literature. The JST states that “the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.” Both Jews and Christians have at times been reluctant to accept it into the canon of scripture because of its romantic content but have permitted it on the basis of its being an allegory of God’s love for Israel and of the Church.

[Billyray]

Ask a prophet :). Or that's right, you don't know any that are alive.

Here is your answer---from a prophet.
So Songs of Solomon is NOT inspired. Why do you have it in your Standard Works? Why not removed it if your prophet says that it is not inspired?

(see LDS Bible Dictionary https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/song-of-solomon)

[BigJulie]

So Songs of Solomon is NOT inspired. Why do you have it in your Standard Works? Why not removed it if your prophet says that it is not inspired?

(see LDS Bible Dictionary https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/song-of-solomon)

Because it is the King James version, which we use. I am sure there are some copyright issues as well.

[Billyray]

Because it is the King James version, which we use. I am sure there are some copyright issues as well.
But the LDS church has the power to make up their own translation or even use the JST and since the JST doesn't have the Song of Solomon you wouldn't need to change a thing as far as canon.

[BigJulie]

But the LDS church has the power to make up their own translation or even use the JST and since the JST doesn't have the Song of Solomon you wouldn't need to change a thing as far as canon.

Actually, copyright law would prohibit them from doing so. I think they would have to follow suit of so many other "Christian" Bibles and change quite a bit of the Bible to get around that.

[Billyray]

Actually, copyright law would prohibit them from doing so. I think they would have to follow suit of so many other "Christian" Bibles and change quite a bit of the Bible to get around that.
I was talking about a completely new translation incorporating the JST and dropping the Song of Solomon. Why not since Joseph has such an extensive revision to work with.

[BigJulie]

I was talking about a completely new translation incorporating the JST and dropping the Song of Solomon. Why not since Joseph has such an extensive revision to work with.

I think in order to avoid copyright infringement, it would take way more changes than the JST and dropping one book. I looked this up once and it takes fairly significant changes---which is why I think so many newer Bibles use very different language and the translations are quite different. Joseph Smith did for less extensive work than these newer Bibles.

[Billyray]

I think in order to avoid copyright infringement, it would take way more changes than the JST and dropping one book. I looked this up once and it takes fairly significant changes---which is why I think so many newer Bibles use very different language and the translations are quite different. Joseph Smith did for less extensive work than these newer Bibles.
You can go back to ancient m****cripts and do a direct translation so there wouldn't be any copyright issues and then they could incorporate Joseph's ideas into the new mormon translation and call it the NMT

[John T]

I think in order to avoid copyright infringement, it would take way more changes than the JST and dropping one book. I looked this up once and it takes fairly significant changes---which is why I think so many newer Bibles use very different language and the translations are quite different. Joseph Smith did for less extensive work than these newer Bibles.

Again, you post authoritatively about things which you know nothing about.

Therefore.........

[BigJulie]

Again, you post authoritatively about things which you know nothing about.

Therefore.........

""To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes." --The Derivative Copyright Law (partial). "


and

"So, as of 1881, the KJV had been under exclusive copyright in Great Britain and its colonies for 270 years. But there is more. To the present day the KJV is published in England under copyright. In private conversation, Sam Moore, president of Thomas Nelson Publishing of Nashville, Tennessee, the world's largest Bible publisher, informed Robert L. Sumner that there are currently four license holders with legal authority in England to publish the KJV: the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd, and Eyre & Spottiswoode." http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_king_james_copy.htm

In my Bible, published by the LDS church, it reads "Printed by permission of the Crown's patentee, Cambridge University Press. Printed in Great Britain 1994"

While the KJV may be public domain in the US...do you really think the church would have one Bible for the US and another for other parts of the world?

[BigJulie]

You can go back to ancient m****cripts and do a direct translation so there wouldn't be any copyright issues and then they could incorporate Joseph's ideas into the new mormon translation and call it the NMT

And what ancient m****cripts are those? The ones owned by whom?

[James Banta]

Because it is the King James version, which we use. I am sure there are some copyright issues as well.

The copyright issues are Only on the references and helps.. The text of the KJV of the Bible has been public domain for well over 100 years.. No one is forced to use parts of it they find to be non inspired.. The Son of Solomon is a beautiful representation of the Lord and His Church.. The Lord is shown as being more in love with Her than any man has ever loved any woman.. If mormonism doesn't see that they are missing a real opportunity to get as close to knowing the depth of God's love for us His church than you could even know in this world..

I don't pretend to be gifted in prophecy but even with my limited spiritual gifts I can see that.. I don't need any prophet but the one promised to be the word of God for me in my life (Heb 1:1-2). That prophet is NOT Dead.. Maybe your Jesus is Mine lives.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

But the LDS church has the power to make up their own translation or even use the JST and since the JST doesn't have the Song of Solomon you wouldn't need to change a thing as far as canon.

The LDS church does have a problem with the Inspired Version.. The copy rights for it are held by the Community of Christ.. It would cost the church a significant sum each year if they started printing the JSP among their standard works.. That doesn't mean that the original text of the KJV wouldn't be available to the LDS to *******ize in any way they wished to corrupt it.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

The copyright issues are Only on the references and helps.. The text of the KJV of the Bible has been public domain for well over 100 years.. No one is forced to use parts of it they find to be non inspired.. The Son of Solomon is a beautiful representation of the Lord and His Church.. The Lord is shown as being more in love with Her than any man has ever loved any woman.. If mormonism doesn't see that they are missing a real opportunity to get as close to knowing the depth of God's love for us His church than you could even know in this world..

I don't pretend to be gifted in prophecy but even with my limited spiritual gifts I can see that.. I don't need any prophet but the one promised to be the word of God for me in my life (Heb 1:1-2). That prophet is NOT Dead.. Maybe your Jesus is Mine lives.. IHS jim

The article I read stated differently and the proof to me is in the fact that there is a copyright permission at the beginning of it.

And if you don't need any prophet, then you might as well throw out the Bible all together because it took prophets to put it together. But you can see that your at***ude is not okay with God as he states that those who do not recognize where their Bible came from do not understand the Bible nor God's promises.

[Billyray]

The article I read stated differently and the proof to me is in the fact that there is a copyright permission at the beginning of it.

They could always start from scratch and give us an entirely new translation using multiple older m****cripts than were available at the time of the KJV translation--especially given the fact that the modern prophet supposedly has the gift of translation.

[BigJulie]

They could always start from scratch and give us an entirely new translation using multiple older m****cripts than were available at the time of the KJV translation--especially given the fact that the modern prophet supposedly has the gift of translation.

I don't see a need and apparently, they do not either. I think their focus is now on issues of the day and preparing us to meet Christ---just as the prophets were of old.

[James Banta]

The article I read stated differently and the proof to me is in the fact that there is a copyright permission at the beginning of it.

And if you don't need any prophet, then you might as well throw out the Bible all together because it took prophets to put it together. But you can see that your at***ude is not okay with God as he states that those who do not recognize where their Bible came from do not understand the Bible nor God's promises.

Did you open your Bible and read what the p***age in Hebrews says? I guess you don't have a Bible or you would have seen my whole meaning here it is..

Hebrews 1:1-2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

What does that say? Unlike your statement that I don't need the prophets the verse clearly acknowledges that the prophets of old spoke the word of God to the people. BUT IN THESE LAST DAYS He has spoken to us by His Son.. If we have Jesus to speak to us just why do I need a prophet? Remember Jesus is God and here is a promise in His word that He speaks directly to the believer.. Isn't that what God did in the past to the prophets? Now through His word He speaks directly to us.. What need is there for a prophet if He does that?

Modern Bibles and KJ Bibles with extra helps and commentary included will be copyrighted. The very first printed KJ Bible included no copyright claims.. Before that the hand written of any translation were not copyrighted. As the Holy Spirit caused the books penned by John, and Paul to be recorded there was no copy right included and tens of thousands of copies of those writings were produced. The LDS could take either the originals and produce a new translation of use as guides the translation of many scholars and the writing of Joseph Smith and produce their own adulterated edition of what they call the Bible.. If you don't see the inspiration in the Song of Solomon then reject it..

No one seems to mind the references that the LDS adds to the text of the Bible that cross-reference it to other of the LDS standard works and even the Inspired Version.. Seems the LDS church could manipulate the TEXT of the KJV all they wish. As you have admitted there is no copyright of the KJ Bible in the USA.. All of the Bibles used by LDS around the world are produced in the USA and there is no law that prevents a Bible produced in the USA to be sent to England or anywhere else.. As long as it wasn't printed in a country that you tell me has copyright laws protecting the printing of the KJ Bible there is no violation.. Your reluctance to understand that legally produced books can be taking anywhere in the world and sold to interested people is almost frightening..

Even in England the copyright on the KJV of the Bible only forbids making changes in the text and NOT the reproduction of the text..
IHS jim

[Billyray]

I don't see a need and apparently, they do not either. I think their focus is now on issues of the day and preparing us to meet Christ---just as the prophets were of old.
Because mormons believe that the translation of the KJV is completely wrong and that there is at least one book in the KJV that is not inspired and shouldn't be there.

[BigJulie]

Because mormons believe that the translation of the KJV is completely wrong and that there is at least one book in the KJV that is not inspired and shouldn't be there.

No, Mormons do not believe the KJV is completely wrong. That is just your perception, but it is wrong.

[James Banta]

No, Mormons do not believe the KJV is completely wrong. That is just your perception, but it is wrong.

Then there are p***ages that are wrong? Can you point out any that effect the Gospel as taught by Jesus? IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Then there are p***ages that are wrong? Can you point out any that effect the Gospel as taught by Jesus? IHS jim

If you don't agree that there are p***ages that were not recorded correctly, there would be no need to go back to the older m****cripts to try to p**** out the correct meanings as so many newer translations of the Bible have attempted to do. Once again, this comment is only hypocritical.

[James Banta]

If you don't agree that there are p***ages that were not recorded correctly, there would be no need to go back to the older m****cripts to try to p**** out the correct meanings as so many newer translations of the Bible have attempted to do. Once again, this comment is only hypocritical.

I use modern translation because they are easy to read.. I don't see any doctrinal changes between them and the older works like King James.. I don't read Greek so I do need a translation.. All those done with a scholarly effort that can be read by other scholars and see that they contain the intent of the original language are fine and contain the truth. That wouldn't include the JST or the Bible produced by the Watchtower.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

I use modern translation because they are easy to read.. I don't see any doctrinal changes between them and the older works like King James.. I don't read Greek so I do need a translation.. All those done with a scholarly effort that can be read by other scholars and see that they contain the intent of the original language are fine and contain the truth. That wouldn't include the JST or the Bible produced by the Watchtower.. IHS jim

How many new translations are there exactly James? And haven't you noted difference between the translations using the older m****cripts than there is in the KJV?

Here is one site that compares the KJV to the NIV.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

Here is an example of a change from one to the other.

Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city."

If I remember right, there is a discussion here somewhere discussing these very changes--was it you who used the NIV to defend against having to keep the commandments to be saved?

---I just found it. I was actually Billyray, using the NIV to discredit doctrine being argued for in the KJV. Namely that one must keep the commandments to be saved. Here is the exchange:




Sorry--Revelation22:14, not 22:7

Revelation22:14--"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

Revelation 22. NIV
14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.

I wash my robes by putting on Christ and his righteousness by faith in Him. It is His righteousness not my righteous.

[James Banta]

[BigJulie;157279]How many new translations are there exactly James? And haven't you noted difference between the translations using the older m****cripts than there is in the KJV?


In the words used to convey the message sure.. In the meaning of the message of the truths the bible reveals, NO..

Here is one site that compares the KJV to the NIV.


http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

Here is an example of a change from one to the other.

Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city."

If I remember right, there is a discussion here somewhere discussing these very changes--was it you who used the NIV to defend against having to keep the commandments to be saved?

---I just found it. I was actually Billyray, using the NIV to discredit doctrine being argued for in the KJV. Namely that one must keep the commandments to be saved. Here is the exchange:

How is the meaning changed? It means the exact same thing.. yes the wording is different and does that change it's meaning NO!! The full intent of the p***age in intact.. Both speak as being clean don't they? IHS jim

[BigJulie]

How is the meaning changed? It means the exact same thing.. yes the wording is different and does that change it's meaning NO!! The full intent of the p***age in intact.. Both speak as being clean don't they? IHS jim

Well, we can see that Dberrie took it to mean keep the commandments and Billyray did not agree. That was the whole point of the discussion. But I guess if the new translation is what you agree with and you see that in the old translation as well, you may not see the change.

This reminds me of what a person on the news said recently. They were commenting on the change Obama made to the bill of rights in his language. Obama said "the freedom to worship" and the cons***ution reads "“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

But I suppose to the person who agrees with Obama, they would not see the subtle difference and therefore the change.

[Billyray]

How many new translations are there exactly James? And haven't you noted difference between the translations using the older m****cripts than there is in the KJV?

Here is one site that compares the KJV to the NIV.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

Here is an example of a change from one to the other.

Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."
Revelation 22:14, "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city."

If I remember right, there is a discussion here somewhere discussing these very changes--was it you who used the NIV to defend against having to keep the commandments to be saved?

---I just found it. I was actually Billyray, using the NIV to discredit doctrine being argued for in the KJV. Namely that one must keep the commandments to be saved. Here is the exchange:
Neither the NIV nor the KJV teaches that salvation is based on obeying the commandments.

The KJV is based on fewer and later m****cripts. The modern translations have the benefit of having more m****cripts available to look at AND m****cripts that are older.


I was actually Billyray, using the NIV to discredit doctrine being argued for in the KJV.

In order to show that I was trying to "discredit doctrine being argued for in the KJV" you have to show that the doctrine in question is actually taught in the KJV. So let's stick exclusively with the KJV and have a discussion about whether or not salvation is based on complete obedience to the commandments. This is worthy of a new thread so why don't we discuss it there.

[Billyray]

No, Mormons do not believe the KJV is completely wrong. That is just your perception, but it is wrong.
Sure they do BigJ. Just take a look at the JST and there are thousands of changes and additions that are not in the KJV.

[Billyray]

Well, we can see that Dberrie took it to mean keep the commandments and Billyray did not agree. That was the whole point of the discussion. But I guess if the new translation is what you agree with and you see that in the old translation as well, you may not see the change.

As I said above no modern translation teaches that salvation is based on keeping the commandments. But I take it that you disagree. Do you believe that the NT teaches that salvation is based on complete obedience to the commandments?

[Billyray]

No, Mormons do not believe the KJV is completely wrong. That is just your perception, but it is wrong.
Do you believe that the changes that Joseph Smith made in the JST are correct and the KJV is wrong in the places that he changed?

[BigJulie]

Sure they do BigJ. Just take a look at the JST and there are thousands of changes and additions that are not in the KJV.

I just love it when you use absolute finite words just as "completely"---it makes you wrong.

[BigJulie]

As I said above no modern translation teaches that salvation is based on keeping the commandments. But I take it that you disagree. Do you believe that the NT teaches that salvation is based on complete obedience to the commandments?

Yes, I get that--no "modern" translation bases salvation on keeping the commandments. But the original, I am sure, did as Christ taught us to keep his commandments.

Once again, though, moving the goal posts by using the word "complete"--which I am sure you will spin to "perfectly" as you have already done in your new thread.

[BigJulie]

Do you believe that the changes that Joseph Smith made in the JST are correct and the KJV is wrong in the places that he changed?

Wait, what happened to "completely wrong"---are you changing the goal posts again? I love how you make an accusation using a definitive statement such as "completely" and then you change it up when you actually ask the question.

[James Banta]

Yes, I get that--no "modern" translation bases salvation on keeping the commandments. But the original, I am sure, did as Christ taught us to keep his commandments.

Once again, though, moving the goal posts by using the word "complete"--which I am sure you will spin to "perfectly" as you have already done in your new thread.

It is taught in the Bible that we must keep the commandments of God (Proverbs 19:16).. Jesus also said that we must be perfect as the Father in Heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48). Since not one of us has been able to keep God's commandments or even approach His level of righteousness, according to what you are telling me we all should be ****ed.. So are the "modern" translations including the King James are wrong as they teach that our salvation is given to those who have faith in Jesus according to His Grace (Eph 2:8-9). Is it wrong to say that Jesus became sin in our place so that we can be MADE the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21)? Is it wrong that we hold our salvation to be by grace and exclude works (Romans 11:6)..

Are you saying that these p***ages were the invention of evil men. That such p***ages are not scripture but outside the Authority of God? Are you so mistrusting of the Lord as He said that heaven and earth would p*** away but His word would never p*** away (Matthew 24:35).. The Original says the very same thing as the modern translations. God's word is NOT corrupt based on the promises of God in His word, and He will not lie. Not in the p***, not in the present and not in the future.. Argue with me tell me all the times the Bible was translated and re-translated. Tell me about all the time it was copied and recopied. All I have to make my point are the promises of Jesus (God). Still I believe Him, therefore His promises trump anything you think you know about errors of the Bible.. You seem to trust what you believe to be knowledge presented to you by men. On the other hand I trust the words of the Lord..

Tell me what isn't complete about the word obedience? Anything less than complete obedience is disobedience.. If a man falls into the mud and just s****es it off without at least taking a shower is he clean? NO! He isn't clean until He is completely clean. There is no such thing and partial obedience.. Complete obedience is the only way to be obedient, anything less is disobedience.. IHS jim

[neverending]

Do you believe that the changes that Joseph Smith made in the JST are correct and the KJV is wrong in the places that he changed?

Hey Billy, since the LDS don't use JST, we can then ***ume that what JS did was bad, wrong and can't be used at all. If JS was such a wonderful prophet and hand picked by God to restore His Church, then how could JS be wrong? HMMMM......something sure smells fishy to me. Guess, King James knew more about translating a Bible then a prophet wouldn't you agree?

[Billyray]

Wait, what happened to "completely wrong"---are you changing the goal posts again? I love how you make an accusation using a definitive statement such as "completely" and then you change it up when you actually ask the question.
I would characterized it as "completely wrong" since there are so many changes that Joseph made but you may choose a different word. Perhaps you could give me a word that you would be comfortable using and I will consider using that word instead. BTW I just pulled down my JST on of the shelf and it has 523 pages of changes--on one column is the so called inspired version and on the other column is the KJV verses--i.e. a parallel translation. 523 pages of changes are a lot of changes.

Do you believe that the changes that Joseph Smith made in the JST are correct and the KJV is wrong in the places that he changed?

[BigJulie]

I would characterized it as "completely wrong" since there are so many changes that Joseph made but you may choose a different word. Perhaps you could give me a word that you would be comfortable using and I will consider using that word instead. BTW I just pulled down my JST on of the shelf and it has 523 pages of changes--on one column is the so called inspired version and on the other column is the KJV verses--i.e. a parallel translation. 523 pages of changes are a lot of changes.

Do you believe that the changes that Joseph Smith made in the JST are correct and the KJV is wrong in the places that he changed?

At times, mistranslated or misinterpreted.

[Billyray]

At times, mistranslated or misinterpreted.
1. Wouldn't you say that 523 pages of corrections is a pretty significant alteration of the KJV Bible?

2. Do you believe that the changes that Joseph Smith made in the JST are correct and the KJV is wrong in the places that he changed?

[BigJulie]

1. Wouldn't you say that 523 pages of corrections is a pretty significant alteration of the KJV Bible?

2. Do you believe that the changes that Joseph Smith made in the JST are correct and the KJV is wrong in the places that he changed?

Nope, most are very small and the Bible is very big.

I think that the mul***ude of new translations of the Bible tells me that you think the KJV is wrong I places and would be better if changed---and I even pointed to a place where you provided the NIV over the KJV when trying to make your point. So, your point now?

[Billyray]

Nope, most are very small and the Bible is very big.

Not sure what you meant exactly by your answer--could you clarify it for me.

1. Nope you don't think that 523 pages of alterations is a significant alteration of the KJV

2. Nope you don't believe that the changes that Joseph made in the JST are correct

[Billyray]

I think that the mul***ude of new translations of the Bible tells me that you think the KJV is wrong I places and would be better if changed

The newer translations are certainly easier to read but the doctrine in the KJV is the same doctrine that is in the modern translations such as the ESV or the NASB. Also in the modern translations they make note of textual variants and notations where text has been added that was not in the early m****cripts.



and I even pointed to a place where you provided the NIV over the KJV when trying to make your point. So, your point now?
I actually started a thread on this exact subject so I hope you will continue to discuss it there--but already you have admitted that keeping the commandments is not a requirement for salvation. So as I said before the KJV and the NIV agree that salvation is not based on obedience to the commandments.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=Billyray;157340]The newer translations are certainly easier to read but the doctrine in the KJV is the same doctrine that is in the modern translations such as the ESV or the NASB. Also in the modern translations they make note of textual variants and notations where text has been added that was not in the early m****cripts. So, do you believe there are JST that change the basic meanings?


I actually started a thread on this exact subject so I hope you will continue to discuss it there--but already you have admitted that keeping the commandments is not a requirement for salvation. So as I said before the KJV and the NIV agree that salvation is not based on obedience to the commandments. What??

[Billyray]

[QUOTE] So, do you believe there are JST that change the basic meanings?

Absolutely. In fact he adds all sorts of stuff that is not in the KJV.

[BigJulie]

Absolutely. In fact he adds all sorts of stuff that is not in the KJV.

And I feel that way about some of the other translations...I read it and think it changes the basic meaning.

[Billyray]

I actually started a thread on this exact subject so I hope you will continue to discuss it there--but already you have admitted that keeping the commandments is not a requirement for salvation. So as I said before the KJV and the NIV agree that salvation is not based on obedience to the commandments.


What??
I thought that you already admitted that keeping all of the commandments is not a requirement for salvation. It seems from your response that you now do believe that keeping all the commandments is a requirement for salvation. Could you let me know where you really stand on this issue?

[Billyray]

And I feel that way about some of the other translations...I read it and think it changes the basic meaning.
Great. Another good topic for discussion. I will start a new thread on this subject.

[alanmolstad]

once again we have to remember the type of point of view we have when talking about the topic.

god is not "in the grasp" of time p***ing.

So God looks at all of time as if its a finished painting....
What I mean by this is that God does not have to "think back"...or does not have to "glance ahead"
Its all just a finished "thing" to God.


But we are trapped within the grasp of time.
We have moments that age us....we get older...

so we look at the p***ing of time like we are reading a book...one page follows another/one moment of our lives follows another.


Now because we are talking about the nature of God...even my image of a painting breaks down because of the simple fact that god is unlike us so much that any effort to understand him will fail.
So when I say God kinda looks at the universe and time like we look at a painting, what Im dealing with is that fact that when we look at a painting there is no "implied time" to it like there is to a book.

With a book you clearly see where the start is, and where the end is.
But when you look at a painting there is no start....you don't have to start at one place, scan across, then drop down a line to see the "next" moment.

The painting is all at once, all the same.

God is kinda like that when he looks at time.
God is not here in my "now" any more than he is currently watching my mom being born....or watching the Big bang, or watching the 2nd Coming of Christ.
Its all the same to God because he is outside the grasp of time.

God has no personal past....no possible future....no next moment.

God does not get older, God was never any younger.

God is not connected or effected by this thing we call "time"




still one of my better posts on the nature of God...

[Christian]

You have been refuted so many times by LDS here, James, that by this point I can't help but think you are completely aware when and how you are bearing false witness. (To the readers, some of these are true, but many are half truths and some purely untrue.)

Sorry Julie but your CLAIMS are not 'refutations' at all; all they are is EMPTY CLAIMS.

IF you think you can do so, SHOW US those 'untruths' and 'half-truths' with EVIDENCE (not just your EMPTY CLAIMS) that they are indeed UNTRUE or "HALF-TRUTHS."

IF you cannot do that, you have NOTHING FROM REALITY TO SHOW ANYONE WITH ANY BIBLICAL KNOWLEDGE OR HALF A MIND.

[Christian]

....spoken like a true Pharisee. ;)

Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so p***ed by."


And I must admit, when I stand up for what I know here, it feels like there are many who stand in wait to cast stones. In a very small way, I can understand what it means to know truth by the power of the Holy Ghost and be rebuked for it.

Jesus, you aint. We CHRISTIANS know the truth by the power of the HOLY GHOST and by GOD'S OWN WORD, the Bible.

Too bad you have only an evil spirit POSING as your 'holy' ghost, but telling you lies according to God's Word, the BIBLE

Sorry Julie, but why should I waste perfectly good stones on YOU? I'll just leave that to GOD.:rolleyes:

[Christian]

So how much of joey smith's horse-dung that is NOT officially written down as doctrine (teachings) that your religious cult teaches you anyway, like food storage, magical underwear, your god once being a man, didn't change, but is now a god? Those things your cult teaches but aren't 'official?'

[Phoenix]

The belief that it's a good idea to store emergency food is horse dung to the Haters of a church?

Yeah, I guess pretty much any common sense idea would freak them out.

[Christian]

The belief that it's a good idea to store emergency food is horse dung to the Haters of a church?

Yeah, I guess pretty much any common sense idea would freak them out.

Let's see now. . .store dried food for 20 years FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING IT DURING A DISASTER while you let your neighbors starve. . .Or shoot them to keep them from stealing it. . .Yah' good idea. . .not

Matt 6:19-21
19 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
NKJV


Just IGNORING JESUS is ALWAYS a good idea, or so you seem to think! Besides that, you can make $$$$ by selling dehydrators to your follyers.

We CHRISTIANS believe and obey Jesus. We don't follow YOUR poorly-un-thought-out manmade ideas.

Not even if YOU think they are 'good.'

[Christian]

The belief that it's a good idea to store emergency food is horse dung to the Haters of a church?

Yeah, I guess pretty much any common sense idea would freak them out.

Let's see now. . .store dried food for 20 years FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING IT DURING A DISASTER while you let your neighbors starve. . .Or shoot them to keep them from stealing it. . .Yah' good idea. . .not

Matt 6:19-21
19 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
NKJV


Just IGNORING JESUS is ALWAYS a good idea, or so you seem to think! Besides that, you can make $$$$ by selling dehydrators to your follyers.

We CHRISTIANS believe and obey Jesus. We don't follow YOUR poorly-un-thought-out manmade ideas.

Not even if YOU think they are 'good.'

[Phoenix]

Let's see now. . .store dried food for 20 years FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING IT DURING A DISASTER while you let your neighbors starve.
prove that i let my neighbors starve.

Haters of the LDS let them starve in the 1840s.

you are probably ignorant of the times when LDS people donated their stored food to disaster victims.


Or shoot them to keep them from stealing it. . .
not sure what you are reading that you think is LDS scriptures. my scriptures don't command me to shoot anyone.


[pWe CHRISTIANS believe and obey Jesus.
do you obey what Jesus taught in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins? did the wise virgins share their oil with their foolish neighbors who didn't have any oil?

If someone broke into your home at 2 AM to steal from you, can you guarantee that you wouldn't shoot them?

[MickeyS]

Let's see now. . .store dried food for 20 years FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING IT DURING A DISASTER while you let your neighbors starve. . .Or shoot them to keep them from stealing it. . .Yah' good idea. . .not

Matt 6:19-21
19 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
NKJV


Just IGNORING JESUS is ALWAYS a good idea, or so you seem to think! Besides that, you can make $$$$ by selling dehydrators to your follyers.

We CHRISTIANS believe and obey Jesus. We don't follow YOUR poorly-un-thought-out manmade ideas.

Not even if YOU think they are 'good.'

Wait a minute....it's a poor idea un-thought out idea to have food storage and be prepared for any sort of possible disaster??? I think it's the OPPOSITE of "unthought out"

As far as "laying up treasures"....you're kidding me with that, right? Do you seriously think that emergency food storage that would take care of your family in case of a disaster is "laid up TREASURE"?? How do you call life necessities "treasure"?Please don't tell me you truly believe that.

1 Timothy 8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

We are tasked to provide for and take care of our families. Do you believe that we are only required to take care of our families to an extent? Like we should only provide for our family's needs only a week at a time, maybe a month at the most? You know emergency food storage can also help a struggling family that is falling on hard financial times and is having a difficult time putting food on the table. But we shouldn't worry about that huh?

Then you must also believe God wants us to live paycheck to paycheck also and not "lay up" the "treasure" of a savings account in case somebody loses their ***. Do you believe that as well?

Boy, I hope nothing bad ever happens to your family.

Also....that's a terrible thing to accuse church members of "letting their neighbor's starve" Where on earth do you get that?? But thats interesting. Didn't you just say "Christians" trust Jesus? I'm ***uming you mean that they don't need to prepare for anything and will be taken care of in case of a disaster, right? How do you think they'd be taken care of? Would Jesus Himself come down and hand your family some food?? Please elaborate as to what you think would happen and how they would be fed.

[Christian]

julie posted:


Originally Posted by Billyray
BigJ that statement is such a joke. You have been shown over and over again how you don't believe what the Bible says and then you have the nerve to say that.

....spoken like a true Pharisee. ;)

It looks like you are the only one laughing at your joke julie. The TRUTH hurts, doesn't it? Billyray's statement is TRUE, of course.

(In other words, you have refuted me only in your mind, just as the Pharisees believed they refuted Christ by what they believed the Bible said--because they did not see what He did. But James does not stand up for what he believes, but rather bears false witness again and again against another's beliefs, regardless of how many times he has been corrected.)

Here is one example of the Jews "refuting" Christ:

And I must admit, when I stand up for what I know here, it feels like there are many who stand in wait to cast stones. In a very small way, I can understand what it means to know truth by the power of the Holy Ghost and be rebuked for it.

<snipped> CHRIST you aint. TRUTHFUL you aint. You still have not supported your religious views from the BIBLE. ALL you have offered is wild speculation and joe smith junk (when it serves your purpose).

You ALSO know what it is like when HEATHENS think they know the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost (like the white supremacists and followers of charles manson did), but in reality only know what they believed without any such help.