10 facts [Archive] - Walter Martin Ministries Forum

James Banta

04-27-2014, 01:52 PM

I would add some terrible facts. Like

11. God was not always God. He became a God through strict obedience to the Laws and ordinances required of His by His god..

12. The all men may gain Godhood by obedience to our God's commandments..

13. That God didn't created ANYTHING. He just knew how to take eternally existing elements and use them to organize this world.

14. That Jesus is the oldest spirit child of God's children. That He is our heavenly brother more than he is the Mighty God, the everlasting Father..

15. That Jesus is not just our brother but He is also the brother of the Spirit that became Satan..

16. That the Father has a physical Body as tangible as our own.

17. That Jesus has the same nature as all men as He entered mortality..

18. That since Jesus lived a sinless life it is possible for any and all men to do so..

19. We are all born pure without the stain of sin.

20. While grace saves men it is only available to those that have done all they could do to make themselves worthy of it..

I came up with these extended ten without thinking too hard.. I would say I could come up with an additional ten if I gave it any thought at all.. IHS jim

BigJulie

04-27-2014, 06:54 PM

Billyray

04-27-2014, 08:37 PM

You have been refuted so many times by LDS here, James. . .
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.

BigJulie

04-27-2014, 08:44 PM

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. ;)

(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:

John 8

"Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

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.

James Banta

04-27-2014, 09:50 PM

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.)

Ok, then just take this post and show me where one thing I said in my 10 LDS beliefs where I am bearing false witness.. JUST ONE.. If you would like I will bring LDS authorities to you that have confirmed each and every point.. If I am lying it is because I trusted the LDS authorities to actually believe what they have taught.. Let me show that by pointing out the first few..

11. God was not always God. He became a God through strict obedience to the Laws and ordinances required of His by His god..

My Authority.. History of the Church Vol. 6, p. 302

Smith taught How God became God...

12. The all men may gain Godhood by obedience to our God's commandments..
`
My Authority:

To gain salvation after baptism it is necessary to keep the commandments of God and endure to the end (2 Ne. 31:17–21)

13. That God didn't created ANYTHING. He just knew how to take eternally existing elements and use them to organize this world.

My Authority:

By his Almighty power God organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with himself. (The Origin of Man," LDS First Presidency, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 4, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1992, Appendix 4)

That is enough to show that each of these statements were taken from the inaccurate doctrines of Mormonism and not just something some one you call anti made up to make mormonism look bad.. Mormonism is capable of looking bad all by it's self.. If you doubt any of my other statement say which ones and we will examine them.. Until you do so the accuracy I have displayed here is my witness that all my points are true.. The ball is in your court.. I have show that your denials of these doctrines is the false witness not my original charges against the LDS church doctrines.. IHS jim

James Banta

04-27-2014, 10:02 PM

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

(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:

John 8

"Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

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.

Did Jesus allow men to teach false doctrines? When they persisted is doing so did He not say that they were of their father the devil (John 8:44)? maybe you don't know or understand the Bible even well enough to know that.. Remember they picked up stones to stone Him nit because they disagreed with Him bit only because He claimed to be YHWH (God).. If I have made false charges against you or your polythistic church show them to me and the world. Everything I have said in reason 11-20 have been or are taught in mormonism.. I have references for every point.. Calling me a liar without proof is a sin, you do understand that do you not? See I have never taught that mormons have three heads nor a set of horns.. I don't even claim that polygamy is a doctrine that is presently lived among the LDS (Salt Lake version). I only teach what is really true about the church.. Show me anything I have said that isn't true.. IHS jim

Phoenix

04-27-2014, 10:37 PM

BigJulie

04-28-2014, 06:41 AM

Ok, then just take this post and show me where one thing I said in my 10 LDS beliefs where I am bearing false witness.. JUST ONE.. If you would like I will bring LDS authorities to you that have confirmed each and every point.. If I am lying it is because I trusted the LDS authorities to actually believe what they have taught.. Let me show that by pointing out the first few..

11. God was not always God. He became a God through strict obedience to the Laws and ordinances required of His by His god..

My Authority.. History of the Church Vol. 6, p. 302

Smith taught How God became God...

12. The all men may gain Godhood by obedience to our God's commandments..
`
My Authority:

To gain salvation after baptism it is necessary to keep the commandments of God and endure to the end (2 Ne. 31:17–21)

13. That God didn't created ANYTHING. He just knew how to take eternally existing elements and use them to organize this world.

My Authority:

By his Almighty power God organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with himself. (The Origin of Man," LDS First Presidency, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 4, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1992, Appendix 4)

That is enough to show that each of these statements were taken from the inaccurate doctrines of Mormonism and not just something some one you call anti made up to make mormonism look bad.. Mormonism is capable of looking bad all by it's self.. If you doubt any of my other statement say which ones and we will examine them.. Until you do so the accuracy I have displayed here is my witness that all my points are true.. The ball is in your court.. I have show that your denials of these doctrines is the false witness not my original charges against the LDS church doctrines.. IHS jim

James---okay, you used our scriptures to verify the need for baptism. I challenge you to use our scriptures to back every point you have made. See if you can do it. As we have discussed many times, these other articles are not our doctrine just as the Apocrypha is not your doctrine as well. Lets see if you can back your comments with our actual scriptures.

I give you this challenge. If you can't do it.....then you and I will both know that you know, but continue to bear false witness against us regardless.

BigJulie

04-28-2014, 06:42 AM

I think you are probably right.

I am sure I am. He doesn't care about truth at this point...of that, I am convinced.

TrueBlue?

04-28-2014, 06:59 AM

I am sure I am. He doesn't care about truth at this point...of that, I am convinced.

So true, should see how James and Billyray are arguing against the unity of the Father and Son just to win an argument here (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?2029-A-quot-what-if-quot-question-for-critics&p=155601&posted=1#post155601).

Maybe they are so caught up in the argument they don't realize it, but something tells me they wont stop.

RealFakeHair

04-28-2014, 07:57 AM

BigJulie

04-28-2014, 08:12 AM

Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
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.)

Help me out Phoenix. If you think BigJulie is probable right then take all the 13 points showed by James, and Alan, and deny each one, by one, and explain why they are incorrect.

James made the claims, the proof behind it lies with him. He has been told many times that these historical documents are just that, historical documents and are not considered our doctrine---as many of them are not full in content, out of context, may be opinions, may be the learning of the day, etc. He then takes these historical documents and extrapolates things that are not true, half truths, and flat out lies about our beliefs.

I have challenged him to show his claims using our scriptures the doctrines he claims.

To have to refute someone who, like Walter Martin, grabbed tidbits here and there to sensationalize is ridiculous. One could spend all day doing it. It is why the proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Because we have hundreds of pages of scriptures, he has ample to go through and show our doctrine using it. If he can do it, he surely will.

John T

04-28-2014, 09:12 AM

James made the claims, the proof behind it lies with him. He has been told many times that these historical documents are just that, historical documents and are not considered our doctrine---as many of them are not full in content, out of context, may be opinions, may be the learning of the day, etc. He then takes these historical documents and extrapolates things that are not true, half truths, and flat out lies about our beliefs.

I have challenged him to show his claims using our scriptures the doctrines he claims.

To have to refute someone who, like Walter Martin, grabbed tidbits here and there to sensationalize is ridiculous. One could spend all day doing it. It is why the proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Because we have hundreds of pages of scriptures, he has ample to go through and show our doctrine using it. If he can do it, he surely will.

Your reply creates a logical chasm, as big as the Grand Canyon. Here is why:

You agree that those doctrines are "historical" so to that extent, you agree with James and Allen, right? Since they are thus historical it is not wrong to logically say that those were once taught by the LDS church.

So you have prima facie evidence (a legal term) indicating "This is what we believe." But to make your point valid about no longer teachings of the LDS church you use an argument from silence, your ***ertion of that as a fact, without providing any documentary evidence that those things were repudiated, and are no longer a part of the church. If this were not a "cowboy-style debate forum" then quite properly, the burden of proof now shifts to you because they said "This is historical LDS doctrine" and demonstrated the accuracy of their claims.

I am sure that you got this phrase from elsewhere because it is not the way that you post: "...and are not considered our doctrine---as many of them are not full in content, out of context, may be opinions, may be the learning of the day, etc."

I sincerely that is not a rhetorical ploy to get out of a ticklish situation, because the same thing can be applied to your present-day belief. Essentially that phrase is as solid as a jello salad, and cannot be nailed to the wall as something solid.

And if that statement you copied is true, then by definition, this statement of yours is false: He then takes these historical documents and extrapolates things that are not true, half truths, and flat out lies about our beliefs. You cannot have it both days, Julie, since the LDS doctrines are "evolving" as you state, then who is to say that what you call "half truths" will not become (or once were) an accurate reflection of LSD beliefs?

The other side of that coin is that in order to establish something as a "half truth" you need to provide the whole truth about your doctrines, which you have failed to do so far. So, BJ, you have much to do before you are able to post something like you just posted again.

James Banta

04-28-2014, 09:26 AM

James---okay, you used our scriptures to verify the need for baptism. I challenge you to use our scriptures to back every point you have made. See if you can do it. As we have discussed many times, these other articles are not our doctrine just as the Apocrypha is not your doctrine as well. Lets see if you can back your comments with our actual scriptures.

I give you this challenge. If you can't do it.....then you and I will both know that you know, but continue to bear false witness against us regardless.

I verified that the LDS teach/have taught that God was not always God. That all men may gain Godhood by obedience to our God's commandments.. That God didn't created ANYTHING. He just knew how to take eternally existing elements and use them to organize this world.

I said nothing about baptism, not one word.. When you are ready to admit the truth of these three statements we will go on to the next three of my statements..You don't want to do that you want to twist my word making them into a discussion of baptism.. After all to address these issues would mean you would have to take back your charge that I was lying and using half truths.. After all these statements were taken directly from LDS sources..It is you that is saying I am using half truths in these statements.. So take just these first three and tell me where the half truths are in them or tell everyone that they are the truth as found in LDS sources and we will go on to the next three issues.. It is you that will have to admit these things are/were LDS teachings..

I am willing to support each and every point as I have these first three, but you didn't see anything about these three. As long as you are unwilling to open your eyes and see what these first three are there is no reason to reveal my PROOF for the rest of these false doctrines.. Address them and them we will move on.. I want to hear you say that these are neither lies or half truths.. Will you.. No you will your lie of omission to cling to them.. Make a charge of lying and then walk away without showing that they are lies.. It isn't I that is being dishonest here.. IHS jim

BigJulie

04-28-2014, 09:44 AM

I verified that the LDS teach/have taught that God was not always God. That all men may gain Godhood by obedience to our God's commandments.. That God didn't created ANYTHING. He just knew how to take eternally existing elements and use them to organize this world. You've done no such thing.

I said nothing about baptism, not one word..

You said: "To gain salvation after baptism it is necessary to keep the commandments of God and endure to the end (2 Ne. 31:17–21)" These are your exact words. I mentioned you gave the one scripture regarding that--that is the only scripture you referenced.

When you are ready to admit the truth of these three statements we will go on to the next three of my statements

When you are ready to back your statements by our scripture, we'll talk. Until then, I will know you are just sensationalizing, telling half truths, and taking things out of content.

.

James Banta

04-28-2014, 09:45 AM

So true, should see how James and Billyray are arguing against the unity of the Father and Son just to win an argument here (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?2029-A-quot-what-if-quot-question-for-critics&p=155601&posted=1#post155601).

Maybe they are so caught up in the argument they don't realize it, but something tells me they wont stop.

We are arguing AGAINST the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? That is such a sad statement.. They are one Being.. One God.. How is that for unity.. In that unity there are still 3 separate persons. I have said it many times before, The Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Holy Spirit. Yet the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One God.. Was the Father Physically nailed to the cross? NO, Was He still there with the Son? Was the Holy Spirit there? YES, and Yes.

It is mormonism that divides the Trinity up into three separate Gods. The believers in The One true God would never do that.. Will I stop teaching that One God? NEVER! Will the LDS ever be able to prove the division they hold for God? NO WAY.. The Lord our GOD is one LORD not three, yes they are one in purpose, that are also one in their nature.. One Being, not three.. IHS jim

RealFakeHair

04-28-2014, 10:15 AM

James Banta

04-28-2014, 10:22 AM

I think you are probably right.

Yours thoughts are failing you.. IHS jim

alanmolstad

04-28-2014, 10:25 AM

We are arguing AGAINST the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

yes, this is how mixed up you guys are.....you stand against a teaching on one topic and support the same teaching on a different topic.

Go check out this
http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?2029-A-quot-what-if-quot-question-for-critics/page21

topic...post number #523

James Banta

04-28-2014, 10:42 AM

You've done no such thing.

You said: "To gain salvation after baptism it is necessary to keep the commandments of God and endure to the end (2 Ne. 31:17–21)" These are your exact words. I mentioned you gave the one scripture regarding that--that is the only scripture you referenced.

When you are ready to back your statements by our scripture, we'll talk. Until then, I will know you are just sensationalizing, telling half truths, and taking things out of content.

.

Again I said nothing about baptism.. The word was used in my source.. It wasn't mine.. I said "Then all men may gain Godhood by obedience to our God's commandments.." My proof text for that says that AFTER baptism it is necessary to keep the commandments of God and endure to the end. Baptism is then a point in time, I said nothing about it being a requirement, which you know it is in mormonism.. It is also a requirement of your god by commandment. One more commandment that MUST be kept to reach Godhood.. You asked for proof of that statement I gave you proof.. Is that the only problem you have with these three points? It is the strongest it was a record of Smith teaching to the church reported in the History of the church. It is one from your own BofM.. You now need more than one reference to prove the veracity of my statements? Ok how abut this one..

D&C 82:10
I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

That makes two do you need more? Clearly it supports the claim that the LDS believe that all men may gain Godhood by obedience to our God's commandments.. If that is out of context then teach me what the context of these two references is.. I don't see it leading to a different subject at all It is all about a requirement for obedience.. Both references!!

Do you have any other complaints about these first three statements I have made? IHS jim

BigJulie

04-28-2014, 10:47 AM

[QUOTE=James Banta;155621]Again I said nothing about baptism.. The word was used in my source.. It wasn't mine.. And thus we begin to see your spin---if you reference a scripture and post it in your thread, you do not recognize that you actually mentioned it. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of is, is, as one famous spinner once said.

Like I said James, you would rather spin and sensationalize then to really share the truth about what we believe. I rest ***ured that God knows and you know what you are doing and some day you will be held accountable for it.

BigJulie

04-28-2014, 10:57 AM

[QUOTE=John T;155613]Your reply creates a logical chasm, as big as the Grand Canyon. Here is why:

You agree that those doctrines are "historical" so to that extent, you agree with James and Allen, right? Since they are thus historical it is not wrong to logically say that those were once taught by the LDS church. No, because the problem with history is that you and I were not there. Just as with the Aprocrypha, the leaders of the church deem what is correct and what is worth deeming as scripture and what isn't. Why? Because history is often fragmented, incomplete, and hard to know complete truth just by the parts of it.

So you have prima facie evidence (a legal term) indicating "This is what we believe." But to make your point valid about no longer teachings of the LDS church you use an argument from silence, your ***ertion of that as a fact, without providing any documentary evidence that those things were repudiated, and are no longer a part of the church. If this were not a "cowboy-style debate forum" then quite properly, the burden of proof now shifts to you because they said "This is historical LDS doctrine" and demonstrated the accuracy of their claims. The documented fact is that it is not part of our scriptures now. The point is, you make a false ***umption in making the point that the teaching was once valid. Until you can do that, you haven't made your case that I need to make my case that it is no longer valid. Unfortunately, there was not the technology as we have today. Often scribes did their best, were unchecked, and we can't see the comments or writings in their full context. So, we do the best we can, but still recognize it as history. Our church does that, but many chrisitians act as if their beliefs are devoid of history.

I am sure that you got this phrase from elsewhere because it is not the way that you post: What? My words are my own.
"...and are not considered our doctrine---as many of them are not full in content, out of context, may be opinions, may be the learning of the day, etc." Nope, every single word here is mine.

I sincerely that is not a rhetorical ploy to get out of a ticklish situation, because the same thing can be applied to your present-day belief. Essentially that phrase is as solid as a jello salad, and cannot be nailed to the wall as something solid.

And if that statement you copied is true, then by definition, this statement of yours is false: He then takes these historical documents and extrapolates things that are not true, half truths, and flat out lies about our beliefs. You cannot have it both days, Julie, since the LDS doctrines are "evolving" as you state, then who is to say that what you call "half truths" will not become (or once were) an accurate reflection of LSD beliefs?

The other side of that coin is that in order to establish something as a "half truth" you need to provide the whole truth about your doctrines, which you have failed to do so far. So, BJ, you have much to do before you are able to post something like you just posted again. Actually, it is not a ploy, as I mentioned, you started with a false premise. To ask you to start with a correct premise before making your argument isn't as solid as jello---it is how the legal system works today---as far as I understand it.

LDS doctrines are not evolving any more than non-denominational doctrines are evolving---the only difference is that we don't pretend like we don't have a history that influences our beliefs. But as far as religious evolution, according to your theory---the whole NT could be said to be a religious evolution of the OT.

James Banta

04-28-2014, 10:58 AM

Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
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.)

Help me out Phoenix. If you think BigJulie is probable right then take all the 13 points showed by James, and Alan, and deny each one, by one, and explain why they are incorrect.

All I want is either Julie or Pheonix to show me how I am in error in these first three.. Then I can add my references to the next three and get their input on those. They still have never refuted one single statement I have made in these statements nor any other statement I have EVER posted to WM.. If Julie can she needs to show me where I have lied, or used half truth in anything I have said here. If they can't show me where anything I have said is untrue then my words carry no lies or half truths but the truth as the Bible reveals it. It's a simple thing to make a charge of lying it's another matter to prove it.. Since there is no proof Julies charge is without merit.

In her own words she say that some of what I said is the truth, but many are half truths and some purely untrue. What I am asking her to do is tell me which are which and tell me why.. She made a charge and won't defend her own words.. I say that no one has refuted my words because when I post 90% of the time my position is supported by scripture I quote in my text.. When I say that we are save by God's grace through faith I call on Ephesians 2:8-9, when I teach that the Lord our God is one Lord I turn to Deut 6:4 and Mark 12:29.. yet I am refuted.. NONSENSE IHS jim

RealFakeHair

04-28-2014, 11:13 AM

BigJulie, This is the lamest excuse of all time! (No, because the problem with history is that you and I were not there.)

James Banta

04-28-2014, 11:59 AM

BigJulie;155610]James made the claims, the proof behind it lies with him. He has been told many times that these historical documents are just that, historical documents and are not considered our doctrine---as many of them are not full in content, out of context, may be opinions, may be the learning of the day, etc. He then takes these historical documents and extrapolates things that are not true, half truths, and flat out lies about our beliefs.

I have challenged him to show his claims using our scriptures the doctrines he claims.

To have to refute someone who, like Walter Martin, grabbed tidbits here and there to sensationalize is ridiculous. One could spend all day doing it. It is why the proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Because we have hundreds of pages of scriptures, he has ample to go through and show our doctrine using it. If he can do it, he surely will.

Are the statements made in general conference by members of the LDS general authorities merely historical documents? Smith taught in conference of the Church Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844 that there are three Gods not one (History of the Church, Vol. 6, Chapter 23, p. 473).. It would seem to e that before she says that these things are half truths and out and out lies she would check the reference.. Here it is in full context:

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit, and these three cons***ute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it? Our text says "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above. for Paul says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly. and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.

Here is the site I get this information from (http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/). In the ***le we read "This history was produced by ***ignment from Church leaders at the beginning of the 20th century. The History editor was B. H. Roberts, a prominent LDS leader. Roberts' ***ignment was to take the m****cript history produced by Joseph Smith (1805-1844) and his clerks between 1838 and 1857 and publish it together with explanatory notes. The history was written as though dictated by Joseph Smith, however he dictated only a small portion of it. The bulk of the m****cript was based on Church records, Church newspaper excerpts and journals of Joseph Smith kept by various men who recorded his activities as well as the diary entries of men who were with Joseph Smith at various times and places or who performed Church missionary efforts, or other tasks of historical importance."

This History of the Church is owned and controlled by the LDS church. What is in it is their responsibility.. If it isn't true then it wasn't I that is the liar it is the leaders of mormonism that ***igned this work to be done.. Much of the first 6 volumes were the work of BH Roberts who Himself was a general authority being a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. Still the statements made by Smith recorded in the History of the church came down in the records of his scribes.. These were the teaching of Joseph Smith.. These are today the teachings of the modern LDS church.. Most ever LDS believes that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods not one.. Most LDS deny that Smith had more than one wife in agreement with what Smith said in History of the church Vol 6 chapter 19.. That was a lie as has been confirmed by the LDS church (Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2001, p. 327.)..

While many LDS doctrines are not contained in the LDS scriptures that doesn't stop the church from believing them. As an example in JSH the beings that addressed Smith never are referred to as the Father and the Son but that is just what mormonism teaches.. Pure conjecture is all that supports such an important doctrine.. To say that Smith taught there are three Gods or that he wasn't involved in polygamy is just as much conjecture as what is taught in JSH.. IHS jim

BigJulie

04-28-2014, 01:15 PM

BigJulie, This is the lamest excuse of all time! (No, because the problem with history is that you and I were not there.)

Not at all. History is difficult to truly understand precisely because we were not there.

If I wanted to make the same arguments you are, I could go through all of the Apocrypha and make you answer as to why the church leadership decided not to include it as scripture. I think what you are doing is called hypocritical because you do not hold yourself up to the same standard you put on others.

BigJulie

04-28-2014, 01:18 PM

Are the statements made in general conference by members of the LDS general authorities merely historical documents?

First off, not all of our history and that used by critics were general conference talks. Second, general conference talks are historical documents--but because of the lack of ability to record them, the leaders of the day must decide what is consistent with revealed doctrine.

As I noted to Real Fake---if I was to do the same to you, I would pull out the Apocrypha and make you account for every thing in them and ask why they are not part of your doctrine today.

James Banta

04-28-2014, 01:43 PM

Not at all. History is difficult to truly understand precisely because we were not there.

If I wanted to make the same arguments you are, I could go through all of the Apocrypha and make you answer as to why the church leadership decided not to include it as scripture. I think what you are doing is called hypocritical because you do not hold yourself up to the same standard you put on others.

The Church is NOT the care taker of the Apocrypha.. We didn't write it. We have no control of changes that might be made in it.. The History of the church is much different. It was written by the LDS and controlled by LDS authority. There is no correlation between a volume of books controlled and written by the same people that now are ready to deny it, EVEN when the doctrines explained there are the same doctrines that they teach as being the truth.. In the History of the church Smith teaches that there are three Gods. And that is just what is taught today in mormonism.

"Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. ... Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life." (Ensign Mag., Nov. 1998, pp. 70-71)

In the book of Abraham Smith tells is that creation was accomplished by a council of gods.

BofA 4:1
And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

Here then is the same teaching that Smith delivered and had recorded in the History of the church only here it is in modern teaching from the new Era as well published as part of the standard words of the church.. But if I say it and quote a p***age of Smith word's from the History of the Church that He had recorded and the GAs of the church instructed a faithful member of the quorum to compile I am a liar and a teller of half truths.. And because I reject the volumes of the Apocrypha, that the Church had not written nor had any control over I am a hypocrite.. I think I am safe by asking the others of the forum to decide who here is the hypocrite and who isn't.. IHS jim

BigJulie

04-28-2014, 03:13 PM

[QUOTE=James Banta;155635]The Church is NOT the care taker of the Apocrypha.. We didn't write it. We have no control of changes that might be made in it.. The History of the church is much different. It was written by the LDS and controlled by LDS authority. There is no correlation between a volume of books controlled and written by the same people that now are ready to deny it, EVEN when the doctrines explained there are the same doctrines that they teach as being the truth.. In the History of the church Smith teaches that there are three Gods. And that is just what is taught today in mormonism.

The Church IS the caretaker of the Apocrypha. It was the leadership of the church who decided what to keep as scripture and what not to. The history of my church is no different. The only difference is that you have detached yourself from your original leadership. You have no real leadership and not real control--of that I understand, but it is like a child stating that it has no connection to their parent only because they say so.

So, you failed at your hypocritical defense. Start by explaining why you do not use the Apocrypha. I understand you do not have authority over it. You then must accept that you have no connection or authority to when it comes to the Bible as well as those leaders who decided what was in the Bible were also the ones who made decisions regarding the Apocrypha.

Oh, that red Gods you showed, that is just the true definition of elohim. We have already discussed that as well.

RealFakeHair

04-28-2014, 03:56 PM

BigJulie

04-28-2014, 05:11 PM

First of all, I have no standards, but thanks anyways.
Second, I have no problem with history, when it comes to my religious belief. I stand on the Holy Word of God from the 66 books of the Holy Bible. If you know of some reason why there should be some books taken out and some books added that is find with me. I on the other hand find no reason at all.

Yes, you have made it quite clear why your stance is hypocritical when you admit you have no standards and no concept of your own history or how you have 66 books in the Bible.

In the words of God Himself:

"And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people."

Yup, go ahead and pretend the Bible dropped in your lap with no history, no connection to the early church leaders who decided what would stay and what would go and certainly no connection to the God who promised the Jews (or those who wrote your Bible) His blessings.

RealFakeHair

04-28-2014, 05:29 PM

Yes, you have made it quite clear why your stance is hypocritical when you admit you have no standards and no concept of your own history or how you have 66 books in the Bible.

In the words of God Himself:

"And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people."

Yup, go ahead and pretend the Bible dropped in your lap with no history, no connection to the early church leaders who decided what would stay and what would go and certainly no connection to the God who promised the Jews (or those who wrote your Bible) His blessings.

If it makes you feel better to call me a hypocrite, I can live with it.
I guess you're saying I pretend the Holy Bible dropped in my lap, Okay if you wish. However are you comparing it to the way the Book of Mormon dropped into Joseph Smith jr. Lap?
Your logic is very weak. On the one hand we have the Holy Bible a collection of books brought together over the centuries. Then we have the Book of Mormon that came out of no where and you have staked your eternal soul on it, but find the Holy Bible to be suspect, go figure.

Phoenix

04-28-2014, 10:58 PM

All I want is either Julie or Pheonix to show me how I am in error in these first three..

Here is one of your ***ertions that is either partially or totally false:

13. That God didn't created ANYTHING. He just knew how to take eternally existing elements and use them to organize this world.

Some might say it is totally false to claim that it's an LDS doctrine that God didn't create anything, since the LDS canon of scripture, which includes the BIble, mention God creating lots of things and beings.

Others might say it's a half-truth because LDS actually DO reject the incorrect belief that God created stuff ex nihilo--from absolutely nothing.
But just because you didn't create sodium and chlorine, doesn't mean that when you combine them you didn't create salt.

Billyray

04-28-2014, 11:16 PM

Some might say it is totally false to claim that it's an LDS doctrine that God didn't create anything, since the LDS canon of scripture, which includes the BIble, mention God creating lots of things and beings.

Let's start with the universe. Did the lds gods create the universe OR did they simply organize it out of existing material?

alanmolstad

04-29-2014, 02:30 AM

it says he created the heavens and theearth in the beginning...

i dont see room to have anything before

alanmolstad

04-29-2014, 03:15 AM

when you make use of stuff that's already around you are more or less doing "baking".....not really creating...

when I think of God creating in the beginning, the image I have is that out of nothingness God made everything.

that there was zero, and in the next moment there was everything needed for everything.

When I read the words "in the beginning" t me it means that there was nothing before this moment...no time...no past...
I don't believe that "in the beginning" was talking about 'a lot later"

I like the way the Bible talks about God being alone different than all of His creation...that He and He alone is outside creation and not part of it.

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 07:19 AM

If it makes you feel better to call me a hypocrite, I can live with it.
I guess you're saying I pretend the Holy Bible dropped in my lap, Okay if you wish. However are you comparing it to the way the Book of Mormon dropped into Joseph Smith jr. Lap?
Your logic is very weak. On the one hand we have the Holy Bible a collection of books brought together over the centuries. Then we have the Book of Mormon that came out of no where and you have staked your eternal soul on it, but find the Holy Bible to be suspect, go figure.

I'm saying you have no idea what decisions were made to make the Bible, what was kept, what was kept out. I'm saying you don't know your own history and then sit arrogantly and judge me.

As Christ puts it: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

I do not find the Holy Bible suspect, I just recognize that you ignore your own history and how this collection of books came to be. You think that God can guide the hand of many men, but do not think he can work a miracle with one.

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 07:22 AM

it says he created the heavens and theearth in the beginning...

i dont see room to have anything before

But God states that he is without beginning....if there was no room for anything more, than what was God doing BEFORE the beginning?

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 07:24 AM

RealFakeHair

04-29-2014, 08:03 AM

I'm saying you have no idea what decisions were made to make the Bible, what was kept, what was kept out. I'm saying you don't know your own history and then sit arrogantly and judge me.

As Christ puts it: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

I do not find the Holy Bible suspect, I just recognize that you ignore your own history and how this collection of books came to be. You think that God can guide the hand of many men, but do not think he can work a miracle with one.

Well, **** me down. My guess is the LDSinc. Is going to amend Article of Faith #8 just for you.

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 09:54 AM

Well, **** me down. My guess is the LDSinc. Is going to amend Article of Faith #8 just for you.

Oh, that we understand that parts of the Bible are not interpreted correctly? Oh my, it seems that every non-denominational church recognizes this. But what does this have to do with the fact that you don't seem to understand your own history regarding the Bible and the beam in your own eye?

Billyray

04-29-2014, 10:11 AM

Well, **** me down. My guess is the LDSinc. Is going to amend Article of Faith #8 just for you.

Oh, that we understand that parts of the Bible are not interpreted correctly? Oh my, it seems that every non-denominational church recognizes this.
LDS 8th article of faith
8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

Perhaps you can tell me exactly what you meant when you said "every non-denominational church recognizes this"?

Billyray

04-29-2014, 10:34 AM

I'm saying you have no idea what decisions were made to make the Bible, what was kept, what was kept out.
Give us you theory so we can talk about it BigJ.

Let's start with this one.

Which books are out there that should be in the Bible that are not currently in the Bible?

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 10:39 AM

LDS 8th article of faith
8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

Perhaps you can tell me exactly what you meant when you said "every non-denominational church recognizes this"?

I mean that every non-denominational church I have interacted with will debate with me regarding the KJV noting that there are words added not in the "original" text etc....in fact, haven't you even done that? And yet, when a real history of even the text is looked at, it becomes clear that even that becomes an opinion of which are the right ones to translate and which are not---let alone which books should and were included and which were removed.

But this is once again not the point....the point is that most non-denominationals do not look at the history of the Bible when pointing fingers at others.

James Banta

04-29-2014, 10:51 AM

Your reply creates a logical chasm, as big as the Grand Canyon. Here is why:

You agree that those doctrines are "historical" so to that extent, you agree with James and Allen, right? Since they are thus historical it is not wrong to logically say that those were once taught by the LDS church.

So you have prima facie evidence (a legal term) indicating "This is what we believe." But to make your point valid about no longer teachings of the LDS church you use an argument from silence, your ***ertion of that as a fact, without providing any documentary evidence that those things were repudiated, and are no longer a part of the church. If this were not a "cowboy-style debate forum" then quite properly, the burden of proof now shifts to you because they said "This is historical LDS doctrine" and demonstrated the accuracy of their claims.

I am sure that you got this phrase from elsewhere because it is not the way that you post: "...and are not considered our doctrine---as many of them are not full in content, out of context, may be opinions, may be the learning of the day, etc."

I sincerely that is not a rhetorical ploy to get out of a ticklish situation, because the same thing can be applied to your present-day belief. Essentially that phrase is as solid as a jello salad, and cannot be nailed to the wall as something solid.

And if that statement you copied is true, then by definition, this statement of yours is false: He then takes these historical documents and extrapolates things that are not true, half truths, and flat out lies about our beliefs. You cannot have it both days, Julie, since the LDS doctrines are "evolving" as you state, then who is to say that what you call "half truths" will not become (or once were) an accurate reflection of LSD beliefs?

The other side of that coin is that in order to establish something as a "half truth" you need to provide the whole truth about your doctrines, which you have failed to do so far. So, BJ, you have much to do before you are able to post something like you just posted again.

The LDS here have a problem in their denial that Smith remarks given in the history of the church aren't doctrine. Today's LDS doctrine teaches that there are many many more Gods than their denials here on WM would have us believe.. The primary hope of all believing LDS is to gain exaltation or Godhood.. In which case they would become eternal parents to the next generation of Spirit children that would begin their path to exaltation (Godhood). You must have heard them speak of their gospel as being one eternal round..This is what is meant by that term.. We were once mere eternal intelligences, then we were born of the Father and raise to spirit maturity in heaven. Then we came into mortality, we will be judge and ***igned into one of the three degrees of glory God has preprepared. Then those who are worthy are exalted and the whole circle begins again. ONE ETERNAL ROUND. Just holding that part of mormonism dear, an LDS believer confirms that there are more than one God. It is clear from the scriptures of the LDS church that a belief in many Gods is part of the LDS plan of salvation. It is summed up in the teaching Smith added to mormonism scripture in D&C 76:53-58.. Becoming a God is their goal, and it taught in their scripture. If they believe in becoming a God, and Jesus as their spirit brother then they believe he became a God.. If He became a God then that which Young taught that the Father lived on another world and did everything there Jesus did here then they have to believe that the Father also became a God. That leaves no doubt that Smith sermon in History of the Church Vol. 6, p. 473 is LDS doctrine.. Julie doesn't hold this as scripture, FINE, it isn't their scripture. But it is their doctrine as supported by their scripture.. That is beyond Julie, Alan, or any LDS or their supporters to deny.. IHS jim

Billyray

04-29-2014, 10:57 AM

I mean that every non-denominational church I have interacted with will debate with me regarding the KJV noting that there are words added not in the "original" text etc....in fact, haven't you even done that? And yet, when a real history of even the text is looked at, it becomes clear that even that becomes an opinion of which are the right ones to translate and which are not---let alone which books should and were included and which were removed.

LDS 8th article of faith
8 We believe the aBible to be the word of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

The 8th article of faith speaks about the translation of the text. I have no issues with "translation" of the modern texts of the Bible. Can you give me an example of a verse or verses in either the NASB or the ESV so we can look at the "translation" so I can see what you are talking about?

Billyray

04-29-2014, 11:00 AM

--let alone which books should and were included and which were removed. . .
What books should be in the Bible that currently are not in the Bible?

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 11:02 AM

LDS 8th article of faith
8 We believe the aBible to be the word of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

The 8th article of faith speaks about the translation of the text. I have no issues with "translation" of the modern texts of the Bible. Can you give me an example of a verse or verses in either the NASB or the ESV so we can look at the "translation" so I can see what you are talking about?

Which are the "modern texts" of the Bible? Do you have issue with the King James translation of the Bible? Or do you agree with the way the modern texts is not always in agreement with the KJV?

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 11:05 AM

What books should be in the Bible that currently are not in the Bible?

I am asking you what you think? Do you agree with what was chosen to stay in and what was taken out? Do you agree that you should not use all the books found in the Catholic Bible for instance?

Do you agree with the removal of this?

Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).

Billyray

04-29-2014, 11:12 AM

Which are the "modern texts" of the Bible? Do you have issue with the King James translation of the Bible? Or do you agree with the way the modern texts is not always in agreement with the KJV?
I told you in my prior post. I have no issues with "translation" of the modern texts of the Bible. Can you give me an example of a verse or verses in either the NASB or the ESV so we can look at the "translation" so I can see what you are talking about?

RealFakeHair

04-29-2014, 11:12 AM

Oh, that we understand that parts of the Bible are not interpreted correctly? Oh my, it seems that every non-denominational church recognizes this. But what does this have to do with the fact that you don't seem to understand your own history regarding the Bible and the beam in your own eye?

You are ***uming I don't know, you ***ume a lot. Interpret and translate are not one in the same.
It really is difficult to have a debate with someone who questions the Holy Bible, but swallow hook, line and sinker con-man Joseph Smith jr. book of fiction called the Book of Mormon.
I just wished you had the same concern for the Holy Bible as you do the Book of Mormon.

Billyray

04-29-2014, 11:14 AM

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 11:38 AM

The first glaring question to you is if these books should be in the Bible then why haven't they been added to the official LDS Bible?

I'm not talking about what Mormons believe or what they don't. I am discussing the hypocritical stance of those who critic our history while ignoring their own. If you, or others, feel I need to defend my history and the decisions made regarding our canon, then you need to start with the defense of your own history. I think this is what Christ meant by remove the beam from your own eye first. I haven't seen you do that.

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 11:40 AM

You are ***uming I don't know, you ***ume a lot. Interpret and translate are not one in the same.
It really is difficult to have a debate with someone who questions the Holy Bible, but swallow hook, line and sinker con-man Joseph Smith jr. book of fiction called the Book of Mormon.
I just wished you had the same concern for the Holy Bible as you do the Book of Mormon.

I do not question the Bible---I just have the ***urance to truly understand it, one must have the teaching of the Holy Ghost---which is why my signature line reads as it does.

So, please do explain the difference between translate and interpret. And in so doing, can you please explain why some "modern" versions of the Bible are different than the KJV, even removing words at times.

Billyray

04-29-2014, 11:45 AM

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 11:48 AM

211

Joseph Smith's Bible contained the Apocrypha and this is the Bible that he "revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833". Why did Joseph Smith remove the Apocrypha from the LDS Bible?

Once again, I am discussing with you the beam in your own eye, but I can see that you just don't want to go there. I think if there is one thing I take away from Christ's dealings with the Pharisees and Sadducees was that he was completely and utterly disgusted with this type of hypocritical behavior---they spent some much time pointing the finger at others that they refused to see that three fingers were pointing back at them.

Billyray

04-29-2014, 11:55 AM

Once again, I am discussing with you the beam in your own eye, but I can see that you just don't want to go there.
Protestants and mormons agree on the Biblical canon--one of the few areas that we actually agree--and you want to discuss canon? OK

You threw out several books in a prior post--do you actually believe that any of those should be in the Bible? If so which ones exactly?

BTW can you tell me why Joseph Smith took out the Apocrypha out of his KJV Bible? And if any of these books should be in the Bible why they are not in the current lds Bible?

RealFakeHair

04-29-2014, 12:13 PM

I do not question the Bible---I just have the ***urance to truly understand it, one must have the teaching of the Holy Ghost---which is why my signature line reads as it does.

So, please do explain the difference between translate and interpret. And in so doing, can you please explain why some "modern" versions of the Bible are different than the KJV, even removing words at times.

You will have to ask the folks who did the changes, and not me. I had nothing to do with it. If you don't know the difference between translate and interpret, then we are truly miles apart. You may interpret what I just wrote, but there is no need to translate it unless it is for someone who can't read English.

Billyray

04-29-2014, 12:17 PM

RealFakeHair

04-29-2014, 12:21 PM

[QUOTE=Billyray;155697]Where these books taken out of the Catholic Bible or did the Catholics put them into the Bible?

What did Jerome have to say about these books?[/QUOTE

Yes, Billyray, Jerome is the key. Even the Liberal BBC had to admit the KJB, and St Jerome were closely linked. The 66 Books of the Holy Bible and St Jerome connection is what holds the key.

Billyray

04-29-2014, 12:32 PM

Yes, Billyray, Jerome is the key. Even the Liberal BBC had to admit the KJB, and St Jerome were closely linked. The 66 Books of the Holy Bible and St Jerome connection is what holds the key.
If BigJ knew what she was talking about she would know that the Catholic Church added these books as canon NOT that the Protestants removed these books. Jerome who translated the Latin Vulgate made notes that these books were not considered canonical books.

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 01:31 PM

[QUOTE=RealFakeHair;155696]You will have to ask the folks who did the changes, and not me. I had nothing to do with it.

And yet, knowing nothing of your religious history, you caste stones. I think that is the point the Savior made regarding hypocrisy.

If you don't know the difference between translate and interpret, then we are truly miles apart. You may interpret what I just wrote, but there is no need to translate it unless it is for someone who can't read English.

And yet isn't interpreting part of translating? Can you do one without the other? So, when the men translated that Bible into the KJV, do you agree that they were right 100%?

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 01:34 PM

If BigJ knew what she was talking about she would know that the Catholic Church added these books as canon NOT that the Protestants removed these books. Jerome who translated the Latin Vulgate made notes that these books were not considered canonical books.

And here we go into deciding who was right and who was wrong? This was about the same time as the Nicene creed, right? If St. Jerome was wrong during that time period, then why should you criticize my rejection of other's inputs during that time period and of the same ins***ution?

James Banta

04-29-2014, 01:35 PM

[BigJulie;155638]

The Church IS the caretaker of the Apocrypha. It was the leadership of the church who decided what to keep as scripture and what not to. The history of my church is no different. The only difference is that you have detached yourself from your original leadership. You have no real leadership and not real control--of that I understand, but it is like a child stating that it has no connection to their parent only because they say so.

The Apocrypha was private composition just like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Since these are NOT the word of God each author is responsible for their content. The churches that held these as scripture can also be included as responsible parties. Mormonism is responsible for the BofM the D&C, the PofPG and for the recorded statements of their prophet seer and revelator, that include the History of the church and the JofD.. The Church however is NOT responsible for any writings it doesn't believe or hold to be scripture.. The Church never has held the Apocrypha to be scripture or hold any authority over the doctrine of the Church.. The Church did write it and doesn't believe it it is NOT the Church's responsibility. In The History of the Church the LDS can't say that. It was written by them as commanded by their god through their prophet. It was commanded to be compiled again by the owners of the text (the general authorities).. I have shown in my posts that the matter of three God is held to be doctrine by the LDS church and even in the church's standard works.

While I know that the LDS would like to claim parts of the Apocrypha as God's truth are you willing to accept doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit. The treasury is the great scales concept of salvation.. Good on one side bad on the other. Which ever is greater determines your eternal destiny. This is what you say the Church is responsible for? These books are NOT Scripture and never have been scripture. Yes there were many that were ****n around by ever wind of doctrine but those who believed in Jesus never accepted those texts.. It is your insistence that the Apocrypha was scripture that have failed to be proven.. The Christian Church is not and never was the Catholic church.. Although there were many true believers in Jesus there was no organized Catholic church until at least AD 440.. You can make them responsible for the Apocrypha if you wish.. I claim no connection with or authority from the Catholic church.

Of The Bible, the Church does have authority over. We keep it pure and unchanged.. We have done this in the past by producing so many copies of the truth that a lie would stick out like a sore thumb.. That has worked for over 2000 years.. Look even your church won't use the "Inspired Translation". And why is that? Simple. Because the changes made by Smith have proven it to be a fraud.. Our plan of flooding the world with the truth has worked and even Smith couldn't could find a way to introduce error because of it.. The Bishops (Pastors) of the Church gathered to differentiate between error and truth.. Those writings that could be shown to have been scripture since the beginning, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts were used as a rule to measure other text.. Those that taught doctrines out of agreement with those were excluded.. There were many corrupt teaches that like the idea of men paying for their own sins since it gave them power over the people to punish them if they didn't like their actions and in many churches the Apocrypha was accepted as truth.. These churches were accepted by the king and it became Catholic church..

So, you failed at your hypocritical defense. Start by explaining why you do not use the Apocrypha. I understand you do not have authority over it. You then must accept that you have no connection or authority to when it comes to the Bible as well as those leaders who decided what was in the Bible were also the ones who made decisions regarding the Apocrypha.

Hypocritical defense? How can a defense be hypocritical.. All I said about it is that it is not seen as scripture by the church. I don't deny it's existence. There are Apocryphal books of the OT as well as the New.. NONE of those have ever been included as scripture by the Jewish community. The NT Apocrypha wasn't made known until the 4th century. Show me where such writings agree the first 5 books of the NT? All of then teach heresy. If a lie exists within a truth it is still a lie and make the truth around it to be of no effect.. That is the story of the Apocrypha..

Oh, that red Gods you showed, that is just the true definition of elohim. We have already discussed that as well.

Elohim is also the meaning for men with the power of life and death over the people.. The meaning for the idols of the people outside of Israel.. Just like we call idols, the gods of Babylon, their Gods.. It's all the same word in Hebrew.. Were the "Us" in the Genesis story three separate Gods? Moses received that account and also the truth about God's nature from God Himself. He said that the Lord our God is One Lord.. God called Himself "I AM". That is the meaning for the word seen as YHWH in the scripture text.. That is the Name of God.. That name has never been ascribed to judges of the people nor to the false gods of the people of the land.. It belongs to God and only to God.. IHS jim

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 01:40 PM

The Apocrypha was private composition just like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Who says?

I claim no connection with or authority from the Catholic church. Then you have no root or branch. You see yourself as free-floating with no connection or responsibility to those who came before you. Hence, the hypocrisy.

The Bible the Church does have authority over. We keep it pure and unchanged.. How many translations are there now?

Hypocritical defense? How can a defense be hypocritical.. When the critique you make of others can be said of yourself. I asked you to defend yourself, and you could not without hypocrisy.

Elohim is also the meaning for men with the power of life and death over the people.. Okay, so do you mean that God used the word to describe himself as well as men in power?

Billyray

04-29-2014, 02:00 PM

And here we go into deciding who was right and who was wrong? This was about the same time as the Nicene creed, right? If St. Jerome was wrong during that time period, then why should you criticize my rejection of other's inputs during that time period and of the same ins***ution?

1. That the Catholic Church canonized these books as inspired text
2. The Protestants removed inspired text

BigJ which position would you say is most accurate?

Billyray

04-29-2014, 02:02 PM

If St. Jerome was wrong during that time period, then why should you criticize my rejection of other's inputs during that time period and of the same ins***ution?
Who said that Jerome was wrong with what he wrote in his notes?

Billyray

04-29-2014, 02:03 PM

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 02:17 PM

Bump for BigJ

No, as stated, you really need to defend your own stance; or be hypocritical.

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 02:19 PM

Who said that Jerome was wrong with what he wrote in his notes?

That is the question, isn't it. Who has the authority to say he was wrong or say he was right? Here is a little bit from Wiki--not the best source, but a source:

He completed this work by 405. Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the previous translated Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians, including Augustine, who thought the Septuagint inspired. Modern scholarship, however, has cast doubts on the actual quality of Jerome's Hebrew knowledge. Many modern scholars believe that the Greek Hexapla is the main source for Jerome's "iuxta Hebraeos" translation of the Old Testament.]
But, do I bump you for not addressing:
This was about the same time as the Nicene creed, right? If St. Jerome was wrong during that time period, then why should you criticize my rejection of other's inputs during that time period and of the same ins***ution?

RealFakeHair

04-29-2014, 04:50 PM

[QUOTE]

And yet, knowing nothing of your religious history, you caste stones. I think that is the point the Savior made regarding hypocrisy.

And yet isn't interpreting part of translating? Can you do one without the other? So, when the men translated that Bible into the KJV, do you agree that they were right 100%?

More reflecting stones, and not casting. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction given to Joseph Smith jr. For profit, and it didn't work out the way ol jo intended. So he took another approach and bingo we got us a new religion. How about that!

James Banta

04-29-2014, 06:52 PM

[BigJulie;155622][QUOTE] And thus we begin to see your spin---if you reference a scripture and post it in your thread, you do not recognize that you actually mentioned it. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of is, is, as one famous spinner once said.

Read my post again. see that baptism is incidental to the post.. It could have been the Lord's supper, or walking on water .. Baptism wasn't the point in the post..

Like I said James, you would rather spin and sensationalize then to really share the truth about what we believe. I rest ***ured that God knows and you know what you are doing and some day you will be held accountable for it.

The spin here is yours.. I was addressing exaltation in my post, baptism was in the quote that supported my point.. Seems that the BofM teaches that salvation has little to do with earning salvation. It is only the starting line of a long race.. So you are SPINNING baptism to be the whole point of that proof that exaltation requires obedience to laws and ordinances.. IHS jim

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 07:37 PM

[QUOTE=BigJulie;155700]

More reflecting stones, and not casting. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction given to Joseph Smith jr. For profit, and it didn't work out the way ol jo intended. So he took another approach and bingo we got us a new religion. How about that!

The Book of Mormon is not a work of fiction. Anyone who has ever tried to write a book would know that there is no way that Joseph Smith could have written this of his own accord. One pastor I spoke to about it acknowledged that it must have been some "supernatural force'---but of course believed it was not a good source. But those who read the Book of Mormon can see it does good in their life.

But what exactly is "reflecting stones"---you cast stones because you don't know your own history---just as you are casting right now. This attack on the Book of Mormon is surely casting and not reflecting.

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 07:38 PM

Read my post again. see that baptism is incidental to the post.. It could have been the Lord's supper, or walking on water .. Baptism wasn't the point in the post..

Yes, I agree that scripture you used did not really back your point. But, that was my point...you don't refer to our scripture in your attacks.

James Banta

04-29-2014, 08:40 PM

[QUOTE=James Banta;155723]

Yes, I agree that scripture you used did not really back your point. But, that was my point...you don't refer to our scripture in your attacks.

I used 2 Nephi 31:17–21. Isn't that LDS scripture? Have you wisely turned away from it as scripture? Be still my heart!! But you will most likely say that it has nothing to do with the point I was making..

2 Nephi 31:17-21
Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.
And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.
And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.
And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

And what was my point? That mormonism teaches that obedience is required to gain Godhood (Exaltation).. Isn't being obedient till the end of our mortality what enduring to the end means? Looks like I have rightly used your scriptures to prove the truth of statement number 12.. I have shown that baptism is only a gate to access the process that leads to Godhood.. That to gain Godhood a person must be obedient.. What I said in the post is 100% true according to LDS doctrine and scripture.. IHS jim

John T

04-29-2014, 09:33 PM

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 10:30 PM

By not knowing FACTS, you speak foolishly, Julie.
Evidently, you know very little about church history, or else the source from which you got your material is a quack, posing as a scholar.

Go look up the Council of Trent (from 13 December 1545, and 4 December 1563). I will not give you any more data other than say "removal" was not the operative word.

JohnT---then I speak likewise. You know only part of our history and mostly from quacks who pose as scholars. Once again, the point I am making refers to the hypocrisy shown here.

BigJulie

04-29-2014, 10:33 PM

[B]2 Nephi 31:17-21
For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

You have an issue with God telling us that we must endure to the end?

Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

It seems that Christianity teaches that a man must endure to the end to be saved.

So, your point again?

Billyray

04-30-2014, 01:01 AM

211

Joseph Smith's Bible contained the Apocrypha and this is the Bible that he "revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833". Why did Joseph Smith remove the Apocrypha from the LDS Bible?

Bump for BigJ

No, as stated, you really need to defend your own stance; or be hypocritical.
Come on BigJ certainly you can answer this for me. Or can you?

Billyray

04-30-2014, 01:09 AM

I am asking you what you think? Do you agree with what was chosen to stay in and what was taken out? Do you agree that you should not use all the books found in the Catholic Bible for instance?

Do you agree with the removal of this?

Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).

Where these books taken out of the Catholic Bible or did the Catholics put them into the Bible?

What did Jerome have to say about these books?

If BigJ knew what she was talking about she would know that the Catholic Church added these books as canon NOT that the Protestants removed these books. Jerome who translated the Latin Vulgate made notes that these books were not considered canonical books.

And here we go into deciding who was right and who was wrong? This was about the same time as the Nicene creed, right? If St. Jerome was wrong during that time period, then why should you criticize my rejection of other's inputs during that time period and of the same ins***ution?

1. That the Catholic Church canonized these books as inspired text
2. The Protestants removed inspired text

BigJ which position would you say is most accurate?
BigJ you have made a claim that the Protestants REMOVED inspired scripture from the Bible. Yet you have not substantiated this false claim. The Catholic church canonized these writings as inspired scripture that many prior to that time said were were not inspired scripture. That is why I asked you about Jerome who didn't think that the Apocrypha was inspired. Along with the fact that the Jewish Bible doesn't contain the Apocrypha so they obviously do not consider it inspired scripture. So why don't you prove that the Protestants "REMOVED" inspired scripture from the Bible.

Billyray

04-30-2014, 01:19 AM

A brief running summary of this discussion

--let alone which books should and were included and which were removed. . .

What books should be in the Bible that currently are not in the Bible?

I am asking you what you think? Do you agree with what was chosen to stay in and what was taken out? Do you agree that you should not use all the books found in the Catholic Bible for instance?

Do you agree with the removal of this?

Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).

RealFakeHair

04-30-2014, 06:36 AM

[QUOTE=RealFakeHair;155722]

The Book of Mormon is not a work of fiction. Anyone who has ever tried to write a book would know that there is no way that Joseph Smith could have written this of his own accord. One pastor I spoke to about it acknowledged that it must have been some "supernatural force'---but of course believed it was not a good source. But those who read the Book of Mormon can see it does good in their life.

But what exactly is "reflecting stones"---you cast stones because you don't know your own history---just as you are casting right now. This attack on the Book of Mormon is surely casting and not reflecting.

BigJulie, I am very understanding of your attempt to defend the Book of Mormon, you have staked your eternal soul on it.
However if you go on line and find a copy of the 1830 edition of the book, I suggest you try and read it.
It reads like any book would that is authored by a person with limited education, ie Joseph Smith jr.
However the book may have had many hands in the process of the finished product. The combination of jo's lack of education, with his imagination, and the help of The Holy Bible, along with the likes of Sidney Rigdon, and the Spalding m****cript may have produced this work of fiction.
The Fact you don't believe the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction makes it almost impossible to have a serious conversation on this topic.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 07:26 AM

BigJulie, I am very understanding of your attempt to defend the Book of Mormon, you have staked your eternal soul on it.
However if you go on line and find a copy of the 1830 edition of the book, I suggest you try and read it.
It reads like any book would that is authored by a person with limited education, ie Joseph Smith jr.
However the book may have had many hands in the process of the finished product. The combination of jo's lack of education, with his imagination, and the help of The Holy Bible, along with the likes of Sidney Rigdon, and the Spalding m****cript may have produced this work of fiction.
The Fact you don't believe the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction makes it almost impossible to have a serious conversation on this topic.

How funny you mention this. I have a good friend who had a first edition Book of Mormon. Her comment to me, oh brother, those who complain about it really haven't read it.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 07:28 AM

Bump for BigJ

Come on BigJ certainly you can answer this for me. Or can you?

Billyray, you don't seem to realize that I don't feel the need to answer you as your own stance is hypocritical. If you look in the New Testament, you will often find Christ did the same. You can try to keep egging me on, but you have yet to resolve your own hypocrisy in the questions you ask.

James Banta

04-30-2014, 07:30 AM

You have an issue with God telling us that we must endure to the end?

Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

It seems that Christianity teaches that a man must endure to the end to be saved.

So, your point again?

You are always asking me not not ignore the context but here you are doing just that.. What is the context of the p***age? End Time and the persecution that will be taking place in that day.. Those who won't be deceived, that endure the affliction and murders all around. Those that turn away from the false prophets and cling to love and not hate and do so til the end shall be saved. That is the message of Matthew 24.. It is the prophecy of end times. Will these who say they believe really show faith or will they betray one another, and shall hate one another.That enduring to the end then is enduring in the end in their faith not in obedience.. The context shows a time the Church has not yet seen. A time when faith will be tested far more than it is today.. But no where here does it teach that our obedience is tested, just our LOVE.. Again your lack of understanding the scripture in shocking.. Next time you shout at me that I am using your scripture out of context remember this attempt to make a point by doing just that.. IHS jim

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 07:33 AM

BigJ you have made a claim that the Protestants REMOVED inspired scripture from the Bible. Show me once where I ever said this. You are putting words in my mouth to try to make a point.

Yet you have not substantiated this false claim. Maybe because I never made it. I only stated that books were removed from the Bible---I made no mention of whether or not they were inspired.

The Catholic church canonized these writings as inspired scripture that many prior to that time said were were not inspired scripture. That is why I asked you about Jerome who didn't think that the Apocrypha was inspired. Along with the fact that the Jewish Bible doesn't contain the Apocrypha so they obviously do not consider it inspired scripture. So why don't you prove that the Protestants "REMOVED" inspired scripture from the Bible. And yet, Jerome left them in---correct? These books were not removed until years after Jerome.

So, who removed the books and why? Who had the right to say whether or not they were inspired? You can take issue with my word "removed"---but obviously, someone felt the need to put them there (as every book in the Bible, someone felt a need to include at one point or another)---and someone decided to take them out (which the word removed would be appropriate.)

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 07:38 AM

You are always asking me not not ignore the context but here you are doing just that.. What is the context of the p***age? End Time and the persecution that will be taking place in that day.. Those who won't be deceived, that endure the affliction and murders all around. Those that turn away from the false prophets and cling to love and not hate and do so til the end shall be saved. That is the message of Matthew 24.. It is the prophecy of end times. Will these who say they believe really show faith or will they betray one another, and shall hate one another.That enduring to the end then is enduring in the end in their faith not in obedience.. The context shows a time the Church has not yet seen. A time when faith will be tested far more than it is today.. But no where here does it teach that our obedience is tested, just our LOVE.. Again your lack of understanding the scripture in shocking.. Next time you shout at me that I am using your scripture out of context remember this attempt to make a point by doing just that.. IHS jim

Yes, I am feeling your hate. You have made your point. I do not feel any love from you. You have made that clear to me---especially in your willingness to bear false witness against my beliefs because your hate is so strong. (Oh, btw, I never shouted at you--my big red bold was for only a single word so you did not miss it--not a yell. If any of my words were bolded, it was because my post picked up your bold syntax. If you perceive that as yelling, you must perceive yourself as yelling at me.)

Somehow your post did remind me of this scripture though:

"If you love me, keep my commandments."

RealFakeHair

04-30-2014, 07:41 AM

How funny you mention this. I have a good friend who had a first edition Book of Mormon. Her comment to me, oh brother, those who complain about it really haven't read it.

Huh? I have read it three times, (it came to p***, it come to p***, it came to p***, it came to p***.)
You try it, and stop trying to be a fortune teller.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 07:48 AM

Huh? I have read it three times, (it came to p***, it come to p***, it came to p***, it came to p***.)
You try it, and stop trying to be a fortune teller.

I have tried it. Do you know that the words "it came to p***" are very common in ancient Hebrew? If you have read it three times and not recognized it as inspired writings, your heart must be very hard indeed.

RealFakeHair

04-30-2014, 08:19 AM

I have tried it. Do you know that the words "it came to p***" are very common in ancient Hebrew? If you have read it three times and not recognized it as inspired writings, your heart must be very hard indeed.

Well **** me down! What a (and it came to p***) is also common in ancient Hebrew, but what about reformed Egyptian? lol'
Of course it is common as it relates to the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith jr. Plagiarized from the King Jame Bible!
I can't believe how cognitive dissonance works overtime in the minds of TBMs.
Where do you go to learn all this? This is like the movie of the 1950s Invasion of the body snatchers!
I believe this is what fascinates me about Joseph Smith jr. This cheap novel can enter a persons brain and totally over take it.
I tell you it is so amazing.

TrueBlue?

04-30-2014, 08:32 AM

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 08:38 AM

So an artists bakes a painting? .....well perhaps, if it's made out of clay?

perhaps...

My point is that when I bake a cake I use the sugar and spice that I already have on hand.
It's the same when I paint a painting, where I use the paint I get at the store.

This is different than when God created "all things" of the universe.

"All things" means that before this there was "no things"......so god did not have a shelf of stuff to use to make the universe, as that would mean he had "some things' before me made "all things"...

So this means that when God spoke the universe into being, it came out of nothing.

First there was nothing....then God spoke, and then there was everything.

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 08:40 AM

So really no body any where created anything, we are just baking.

Yes, very true....

We make use of things that we find when we got here.

God never got here....never started where another left off....God started all that ever got made.

TrueBlue?

04-30-2014, 08:40 AM

If it makes you feel better to call me a hypocrite, I can live with it.
I guess you're saying I pretend the Holy Bible dropped in my lap, Okay if you wish. However are you comparing it to the way the Book of Mormon dropped into Joseph Smith jr. Lap?
Your logic is very weak. On the one hand we have the Holy Bible a collection of books brought together over the centuries. Then we have the Book of Mormon that came out of no where and you have staked your eternal soul on it, but find the Holy Bible to be suspect, go figure.

Getting off point. BigJulie is stating that Journal of Discources is equivalent to Mormons as Apocrypha is to Christians. Or the ECF's is to Christianity. Mormons just don't deny there history and hide from it. If we pull up something that the ECF's believed that agree with a tenant of Mormonism that Christianity does not believe, you are quick to point out that it's not in Bible so there writings don't count regardless if they were leaders of the church at that time. Same with Mormons. Journal of Discources are not scripture. And like you point away from ECF's toward your canon, we point away from Journal of Discources and to our canon. See if you can we can. But that is not how you operate, you operate with this elitist view of being particular form of Christian you can do what you want but should somebody use your example they are now some how wrong for doing what a good Christian would do. How does that work?

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 08:56 AM

Well **** me down! What a (and it came to p***) is also common in ancient Hebrew, but what about reformed Egyptian? lol'
Of course it is common as it relates to the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith jr. Plagiarized from the King Jame Bible!
I can't believe how cognitive dissonance works overtime in the minds of TBMs.
Where do you go to learn all this? This is like the movie of the 1950s Invasion of the body snatchers!
I believe this is what fascinates me about Joseph Smith jr. This cheap novel can enter a persons brain and totally over take it.
I tell you it is so amazing.

If a person who learned Hebrew speaks Egyptian, you would expect to see the same sentence format. But interestingly, studying Hebrew, there is quite a bit of this found the Book of Mormon....I am not surprised.

This cheap novel, as you call it, has the ability to improve lives, increase the spirit, increase love in the home. I am amazed you could read it 3 times and not feel and experience the difference. As I said, you must be hard-hearted indeed.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 08:57 AM

Yes, very true....

We make use of things that we find when we got here.

God never got here....never started where another left off....God started all that ever got made.

And what was he doing before he "started' during eternity?

I find a fundamental flaw in your logic. To say that nothing existed and then God started everything implies that there was a time that God existed in nothingness and then started to create. (Just using the word "started' as you did, implies you have a flaw in your thinking.) Well, seeing He is everlasting to everlasting and has no beginning and end, that would mean that there was some eternal something in which God was surrounded by nothing. I say, being God--this is not possible as the moment He exists, He has the ability and power to have all else exist with Him. Therefore, the other way of thinking is that because God exists eternally, everything exists in some form with Him eternally. Therefore, if He is, everything else is as well. That would be you and I as well, in some form.

The flaw I see in your thinking is that God existed with nothing at some point. I say--no way. And this is the brilliance and revelation given to Joseph Smith that I don't care who you are, this should give you some pause to go, oh yeah---there is a flaw there in the thinking of Christianity.

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 09:11 AM

And what was he doing before he "started' during eternity?

I find a fundamental flaw in your logic. To say that nothing existed and then God started everything implies that there was a time that God existed in nothingness .

The "nothingness" I speak of is also without time....

"Time" is also a thing.
As "Time" is a thing, it also is a creation of God at the "beginning". and that there is no 'before" when dealing with the "beginning"

When you think about it, because we are told this all happened "In the beginning" we cant then try to guess what was God doing "before" this....as the word "Beginning" means there was nothing before this....LOL

Ive tried in the past to talk about this relationship time has with the universe being much like how we look at a painting.

the painting has no "time"....it is what it always is....it's a thing that is seen in it's whole all at once.

We p*** though time like we are reading a book, page after page.

But not God...

This is why we cant say, "What was god doing before the beginning?".....
We cant ask that because in even asking that question we make it look like God is trapped in time with us....

This also is why we cant ask, "What was around god before the beginning?" as the question itself is a bit silly in that there was nothing, nor even "time" created....so there was nothing to be 'with" god, and no "time" yet to say it was "before"

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 09:19 AM

The "nothingness" I speak of is also without time....

"Time" is also a thing.
As "Time" is a thing, it also is a creation of God at the "beginning". and that there is no 'before" when dealing with the "beginning"

When you think about it, because we are told this all happened "In the beginning" we cant then try to guess what was God doing "before" this....as the word "Beginning" means there was nothing before this....LOL

Ive tried in the past to talk about this relationship time has with the universe being much like how we look at a painting.

the painting has no "time"....it is what it always is....it's a thing that is seen in it's whole all at once.

We p*** though time like we are reading a book, page after page.

But not God...

This is why we cant say, "What was god doing before the beginning?".....
We cant ask that because in even asking that question we make it look like God is trapped in time with us....

This also is why we cant ask, "What was around god before the beginning?" as the question itself is a bit silly in that there was nothing, nor even "time" created....so there was nothing to be 'with" god, and no "time" yet to say it was "before"

Then you should not use the word "started' when it comes to God at all--as the word "started" implies time. (It is why I disagree with the concept of "first cause" because once again, this implies time...which I see is one of the basic fundamental flaws in christian thinking. In this, they goofed. And in this Joseph Smith corrected through revelation.)

But, once again, you run into the problem of God existed in a state of nothingness (including time), which I say--not possible. And if not possible, it means that all things (including time) existed to God in some form---regardless of his ability to manipulate it or use it to His will.

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 09:21 AM

And what was he doing before he "started' during eternity?

.

Do you catch how your question is about like asking, "Can God make a rock so big he cant lift it?"

the very question itself is not logical, in that you cant have anything happen before the "beginning" or else your beginning is 2nd to something else.

The moment we read "In the Beginning" we know that there was nothing before this, and now there is everything.

Nothing means in this case, I take to mean that there was not even any "time" p***ing yet, so there was nor "before"........"

RealFakeHair

04-30-2014, 09:24 AM

If a person who learned Hebrew speaks Egyptian, you would expect to see the same sentence format. But interestingly, studying Hebrew, there is quite a bit of this found the Book of Mormon....I am not surprised.

This cheap novel, as you call it, has the ability to improve lives, increase the spirit, increase love in the home. I am amazed you could read it 3 times and not feel and experience the difference. As I said, you must be hard-hearted indeed.
I have a brain that is not connected to the imaginary mind of Joseph Smith jr. And I never will, this is why I haven't the experience you have had with him.
Yes, even a cheap novel, book or movie can have an effect on humans good or bad. This is what makes up human.
The Book of Mormon is nothing more or less than a cheap novel, not very well written, and that is the sum of it.

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 09:25 AM

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 09:27 AM

Time is a 'thing"...just the same as a chair,,,or a tree....

Time has no effect on God at all....

Time is just another 'thing" God created.

This is why there was no time p***ing "before" the "beginning"....

I know this might be hard to grasp at first....
But the truth is that there was no time p***ing before Genesis 1:1

This is the same when we look at john 1:1 too!

We are talking about "before" time was created.
So there was 'nothing"...no p***ing of time at all.

the moment time was created by God, THEN and only then did things change....and get older.
before time came along, nothing got older.

So time is just a creation of God that has no effect on god at all, for God is not older.

God is just as young, just as old as he ever was, or ever will be....He simply does not change....ever!
"I Change Not!"

TrueBlue?

04-30-2014, 09:29 AM

The "nothingness" I speak of is also without time....

"Time" is also a thing.
As "Time" is a thing, it also is a creation of God at the "beginning". and that there is no 'before" when dealing with the "beginning"

When you think about it, because we are told this all happened "In the beginning" we cant then try to guess what was God doing "before" this....as the word "Beginning" means there was nothing before this....LOL

I am attending Southwest Florida Bible College and working on my ABS(***ociate Bible Studies). I am presently taking apologetics, last cl*** was about evolution and creation. We were on the subject about the different theories of how the universe was created. One of the theories was the oscillating universe where it expands to a point then shrinks back down to the singularity explodes and repeats itself for all time. Now, his argument against that is that in order for this to be for an infinite amount of time, then because of the very definition of "infinite" we should never reach a beginning or ending. The universe would never change or exist or not be all at the same time because there is no start and no end. He does not realize that this obliterates the fact Christians believe that God did nothing for eternity. If God did nothing for eternity then for it to be true eternity in the infinite realm then God would still be doing nothing. The moment God moved, or did something, the infinite became finite. Regardless if God is outside of time, the moments God went from doing nothing for all eternity, to creating, eternity was destroyed and was no longer eternal, and a new beginning came into play and God changed his mode of operation from doing nothing, being still, to doing something to moving.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 09:33 AM

Time is a 'thing"...just the same as a chair,,,or a tree....

Time has no effect on God at all....

Time is just another 'thing" God created.

This is why there was no time p***ing "before" the "beginning"....

Regardless, you would have God in a state of nothingness before He began creating. To even state the word 'create", if you imply as you do, implies nothing and then something. This implies a state of nothingness existed at some point.

God, being eternal, would never exist in a state of nothingness.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 09:35 AM

I am attending Southwest Florida Bible College and working on my ABS(***ociate Bible Studies). I am presently taking apologetics, last cl*** was about evolution and creation. We were on the subject about the different theories of how the universe was created. One of the theories was the oscillating universe where it expands to a point then shrinks back down to the singularity explodes and repeats itself for all time. Now, his argument against that is that in order for this to be for an infinite amount of time, then because of the very definition of "infinite" we should never reach a beginning or ending. The universe would never change or exist or not be all at the same time because there is no start and no end. He does not realize that this obliterates the fact Christians believe that God did nothing for eternity. If God did nothing for eternity then for it to be true eternity in the infinite realm then God would still be doing nothing. The moment God moved, or did something, the infinite became finite. Regardless if God is outside of time, the moments God went from doing nothing for all eternity, to creating, eternity was destroyed and was no longer eternal, and a new beginning came into play and God changed his mode of operation from doing nothing, being still, to doing something to moving.

Exactly, a major flaw in early christian thinking that has continued on to this day.

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 09:39 AM

He does not realize that this obliterates the fact Christians believe that God did nothing for eternity. .....

well TrueBlue....

Before time was created there was no "eternity"

The truth is that we can't say that "God did nothing for eternity before Genesis 1:1"

We cant say that and be logical>

.
What we can say is that even 'time" itself is just as much a creation of god as stars and trees and baby fish.
And we can say that because we know time is a creation of god and had a start, we then can understand that there was "nothing" ging on before time was created, because the moment time was created things got older.....

So, we cant say that God did 'nothing" for a while as that implies that god was sitting on his hands while time was p***ing.
But as we know ,Time was not p***ing.
Nothing was getting older.
Before Genesis 1 time had not been created yet.

So when we come to a you and I making use in conversations of the term "eternity".......we have to define it to mean "before time"

So this better understanding of the word "eternity" gets rid of the idea of "did" or of "no doing" as they are terms that are connected to the p***ing of time itself.

"Doing nothing" is still talking about the p***ing of time.
At that is at odds with our understanding that time is a creation...Time is a created "thing"
So you cant logically speak of doing or not doing things before the creation, as there was no p***ing of time to measure such statements.

And this points us to the single most important fact we get out of looking into this subject...and that is that "God is not like us"....not like us at all!

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 09:40 AM

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 09:50 AM

You are missing the point. The minute you believe God created something from nothingness destroys your own point. You are caught in the time aspect of it. Let go of your no-time fixation and you can see that it still doesn't work even if time did not exist.

we are held by time....

God is not.
God is just as much now watching the big bang,, as he is watching me type this, and watching me die.
God is not more "here" then he is "there"....(John 8:58)

So while time and space and the earth is a creation that came out of nothing by the spoken word of god....God did not change when he made time...

TrueBlue?

04-30-2014, 09:51 AM

well TrueBlue....

Before time was created there was no "eternity"

The truth is that we can't say that "God did nothing for eternity before Genesis 1:1"

We cant say that and be logical>

.
What we can say is that even 'time" itself is just as much a creation of god as stars and trees and baby fish.
And we can say that because we know time is a creation of god and had a start, we then can understand that there was "nothing" ging on before time was created, because the moment time was created things got older.....

So, we cant say that God did 'nothing" for a while as that implies that god was sitting on his hands while time was p***ing.
But as we know ,Time was not p***ing.
Nothing was getting older.

I understand that. Infinite is infinite and in order for that to be true as Christians claim then nothing would have changed. Infinite is outside of time. Nothing happens in infinity. You can't say that God did nothing, then did something. If existing in infinity as infinite was described by my professor in order to argue against modern science, nothing would change. There are no points of this or that in infinity. The moment something changes a point of reference is created, destroying infinite as the professor described it. The moment God started creating, a point of reference was created. A change took place from doing nothing to doing something. God changed, from a God of nothing, to a God of something.

Libby

04-30-2014, 09:53 AM

You are missing the point. The minute you believe God created something from nothingness destroys your own point. You are caught in the time aspect of it. Let go of your no-time fixation and you can see that it still doesn't work even if time did not exist.

I was thinking of that very thing, last night, when I was, here, reading posts. If God does not exist in "time", how could there be "nothing" at one point and the "universe" at the next point? It's an interesting question.

But, then, again, I don't think our minds are capable of understanding all of God's ways.

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 10:00 AM

TrueBlue?

04-30-2014, 10:00 AM

we are held by time....

God is not.
God is just as much now watching the big bang,, as he is watching me type this, and watching me die.
God is not more "here" then he is "there"....(John 8:58)

So while time and space and the earth is a creation that came out of nothing by the spoken word of god....God did not change when he made time...

So Christ is eternally suffering on the cross? Or did Christ always have a body of flesh and bone? He existed outside of time and space, where He exists now, with a body. At some point of reference, Christ existed outside of time without a body. Now existing outside of time with a body. According to you there is eternal, where nothing changes. Like you said God is watching the Big Bang in an eternal still picture never beginning never ending, never becoming but always being. This moment never ending yet never having been, yet eternally past.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 10:01 AM

I was thinking of that very thing, last night, when I was, here, reading posts. If God does not exist in "time", how could there be "nothing" at one point and the "universe" at the next point? It's an interesting question.

But, then, again, I don't think our minds are capable of understanding all of God's ways.

Libby, I am positive we can't---but we are capable of understanding once taught. This is why once God revealed this truth to Joseph Smith--it is like, yes, of course, how could it be any other way?

I am beginning to realize a lot of problems people attach to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is merely that they do not see things as we do. Therefore, with their narrow vision, putting our beliefs into their own paradigm, they criticize. (Truth is, I think any time a religion is criticizing another, I am sure this is the case. We have blinders on and think they MUST think as we do.) That is another thing I love about Joseph Smith---or at least what was revealed to him---he recognized that God is no respecter of persons and therefore truth can be found in so many places. Joseph Smith revealed that if ever we find something lovely, praiseworthy---well, I will give you his words exactly.

Article of Faith 13

"We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

In other words, we believe in treating others well---and we "believe all things, hope all things"--which means we don't turn away from any idea wherever it is. We study it out, we look for what is good, what is praiseworthy. We use the guidance of the Holy Ghost to teach us what is truth. We are not afraid to look, to see, to explore, to think.

I think what astounds people is that they go, but look, we found some dirt---but we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We see the good, we hold on to it.

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 10:02 AM

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 10:04 AM

So Christ is eternally suffering on the cross? .

What is your pov?

If you look at the cross from God's point of view?....then the cross is like a finished painting, with no start, no end,,,no middle,,,

Remember God is not held by time,,,"John 8:58

if you look at the cross from the human pov then the cross was over 2000 years ago and only lasted a few hours at most....

TrueBlue?

04-30-2014, 10:04 AM

I have to get to work here...
I will try to read that last one again when I get back.

But I think someone was telling you that when god created the universe he changed?
If that is what they told you?..then they are in error.

God created the universe, but never changed Himself.
god is timeless.....not just very old...but totlally un-connected to the p***ing of time as we know it.

God was timeless before the big bang....and he never changed at all after the big bang....

he is the same.....

God is the same now, as he was before he created the p***ing of time.

God cant change...

No that is not what they taught. That is not what they believe. That is just the logical conclusion of there theory of how they state infinity works. They do not realize it because they did not think it through to the end of the logical conclusion of that line of thinking. They thought of a way to explain away the science of the Big Bang in order to promote a 6 day creationist line of thinking. It worked for his present argument but did not take time to see how it effected Christian notions of God.

James Banta

04-30-2014, 10:04 AM

Yes, I am feeling your hate. You have made your point. I do not feel any love from you. You have made that clear to me---especially in your willingness to bear false witness against my beliefs because your hate is so strong. (Oh, btw, I never shouted at you--my big red bold was for only a single word so you did not miss it--not a yell. If any of my words were bolded, it was because my post picked up your bold syntax. If you perceive that as yelling, you must perceive yourself as yelling at me.)

Somehow your post did remind me of this scripture though:

"If you love me, keep my commandments."

I don't hate you.. I love you in Christ.. He loved you enough to die for you.. Julie if you could be saved by my efforts I would die for you too. But your love for a lie, and yes I hates lies, will hold your heart tightly in it's grip until it is to late or God breaks it's hold on your heart. If I didn't love you with His love I would allow you to plunge into hell without a word of warning.. I can't do that..

I have never said one false thing about mormonism and you have not been able to show a single statement where I have.. I use you own scripture and statements from your leaders made as they spoke in conference or in official meetings of the church. You deny that I know but your denials don't change the facts. You compare your own records controlled by your own church to the false teachings of a few egnorant men as they wrote books ascribing them to Thomas, Enoch, even Jesus. Word that were not written by Christian leaders, not controlled by the Christian church, and their message never accepted by Her..

Shouting is a way of emphsizing a point you wish to make.. No one like to be yelled at but I agree that sometimes it is the only way to be heard.. I responded that baptism was not used in my additional 10 facts about the beliefs of mormonism.. yes the word was used in a p***age of LDS scripture I used but it wasn't the theme of that scripture. No read it again, Maybe you will see it.. I doubt it, you can't even see racism in saying that a skin of blackness is a part of the judgments of God for sin..

What are those commandments? Do they include a command to Be perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48)? Do you keep that commandment? No, then you don't Love Jesus! Hold it maybe if we would only Believe In HIM he would give us Everlasting Life (John 3:16). Maybe we can believe the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul and claim the promise that Jesus became sin for us that we could become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor 5:21). Looks like we can obey the commandment to keep His commandments by our faith in Him.. Otherwise any attempt to be perfect on our own bring us to self righteousness not God's righteousness.. To fail in being as perfect as God just leads you to be guilty of the whole law before a Holy God (James 2:10)..

If you aren't keeping all of the commandments of Jesus by using His word you condemn me, you are the ones being Pharisaical in judging me for a sin that you yourself won't keep. Of course all that I just said is a lie, right? God doesn't love the world enough to give us Jesus, a single sin isn't enough to make us guilty of the whole of the Law, and we can't be perfect before God in holding faith in Jesus.. Those are all lies right? WRONG!!! Those are God's word. His promises. Without those promises we have no hope at all.. IHS jim

TrueBlue?

04-30-2014, 10:06 AM

What is your pov?

If you look at the cross from God's point of view?....then the cross is like a finished painting, with no start, no end,,,no middle,,,

Remember God is not held by time,,,"John 8:58

if you look at the cross from the human pov then the cross was over 2000 years ago and only lasted a few hours at most....

So if I am understanding you correctly, then at some point the picture was not painted?

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 10:16 AM

I don't hate you.. I love you in Christ..

I don't think you understand that when you spread falsehoods and half-truths about my beliefs, I can never understand this as love.

Which brings to mind another scripture:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding br***, or a tinkling cymbal." (1 Cor. 13:1)

You spew filth out of your mouth and then tell me it is love? No, James--this is not love.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 10:20 AM

So if I am understanding you correctly, then at some point the picture was not painted?

I think he is struggling to see outside of his own paradigm on this one.

I am beginning to realize is that many of the criticisms of our beliefs can be seen as Plato explains. There are those that are in a cave, watching shadows on the wall. They criticize the shadows because they don't see the light. That is why we can keep explaining that what they are seeing is not right, but they don't see it and refuse to step outside of the cave to really understand our beliefs.

That is why we need to tread lightly on all religions. If we really want to understand them, we need to give them the benefit of the doubt---try to see things as they do. The problem with this whole site is the Walter Martin, in his own cave, created a site to criticize all other religions.

But we don't understand God by staying in our own cave, but walking out in the light. We love, truly love, and appreciate others. We understand we can gain from seeing things in a new light. This is one of the benefits of going on missions. Missionaries go all over the world. They see so many cultures. They truly learn to love and understand others. Then they bring this back and this love and understanding becomes part of the gospel. It is a hard process, but one Joseph Smith revealed and can be seen in the verse "God is no respecter of persons." This truth is revealed in the fact that all people on earth are children of God and are loved by Him and that He desires to save them all.

TrueBlue?

04-30-2014, 10:53 AM

I think he is struggling to see outside of his own paradigm on this one.

I am beginning to realize is that many of the criticisms of our beliefs can be seen as Plato explains. There are those that are in a cave, watching shadows on the wall. They criticize the shadows because they don't see the light. That is why we can keep explaining that what they are seeing is not right, but they don't see it and refuse to step outside of the cave to really understand our beliefs.

That is why we need to tread lightly on all religions. If we really want to understand them, we need to give them the benefit of the doubt---try to see things as they do. The problem with this whole site is the Walter Martin, in his own cave, created a site to criticize all other religions.

But we don't understand God by staying in our own cave, but walking out in the light. We love, truly love, and appreciate others. We understand we can gain from seeing things in a new light. This is one of the benefits of going on missions. Missionaries go all over the world. They see so many cultures. They truly learn to love and understand others. Then they bring this back and this love and understanding becomes part of the gospel. It is a hard process, but one Joseph Smith revealed and can be seen in the verse "God is no respecter of persons." This truth is revealed in the fact that all people on earth are children of God and are loved by Him and that He desires to save them all.

I agree. This partly why my son and I have started going to this college. He goes to a Christian school in 10th grade and is being negatively affected by some of there teachings. For instance, the idea that someone who has never had the opportunity to be taught of Christ or even heard the name Christ, will be sent to hell, and the idea that if we say the 3 second prayer saying Christ Im a sinner I accept you, then we have a golden ticket as he puts it. His views of Christianity of this version are becoming too negative and dark. I thought it best that we get a better idea of Christian beliefs and understand where and why they are today in the hope that he will soften His heart a little.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 11:10 AM

I agree. This partly why my son and I have started going to this college. He goes to a Christian school in 10th grade and is being negatively affected by some of there teachings. For instance, the idea that someone who has never had the opportunity to be taught of Christ or even heard the name Christ, will be sent to hell, and the idea that if we say the 3 second prayer saying Christ Im a sinner I accept you, then we have a golden ticket as he puts it. His views of Christianity of this version are becoming too negative and dark. I thought it best that we get a better idea of Christian beliefs and understand where and why they are today in the hope that he will soften His heart a little.

I agree. A mission will help him as well. That is why I am grateful for those such as Libby who seem to keep an open mind and are not so quick to judge. I also keep in mind all the good non-denominational christians I know and love and try to remember that the stuff spewed on this site is often not how most christians think or live (at least not the ones that are my friends). They are focused on Christ and in doing what is right in the eyes of God. I also have a good Muslim friends and I see the same thing there--trying to do what God wants. When I asked how they perceive all this jihad stuff, they see it very similarly to christians who are part of the KKK---saying that they believe, but acting in hate for power.

I often wonder why I come to this site, but I guess somewhere deep down, I keep hoping that there are those who read who go--let me find out for myself. Let me not be so quick to judge.

TrueBlue?

04-30-2014, 11:20 AM

I agree. A mission will help him as well. That is why I am grateful for those such as Libby who seem to keep an open mind and are not so quick to judge. I also keep in mind all the good non-denominational christians I know and love and try to remember that the stuff spewed on this site is often not how most christians think or live (at least not the ones that are my friends). They are focused on Christ and in doing what is right in the eyes of God. I also have a good Muslim friends and I see the same thing there--trying to do what God wants. When I asked how they perceive all this jihad stuff, they see it very similarly to christians who are part of the KKK---saying that they believe, but acting in hate for power.

I often wonder why I come to this site, but I guess somewhere deep down, I keep hoping that there are those who read who go--let me find out for myself. Let me not be so quick to judge.

I come because of those who lurk, who have questions. They need to be answered. They need to be presented with a clear choice. I think they don't get the fairest dichotomy here. Considering those Christians who post here are not the best examples of Christians I would like I our beliefs compared too, kinda of unfair. But people need answers.

RealFakeHair

04-30-2014, 11:47 AM

I come because of those who lurk, who have questions. They need to be answered. They need to be presented with a clear choice. I think they don't get the fairest dichotomy here. Considering those Christians who post here are not the best examples of Christians I would like I our beliefs compared too, kinda of unfair. But people need answers.
Okay, then help me out here, what is the one most unfair comparison we Christian do here that you as a Joseph Smith jr. Imaginary minder say we are guilty of?

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 01:02 PM

No that is not what they taught. That is not what they believe. That is just the logical conclusion of there theory of how they state infinity works. They do not realize it because they did not think it through to the end of the logical conclusion of that line of thinking. They thought of a way to explain away the science of the Big Bang in order to promote a 6 day creationist line of thinking. It worked for his present argument but did not take time to see how it effected Christian notions of God.

Im a little mixed up who we are talking about now...?

perhaps you might back-up and tell me who is saying what , so I can understand the context of your posts

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 01:08 PM

So if I am understanding you correctly, then at some point the picture was not painted?

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"

Billyray

04-30-2014, 01:37 PM

211
http://exhibits.lib.byu.edu/kingjamesbible/lds-church-kjb.php

Cooperstown Bible. (The Holy Bible: containing the Old and New Testaments).

Cooperstown, NY: H. & E. Phinney, 1828.

This Bible is a copy from the same edition that Joseph Smith revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833. Oliver Cowdery purchased Joseph's copy at E. B. Grandin's shop in Palmyra, New York, in October 1829, during the time Grandin was printing the first edition of the Book of Mormon.

Billyray, you don't seem to realize that I don't feel the need to answer you as your own stance is hypocritical. If you look in the New Testament, you will often find Christ did the same. You can try to keep egging me on, but you have yet to resolve your own hypocrisy in the questions you ask.

I have already guided you through my position but it must of went right over your head. You asked me if I believed it was right to take out the inspired books from the Catholic Bible. So here is my position for you again for you in a nutshell. The "inspired" books in the Catholic Bible were added (canonized) by the Catholic church--they weren't taken out like you have falsely claimed. The apocryphal books that your mentioned are not in the Jewish canon, nor did Jerome--who translated the Latin Vulgate--consider these books to be inspired scripture.

So now that I have taken the time to refresh your memory about my position on this could you please (pretty please) address my question--the one you keep trying to avoid.

Joseph Smith's Bible contained the Apocrypha and this is the Bible that he "revised and corrected between 1830 and 1833". Why did Joseph Smith remove the Apocrypha from the LDS Bible?

Billyray

04-30-2014, 01:42 PM

And yet, Jerome left them in---correct? These books were not removed until years after Jerome.

But you should know by know--after all of this discussion--that Jerome did NOT consider them inspired scripture.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 02:16 PM

But you should know by know--after all of this discussion--that Jerome did NOT consider them inspired scripture.

But Augustine did and they were left in. Your point?

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 02:19 PM

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"

But you seem to miss that you believe that God existed with nothing and something. Which is it?

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 02:21 PM

I have already guided you through my position but it must of went right over your head.

No, you seem to be unable to ask yourself why the books were left in if Jerome disagreed. You do not ask yourself why they were put in and by whom? Why were they taken out and by whom? What made one person's opinion on the matter override another's?

Before you can attack my beliefs, you need to look at your own. Without so doing, you are being hypocritical.

RealFakeHair

04-30-2014, 02:28 PM

No, you seem to be unable to ask yourself why the books were left in if Jerome disagreed. You do not ask yourself why they were put in and by whom? Why were they taken out and by whom? What made one person's opinion on the matter override another's?

Before you can attack my beliefs, you need to look at your own. Without so doing, you are being hypocritical.
Well maybe it is because he found the 116 pages that Joseph Smith jr. Lost and it override the others so to speak.
In other words, what?

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 02:35 PM

Well maybe it is because he found the 116 pages that Joseph Smith jr. Lost and it override the others so to speak.
In other words, what?

Sorry if the conversation lost you. Billyray is trying to make the point that there were books put in and removed from the Bible, but that Jerome didn't agree. And somehow that is supposed to convince me that attacks on how our canon is decided is not hypocritical. You take it from there.

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 02:41 PM

But you seem to miss that you believe that God existed with nothing and something. Which is it?

Um....actually God is not said to once have "existed" like God had smething about himself change over time.

The correct thing is to say , "God exists before the big bang"

Or to put it a more Bible-like way, "Before time was created, God is"

God is not more "here" with us than he is also "here" before the big bang...
and if there is an ending to time, God is there too in the same way as he is watching us and with us here in our "now"

All of creation is just a "thing" God made....

He is not changed by it's creation.
When God created the heavens and the earth, God was not changed by it!
God did not suddenly start getting older when he made the creation.
God is the same now, as he has ever been, and will ever be.

So you cant say "God existed" like life was different for God at some point in the past, because the reason is - god does not have any past!...

You cant say that because it hints that God is connected to his creation and that he changed over time....
God cant change...God cant get older...God is the same now as he was before the creation.

God is just as much watching me now as he is watching the big bang.....and even before that to the way things were before god invented the concepts we call "before" and "after"

So we don't say, "God existed in the past before he created the heavens and the earth"....rather the correct thing to say is that "God exists before he made the heavens and the earth",

This is the same reason why the Jews also were going to kill Jesus one time.
Jesus tells him how he being God Almighty is not bound by time when he said, "Before Abraham came to be, I am"

Jesus was not saying that he had once been alive before Abraham...no!

What Jesus was saying is that right then at that same moment, he was alive before Abraham was born.
This means that Jesus was not bound by time and space.

TrueBlue?

04-30-2014, 03:00 PM

Okay, then help me out here, what is the one most unfair comparison we Christian do here that you as a Joseph Smith jr. Imaginary minder say we are guilty of?

Forgive me for how that sounded. It's unfair to you Christians, because there is little logic and a very convoluted ideas you put out just to prove Mormons wrong.

TrueBlue?

04-30-2014, 03:01 PM

Im a little mixed up who we are talking about now...?

perhaps you might back-up and tell me who is saying what , so I can understand the context of your posts

I was referring to my post here (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3380-10-facts&p=155770&viewfull=1#post155770). I was speaking of the professor of the cl*** I am taking.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 03:03 PM

So you cant say "God existed" like life was different for God at some point in the past, because the reason is - god does not have any past!...

And if he has no past, then he has no future. And if he has no past and no future then all things exist with Him. I am glad you are finally starting to see my point.

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 03:21 PM

And if he has no past, then he has no future. And if he has no past and no future then all things exist with Him. I am glad you are finally starting to see my point.

God does not have a past...

God does not have a future...

But we sure do!
God created what we call "the past"
God created what we call "the future"

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 03:33 PM

I was referring to my post here (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3380-10-facts&p=155770&viewfull=1#post155770). I was speaking of the professor of the cl*** I am taking.

Ok....Im coming up to speed now...LOL
Ok, Im going to suggest something for you to consider........"Paragraphs"

I think I have a lot of trouble keeping track of longer posts because a lot of people just post this big wad of small text .
I suggest you try "paragraphs" to break up things a bit and provide a place for the eye to rest and understand that a new thought is being talked about...

In that line..(and here is where I got yelled at last time) Im going to post your old comment and break it up into little wads....and see if then I might catch what you are talking about....

QUOTE:
"I am attending Southwest Florida Bible College and working on my ABS(***ociate Bible Studies).
I am presently taking apologetics, last cl*** was about evolution and creation.
We were on the subject about the different theories of how the universe was created.

One of the theories was the oscillating universe where it expands to a point then shrinks back down to the singularity explodes and repeats itself for all time.

Now, his argument against that is that in order for this to be for an infinite amount of time, then because of the very definition of "infinite" we should never reach a beginning or ending.

The universe would never change or exist or not be all at the same time because there is no start and no end.

He does not realize that this obliterates the fact Christians believe that God did nothing for eternity.
If God did nothing for eternity then for it to be true eternity in the infinite realm then God would still be doing nothing.

The moment God moved, or did something, the infinite became finite.

Regardless if God is outside of time, the moments God went from doing nothing for all eternity, to creating, eternity was destroyed and was no longer eternal, and a new beginning came into play and God changed his mode of operation from doing nothing, being still, to doing something to moving

The error I see is that this argument ***umes that when god made "things' it ended up changing god...
It suggests that the moment God made "time" that he also started to change and get older, p***ing from one state is exsisting to a new different state.

that is wrong.

The exsistance god had before he made his first 'thing" is stull the current -constant state of exsistance for God....

This means that god is so far removed from being changed by the things He makes that he does not have to worry that he might become less "God-like" or less "eternal' by creating things...

things get old. God does not.

Things change only other things, never God who cant change at all.

So, from God's point of view, God is not more busy now.
God did not need to start doing stuff after he created the universe.
God is always the same 'busy"......never more and never less.

This means that god was totally unaffected by the creation.

BUT......BUT....
as for the idea that the universe ****s up, spreads out, stops spreading, falls back to itself and ****s up over and over?

I don't know.
I don't know if that is true or not.
That is a question we have to study a long time before we know the answer for sure....

I don't know....

at best right now its a guess...

Is it a good guess or a bad guess?....I don't know.

Your professor said that because the universe was ****ing up and falling in all the time forever and ever, it could never be in the first place...
My answer is that "Im not sure"

In the Bible we clearly have a answer in that the Bible sure thinks there was a "beginning"
So the bible tells us that the universe had a start...a very clear start.
The bible teaches that we went from a nothing to everything with a word spoken by god.

Yes, that's some very symbolic wording, but the heart of it is that the universe did 'start"

BUT.....from a scientific point of view I don't know if we truly know that answer yet.

RealFakeHair

04-30-2014, 03:33 PM

Sorry if the conversation lost you. Billyray is trying to make the point that there were books put in and removed from the Bible, but that Jerome didn't agree. And somehow that is supposed to convince me that attacks on how our canon is decided is not hypocritical. You take it from there.
Aint St Augustine in Florida? Anyways, we look to Jerome because he started the search for the early writings of the followers of Christ, St Paul, and the disciples, and or early scribes. If you want to debate what should have or should not have been placed in the Holy Bible, it is okay with me, but I am with Jerome on this one.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 04:13 PM

Aint St Augustine in Florida? Anyways, we look to Jerome because he started the search for the early writings of the followers of Christ, St Paul, and the disciples, and or early scribes. If you want to debate what should have or should not have been placed in the Holy Bible, it is okay with me, but I am with Jerome on this one.

Okay, so you are a follower of Jerome. That is fine, but you have to at least recognize that there was someone (who do you even consider a prophet?) who you follow in terms of what you believe regarding your canon.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 04:17 PM

God does not have a past...

God does not have a future...

But we sure do!
God created what we call "the past"
God created what we call "the future"

Okay, so he created the future and the past to you. So to you, there was no future and no past until God created it. But to Him, do you recognize that all existed with him as there is no future or past to him---or do you think that once he created it, there became a past and a future to Him in which there existed things after, but not before? Or do you believe that since God has no future and no past, all things exist with Him? (Regardless of a past or future to you.)

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 04:22 PM

Okay, so he created the future and the past to you. So to you, there was no future and no past until God created it. But to Him, do you recognize that all existed with him as there is no future or past to him---or do you think that once he created it, there became a past and a future to Him in which there existed things after, but not before? Or do you believe that since God has no future and no past, all things exist with Him? (Regardless of a past or future to you.)

ok,,,Im going to try to say this one more time....

God has no past.

God cant change......
God did not change when he created the universe.
God is the same now as he was before all things...

God created things....but because he is not a thing, he is just not able to be changed like things always change.

God does not change.

God is just as busy now in 2014, as he is also busy "now" at the beginning of time.....
And this is because creation is not connected in any way to God's nature.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 04:26 PM

ok,,,Im going to try to say this one more time....

God has no past.

God cant change......
God did not change when he created the universe.
God is the same now as he was before all things...

God created things....but because he is not a thing, he is just not able to be changed like things always change.

God does not change.

God is just as busy now in 2014, as he is also busy "now" at the beginning of time.....
And this is because creation is not connected in any way to God's nature.

You did not answer my question. Because you believe God has no past and no future and this only exists to us---do you believe that all things exist to God and that for Him, there is not a time we did not exist?

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 04:28 PM

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 04:42 PM

I have given you that answer already.....

And that is why I said that you agree with me on this point--that because to God, there is no past and no future, we exist with God eternally.

Or, as I stated earlier
And if he has no past, then he has no future. And if he has no past and no future then all things exist with Him. I am glad you are finally starting to see my point.

I do not see a place you disagree with me on this. So, here is the next question, if we exist eternally with God, because God is eternal with no past and no future, does He know us completely and what we would do "in time" before He "created" us in this "time"?

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 04:50 PM

So, here is the next question, if we exist eternally with God, because God is eternal with no past and no future, does He know us completely and what we would do "in time" before He "created" us in this "time"?

We exist in time,,,God does not.
we have a birth, and a death....God does not.

We have a start.
There was a point in history when I began.
There was NOTHING to me before that moment.
I did not have a "life" before I was created.....my beginning was not the 2nd beginning.....or the 2nd first...LOL

So when i look at life I see it from the point of view of someone reading a book.

But when God looks at time, he kinda sees it the way i look at a painting.
(there is Alan's start, and there is Alan's ending)
It's a completed thing that is not connected to him...and He sees it fully, not one spot more deeply than others, but all at the same "moment"
and even this word "moment" is not true for god, as he does not even have "moments"

So I did not exist forever, but God is always present in all of time equally.

An Example: the moment of time that was that little moment when you first started reading this post, is now in our past and is forgotten.
but from God's point of view he is always present in the moment.

So I dont have to worry that Im spending forever reading the same first sentence of this post..(thank God!)
Im not stuck alive there.

Yet god is present there as much as he is present here in my ever-changing "now"

I dont know how else to teach you this.

RealFakeHair

04-30-2014, 05:14 PM

Okay, so you are a follower of Jerome. That is fine, but you have to at least recognize that there was someone (who do you even consider a prophet?) who you follow in terms of what you believe regarding your canon.

I don't not consider Jerome a prophet no more than I consider me a prophet. He just happened to be the guy who took it upon himself to get the *** done.
He didn't use a magic hat, or hide behind a curtain. All he did was work hard over years and come up with the best we could have. There is nothing more in the New Testament a lost soul needs to gain Salvation. There are no need for any new books even if it was written in Reformed Egyptian, and popped out of Joseph Smith jr. Hat.

alanmolstad

04-30-2014, 05:17 PM

. There is nothing more in the New Testament a lost soul needs to gain Salvation. .

This is correct.
The bible says the "Faith was once for all" given....there is nothing new to look for...Nothing new coming down from above.
All we have is all we needed...

neverending

04-30-2014, 05:19 PM

You did not answer my question. Because you believe God has no past and no future and this only exists to us---do you believe that all things exist to God and that for Him, there is not a time we did not exist?

Julie,
Since I know the doctrines of Mormonism and understand that you believe that God was not always god but was once a man; and I am speaking of God the Father here and that he progressed to his lofty position. As for myself and all Christians, we believe that God has always existed, He had no beginning and he has no end, He will exist forever, from everlasting to everlasting, for eternity. It is difficult for our minds to fully understand what that will be like but you can rest ***ured that God was never a man, but has always been God. If this idea of progression were true, then what God does our God worship, for certainly there would have to be a higher God then ours if the idea of progression were true; it only makes sense.

We never existed til we were created within our mother's womb. Scripture says that God created the spirit of man within him, meaning us. God knew each and every one of us before we were created. He knew and knows everything we will do. If not, then we can't call Him omniscient can we? You could say that God is like an artist before the artist even picks up a paint brush, he/she has an idea of what he/she wants to paint. The same can be said of God, he knew what he wanted to create and made it happen. All the animals in the Garden of Eden for example, God thought in His mind what he wanted to create, what He wanted these animals to look like etc. Sometimes, we ****yze way to much when we should be having faith. Just take God at His word and nothing else.

My son-in-law was a great example of over ****yzing God. At one point he didn't believe in God at all. Now with so much rejoicing, he is attending church with my daughter and my grand children and I can only thank God for answering prayer. This means everything to me and James for as time p***es we all can see how evil the world is getting and it will be our faith that will sustain us in the hard times to come.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 05:48 PM

I don't not consider Jerome a prophet no more than I consider me a prophet. He just happened to be the guy who took it upon himself to get the *** done.
He didn't use a magic hat, or hide behind a curtain. All he did was work hard over years and come up with the best we could have. There is nothing more in the New Testament a lost soul needs to gain Salvation. There are no need for any new books even if it was written in Reformed Egyptian, and popped out of Joseph Smith jr. Hat.

So, he is the guy who took it upon himself to determine what was inspired and what wasn't, but he himself had no direct communication from God. Pretty scary to base your beliefs on him then--as he could be wrong....if it was, as you seem to believe, just his best guess.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 05:50 PM

[SIZE=3]Julie,
Since I know the doctrines of Mormonism and understand that you believe that God was not always god but was once a man;

Your first sentence tells me you don't know the doctrines of Mormonism.

So you don't think we ever existed until we were in our mother's womb. So, to you---not all things are exist with God, but do have a past, present, and future to him both in this time and in eternity. Is that correct?

Do you also adhere to the idea that God existed with nothingness until He created something?

How did he know us before He created us? What part of us did He know?

(Oh, btw, I am not over-****yzing God, I am just questioning your own logic in your conclusions when it comes to God.)

Billyray

04-30-2014, 06:06 PM

Billyray is trying to make the point that there were books put in and removed from the Bible, but that Jerome didn't agree.

Perhaps you are starting to have some short term memory issues because in case you forgot you are the one who brought this whole thing up on page two. I will try and jog your memory a little bit and give you the first couple posts. Let me know if this refreshes your memory. If not I would be happy to give you a more lengthy post with more of our discussion.

. . .I'm saying you have no idea what decisions were made to make the Bible, what was kept, what was kept out. . .

Give us you theory so we can talk about it BigJ.

Let's start with this one.

Which books are out there that should be in the Bible that are not currently in the Bible?

Remember now? Do you want to discuss this some more since we really haven't finished with our discussion here--especially given the fact that you seem to believe that the Apocrypha was scripture that was taken out by the Protestant Christians.

neverending

04-30-2014, 06:55 PM

Your first sentence tells me you don't know the doctrines of Mormonism.

So you don't think we ever existed until we were in our mother's womb. So, to you---not all things are exist with God, but do have a past, present, and future to him both in this time and in eternity. Is that correct?

Do you also adhere to the idea that God existed with nothingness until He created something?

How did he know us before He created us? What part of us did He know?

(Oh, btw, I am not over-****yzing God, I am just questioning your own logic in your conclusions when it comes to God.)

Evidently Julie, you don't read nor comprehend what someone posts. I have to tell you again what I said. Mormons believe that God was once a man, is that true or not? As for me and millions of Christians we do not believe that. We believe that God ALWAYS Existed. He has no beginning and has no end.

Now as for Mormonism, do you not believe in eternal progression? If this is true, then what God does our God worship as there has to be a God older then ours? Do you understand now? And NO! I do not believe in pre-existence. We didn't exist til God created us within our mother's womb. Scripture says, "The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, sayeth the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the SPIRIT OF MAN WITHIN HIM" (Zechariah 12:1). Again, you didn't read my post. As God is like an artist, knowing what he wanted to create before He created it. God is not subject to time, he created time for man. If God were subject to time then He can't be called, omnipresent. When the universe was created, God created the matter that it took to do that. So I can see that the God you believe in knows nothing, didn't always exist, is a man and isn't omnipresent. A very weak and sad god in my opinion. It would be nice if you read a person's post, ALL OF IT before commenting.

Billyray

04-30-2014, 07:02 PM

Neverending
Since I know the doctrines of Mormonism and understand that you believe that God was not always god but was once a man;

BigJ
Your first sentence tells me you don't know the doctrines of Mormonism.

BigJ this is a very interesting topic from a lds point of view, perhaps we can flush it out a little bit to see where you actually stand on this one.

Let me throw out some statements and tell me which ones you agree with (as it pertains to mormon thinking) and which ones you disagree with.

1. God the Father was once a man that lived on another planet.

2. The Father's role on that planet is ***umed by many LDS to be like Jesus' role on this planet

3. His role would have been as a savior on that planet and in that role would be considered a god

But let's take it back a little bit further paralleling Jesus' existence

4. Prior to coming to this other earth he would have been a spirit child of his father and mother in a pre earth life--and just like Jesus he would still be considered a god like Jesus in the pre earth life.

5. Prior to the father's spiritual birth to his heavenly father and mother he would have been an "intelligence".

6. A lot of lds would cl***ify an "intelligence"--prior to their spiritual birth to heavenly parents--as not being a god at that point in time.

I would love to hear your input on this BigJ.

Libby

04-30-2014, 08:40 PM

Okay, so he created the future and the past to you. So to you, there was no future and no past until God created it. But to Him, do you recognize that all existed with him as there is no future or past to him---or do you think that once he created it, there became a past and a future to Him in which there existed things after, but not before? Or do you believe that since God has no future and no past, all things exist with Him? (Regardless of a past or future to you.)

This actually makes sense, that we exist in God's Mind "eternally", until the idea of God being, "once a man", is introduced. Then, for me, it gets confusing, again.

Interesting discussion. I've been trying to catch up.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 09:40 PM

This actually makes sense, that we exist in God's Mind "eternally", until the idea of God being, "once a man", is introduced. Then, for me, it gets confusing, again.

Interesting discussion. I've been trying to catch up.

I think because you think of being a "man" differently. Christians think of man as finite--something that didn't exist and then God created. Once you understand God as eternal and therefore all being eternal with Him, then God being a man does not make God finite in any way shape or form. (This is easy to comprehend just by thinking about Jesus Christ having a body.)

So, when someone accuses Mormons of believing that God was once a man, I think that they are thinking in finite, time terms---rather than we have eternal natures because God is eternal. Than--who we are is eternal--the essence of who we are is eternal. As I explained before, in this way, God did not create something to sin or to go against him or created something flawed, rather he gave the power of choice to something that already existed. He allows us to discover ourselves. He provides a way to do it (in time.) And because (in time) we discover our flawed nature, he (because of his infinite love) provides a way to overcome this nature (the Savior, atonement).

And if you think about it further, because he knows all of us eternally, he knows who will choose what. Therefore, foreordination becomes merely God acknowledging and choosing those natures he knows will follow Him (in time...or here on earth.) Those "rulers and magistrates' that James likes to refer to (or elhohim/gods) were already pre-chosen---because as God explains to Abraham, that they were noble and great before the world was (or time existed.)

To me, once the plan of salvation becomes clear--you can never go back. You see something and once you see it, you can see it every where in the Bible and here on earth. You see the great plan in motion in how we experience creation itself.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 09:47 PM

BigJ this is a very interesting topic from a lds point of view, perhaps we can flush it out a little bit to see where you actually stand on this one.

Let me throw out some statements and tell me which ones you agree with (as it pertains to mormon thinking) and which ones you disagree with.

I would love to hear your input on this BigJ.

Quote me the scriptures and we will talk. ;) Because if you want to talk in deeper terms, you have to give up your limited understanding of my beliefs.

Billyray

04-30-2014, 09:54 PM

Quote me the scriptures and we will talk. ;) Because if you want to talk in deeper terms, you have to give up your limited understanding of my beliefs.

Neverending
Since I know the doctrines of Mormonism and understand that you believe that God was not always god but was once a man;

BigJ
Your first sentence tells me you don't know the doctrines of Mormonism. *

You criticized Neverending but she is right and you were wrong to criticize her. Apologize and I will drop it. Or we can discuss these points so that you can try and prove that you were right and she was wrong.

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 10:20 PM

You criticized Neverending but she is right and you were wrong to criticize her. Apologize and I will drop it. Or we can discuss these points so that you can try and prove that you were right and she was wrong.

She doesn't know our doctrine. That is clear from the way she writes. I guess you don't really want to find those scriptures--or more likely, you really can't find them.

Libby

04-30-2014, 10:26 PM

I think because you think of being a "man" differently. Christians think of man as finite--something that didn't exist and then God created. Once you understand God as eternal and therefore all being eternal with Him, then God being a man does not make God finite in any way shape or form. (This is easy to comprehend just by thinking about Jesus Christ having a body.)

So, when someone accuses Mormons of believing that God was once a man, I think that they are thinking in finite, time terms---rather than we have eternal natures because God is eternal. Than--who we are is eternal--the essence of who we are is eternal. As I explained before, in this way, God did not create something to sin or to go against him or created something flawed, rather he gave the power of choice to something that already existed. He allows us to discover ourselves. He provides a way to do it (in time.) And because (in time) we discover our flawed nature, he (because of his infinite love) provides a way to overcome this nature (the Savior, atonement).

And if you think about it further, because he knows all of us eternally, he knows who will choose what. Therefore, foreordination becomes merely God acknowledging and choosing those natures he knows will follow Him (in time...or here on earth.) Those "rulers and magistrates' that James likes to refer to (or elhohim/gods) were already pre-chosen---because as God explains to Abraham, that they were noble and great before the world was (or time existed.)

To me, once the plan of salvation becomes clear--you can never go back. You see something and once you see it, you can see it every where in the Bible and here on earth. You see the great plan in motion in how we experience creation itself.

Thanks for the further explanations, Julie. I can, actually, understand what you're saying. This way of thinking about God is also in eastern traditions, like Hinduism. I see some value in looking at it that way, because I don't think even Christians can deny that, in some sense, we have existed eternally in the Eye of God.

I really don't claim to know much, anymore. The older you get and the more you study, the less you seem to know, for sure. I enjoy looking at all perspectives with wonder and great interest. I suppose we will know more about this, someday..or I certainly hope so. :)

BigJulie

04-30-2014, 10:34 PM

Thanks for the further explanations, Julie. I can, actually, understand what you're saying. This way of thinking about God is also in eastern traditions, like Hinduism. I see some value in looking at it that way, because I don't think even Christians can deny that, in some sense, we have existed eternally in the Eye of God.

I really don't claim to know much, anymore. The older you get and the more you study, the less you seem to know, for sure. I enjoy looking at all perspectives with wonder and great interest. I suppose we will know more about this, someday..or I certainly hope so. :)

I agree--the more I know, the more I realize I don't know. I was not aware of this being an eastern tradition, but when I studied Hebrew, I found that the Bible has eastern influence.

Libby

04-30-2014, 10:37 PM

It really does. I was surprised to learn just how much..

Billyray

04-30-2014, 11:04 PM

She doesn't know our doctrine. That is clear from the way she writes. I guess you don't really want to find those scriptures--or more likely, you really can't find them.
No apology to Neverending? OK then I guess we will get to discuss the points that I brought up above since you said that she was wrong--but you are wrong on this one OR are you being a little bit naughty by fibbing a little bit tonight. She said that the lds father has not always been a god you said she was wrong with means that you believe that the Father has alway been a god. Right?

1. God the Father was once a man that lived on another planet.

2. The Father's role on that planet is ***umed by many LDS to be like Jesus' role on this planet

3. His role would have been as a savior on that planet and in that role would be considered a god

But let's take it back a little bit further paralleling Jesus' existence

4. Prior to coming to this other earth he would have been a spirit child of his father and mother in a pre earth life--and just like Jesus he would still be considered a god like Jesus in the pre earth life.

5. Prior to the father's spiritual birth to his heavenly father and mother he would have been an "intelligence".

6. A lot of lds would cl***ify an "intelligence"--prior to their spiritual birth to heavenly parents--as not being a god at that point in time.

TrueBlue?

05-01-2014, 05:44 AM

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"

So then here is my question? Has God, Jesus Christ, always had a body of flesh and bone, or was He once only spirit, then gained a body of flesh and bone, or does He eternally exist in two forms simultaneously? The same with us, although I believe we existed eternally, you believe we, meaning spirit and body was created at conception. Do we simultaneously not exist and exist?

RealFakeHair

05-01-2014, 07:09 AM

Forgive me for how that sounded. It's unfair to you Christians, because there is little logic and a very convoluted ideas you put out just to prove Mormons wrong.
Well, thank you, but I don't have to do anything to prove LDSinc. is nothing more than BS! Joseph Smith jr. Does it for me.

James Banta

05-01-2014, 08:56 AM

I don't think you understand that when you spread falsehoods and half-truths about my beliefs, I can never understand this as love.

Which brings to mind another scripture:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding br***, or a tinkling cymbal." (1 Cor. 13:1)

You spew filth out of your mouth and then tell me it is love? No, James--this is not love.

You still have the duty of showing me where I have used a single half truth or Falsehood about anything concerning mormonism.. You keep accusing me of doing so but you don't provide any evidence that shows I have committed any such crimes.

Julie it is not loving to allow a person like you for whom Jesus died to go through life believing a lie.. And you do believe the lies of Joseph Smith. Lies that corrupt even the nature of God. Remember jesus said that God is Spirit and that a spirit doesn't have a body of flesh and bone.. The Holy Spirit through Paul teaches us that Jesus is the image of the INVISIBLE GOD.. But along comes Smith and he teaches that the Father has a physical body as tangible as man's.. That He is Being who has a body of flesh and bone.. Who is the truth here Jesus or Smith, the Holy Spirit or Smith.. Their statements are mutually exclusive.. If the Persons of God are truthful Smith lied. I can't believe it is the other way around..

I am required to love people, I am not required to love organizations or the lies they have spun to support their authority of people. I do NOT love mormonism.. I do love the LDS people.. I have said this before. I live in the Salt Lake Valley. The LDS are my neighbors, my friends, even my family.. I do love them. I love then because God loves them so much He died for them that they might have everlasting life.. I don't have to love their error and I don't.. I will hold up Jesus and His word given in the Bible claiming His promise that if He is lifted up He will draw all men to Himself.. The only thing keeping you from the cross and repentance is your pride that you are capable to making yourself worthy to be called His child. Making yourself acceptable through an obedience to God's laws and ordinances that no one has ever been able to obtain..

You now call the teaching of His word filth.. At least that is what it must be because that is what I say here.. I say that The Lord our God is one Lord (Deut 6:4) Instead of agreeing with Joseph Smith that we have three Gods.. I teach that God created the spirit of man within him (Zech 12:1) instead of believing the teaching of a man that we existed as spirit being before we came to this world, and before that some disembodied intelligence that is co-eternal with God.. That is man invented nonsense. There is nothing in the Bible that proves we existed before we entered this world. Oh but you will point to *** 38:4-7, who were these sons of God? There were the angelic creation.. The same kind of beings that we know Satan to have been before he fell. They are listed as a different creation than man's and named seraphim (Isaiah 6:1-8) and the cherubim (Hebrews 9:5).. No where are they referred to as premortal men. That part of LDS doctrine is again just an invention of a man, it is not included in the word of God.. So show me how confronting error, the sheer imagination of a man mind is spewing filth.. I have said only good things about you.. You come across as a fine lady.. A special person Jesus loves so much He died for you.. I will not drag you in the dirt when He loves you that much.. But I have no such respect for mormonism.. Telling you the truth as God revealed it to us is LOVE.. IHS jim

BigJulie

05-01-2014, 09:42 AM

You still have the duty of showing me where I have used a single half truth or Falsehood about anything concerning mormonism.. You keep accusing me of doing so but you don't provide any evidence that shows I have committed any such crimes.

I have provided ample evidence--you have ignored it. Anyone who wants the proof can go back on read on the subjects that have already been discussed ample times and in which you were part of or privy to the conversation. Your rejection of my proof is does not mean I did not provide any.

And James, don't kid yourself believing that you teach the word. You dig up what you perceive as dirt and then you call it teaching the word. It is not.

John T

05-01-2014, 10:32 AM

BigJulie

05-01-2014, 10:42 AM

Julie,

I gave you the chance to make a correction in your historically inaccurate statement about the alleged "removal" of the apocryphal books from Bible, which happened during the Reformation. I also provided you with the name and the date of the Church Council that the event took place so you could look it up in ANY search engine to get the truth.

However, you somehow morphed the reply into a totally irrelevant subject: your impression of my knowledge of LDS history. Can you see that is what you have done?

If you are wanting to discuss a matter of church history, which you are in error, I will be happy to continue discussing that.

Please go back and follow the discussion I had with Billyray here. You will see the discussion regarding the addition and subsequent removal of the books.

Billyray

05-01-2014, 06:34 PM

Please go back and follow the discussion I had with Billyray here. You will see the discussion regarding the addition and subsequent removal of the books.
BigJ--JohnT and I are in perfect agreement on this specific topic which should be obvious if you actually go back and look at our exchange. He is kindly trying to get you to correct your incorrect ***ertion that the apocryphal books were removed from the Bible.

Remember that you are the one who brought this subject up--yet you don't seem to be willing to follow through with the discussion.

John T

05-02-2014, 07:38 AM

So then here is my question? Has God, Jesus Christ, always had a body of flesh and bone, or was He once only spirit, then gained a body of flesh and bone, or does He eternally exist in two forms simultaneously? The same with us, although I believe we existed eternally, you believe we, meaning spirit and body was created at conception. Do we simultaneously not exist and exist?

I can give you Scripture for explaining exactly what Jesus did, and exactly who He is. But before I do that, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?

John T

05-02-2014, 08:08 AM

Please go back and follow the discussion I had with Billyray here. You will see the discussion regarding the addition and subsequent removal of the books.

Please demonstrate where in ANY of those you cites any authoritative and objective resource. All I saw was your personal pontification parading as phacts. (I had to do that to keep up the alliteration!)

On the other hand, I gave you the exact place where the Apo****ha was ADDED, and I let you choose what sort of authority you chose to confirm the truth of what I said. Your recollections of things is not accurate, not are they authoritative.

If you want to learn truth, look up the Council of Trent. If you wish to remain ignorant of the facts, then do nothing. But willfully remaining in ignorance of the facts will not serve you well.

neverending

05-02-2014, 11:21 AM

I think because you think of being a "man" differently. Christians think of man as finite--something that didn't exist and then God created. Once you understand God as eternal and therefore all being eternal with Him, then God being a man does not make God finite in any way shape or form. (This is easy to comprehend just by thinking about Jesus Christ having a body.)

So, when someone accuses Mormons of believing that God was once a man, I think that they are thinking in finite, time terms---rather than we have eternal natures because God is eternal. Than--who we are is eternal--the essence of who we are is eternal. As I explained before, in this way, God did not create something to sin or to go against him or created something flawed, rather he gave the power of choice to something that already existed. He allows us to discover ourselves. He provides a way to do it (in time.) And because (in time) we discover our flawed nature, he (because of his infinite love) provides a way to overcome this nature (the Savior, atonement).

And if you think about it further, because he knows all of us eternally, he knows who will choose what. Therefore, foreordination becomes merely God acknowledging and choosing those natures he knows will follow Him (in time...or here on earth.) Those "rulers and magistrates' that James likes to refer to (or elhohim/gods) were already pre-chosen---because as God explains to Abraham, that they were noble and great before the world was (or time existed.)

To me, once the plan of salvation becomes clear--you can never go back. You see something and once you see it, you can see it every where in the Bible and here on earth. You see the great plan in motion in how we experience creation itself.

Julie,
What? Nothing you have said made any sense at all! All you did was ignore my question that YOU and ALL LDS believe that God (God the Father) was once a man. That he was born, had a body and had to have lived a great life to gain his exaltation so he could become God. Please try and keep up. Now, do you and the members of your church not believe in Progression in the hereafter? That is how your God grew and became the being he is now. Is this not so? Do you personally believe that you too will progress in the hereafter along with your husband so that you along with him can create spirit children after your husband has created a world like earth? I don't care about you going off on a tangent about free will and God knowing everything; I already know these things. I don't care about your opinion about salvation, I was asking about whether you believe God the Father was once a man. Leave Christ out of this conversation because we all know he came to earth and had a body....this is ALL about God the Father. Even the Bible says that God is spirit. Are you going to argue what Christ told us about God the Father is wrong? JS knew more then the Apostles who lived with Christ, was taught by Christ and were witnesses to everything he did?

RealFakeHair

05-02-2014, 12:45 PM

So, he is the guy who took it upon himself to determine what was inspired and what wasn't, but he himself had no direct communication from God. Pretty scary to base your beliefs on him then--as he could be wrong....if it was, as you seem to believe, just his best guess.

Unlike your founding Prophet, Jerome did not think of himself a greater work than Jesus Christ. Jerome, saw a need, and without a dreaming up a lie like your Founding Prophet lied all the way through his conquest of power, money and women, and most of all young girls. There is nothing in Jerome's history of corruption like your Founding Prophet Joseph Smith jr.
So give me common man like Jerome over the self-centered egotist lying SOB, skirt chasing adulterer, Joseph Smith jr.
Can I get an Amen, anybody?

Christian

05-06-2014, 08:54 AM

Big julie posted:

Originally Posted by BillyrayBigJ 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.

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. . .

James Banta

05-06-2014, 09:16 AM

I have provided ample evidence--you have ignored it. Anyone who wants the proof can go back on read on the subjects that have already been discussed ample times and in which you were part of or privy to the conversation. Your rejection of my proof is does not mean I did not provide any.

And James, don't kid yourself believing that you teach the word. You dig up what you perceive as dirt and then you call it teaching the word. It is not.

Is that what I have done? Does the LDS church not use anything they can find in the scriptures, and the teaching of Joseph Smith that tends to support the present teachings of the LDS church? What they have done is cherry picked what Smith taught.. The facts are that He did teach that there are three Gods for this world. That polygamy is the highest form of marriage. That God Himself is a polygamist. That Smith himself will be the final judge on whether a person will be allowed to enter God's highest heaven. Each of the ten teaching I have listed here, those 10 uniquely LDS doctrines are from Smith or one of his successors that the LDS church believe are prophets seers and revaltors. They are all outside the teaching of God found in the Bible. They all add complexity to the simplicity of God's truth. They are all false, they have no scriptural foundation.. They are the shifting sand of man invented religion..

I am not here to insult you or anyone.. I am here to point to Jesus on the cross. To help your eyes open to all that God has done to bring you to Himself. If you would open up to Him He would save you and make you his own. Without Jesus adding you to His Church, you will be eternally Lost.. IHS jim

BigJulie

05-06-2014, 12:12 PM

Is that what I have done? Does the LDS church not use anything they can find in the scriptures, and the teaching of Joseph Smith that tends to support the present teachings of the LDS church? What they have done is cherry picked what Smith taught.. The facts are that He did teach that there are three Gods for this world. That polygamy is the highest form of marriage. That God Himself is a polygamist. That He is the final judge on whether a person will be allowed to enter God's highest heaven. Each of the ten teaching I have listed here, those 10 uniquely LDS doctrines are from Smith or one of his successors that the LDS church believe are prophets seers and revaltors. They are all outside the teaching of God found in the Bible. They all add complexity to the simplicity of God's truth. They are all false, they have no scriptural foundation.. They are the shifting sand of man invented religion..

I am not here to insult you or anyone.. I am here to point to Jesus on the cross. To help your eyes open to all that God has done to bring you to Himself. If you would open up to Him He would save you and make you his own. Without Jesus adding you to His Church, you will be eternally Lost.. IHS jim

The only thing you have made clear to me James is that you are not vested in truth, but only wish to grandstand with your own imaginations. Those who wish to know what I truly believe can seek out Mormon sources on the web and learn from them. Then you can see where James tells the truth, where he bends the truth, and where he out and out gives falsehoods.

neverending

05-06-2014, 03:47 PM

James Banta

05-06-2014, 04:33 PM

The only thing you have made clear to me James is that you are not vested in truth, but only wish to grandstand with your own imaginations. Those who wish to know what I truly believe can seek out Mormon sources on the web and learn from them. Then you can see where James tells the truth, where he bends the truth, and where he out and out gives falsehoods.

Falsehoods? I have shown you where Smith taught these doctrines teaching his church from the pulpit, in conference of the church within the shadow of the temple.. Was Smith a liar as you accuse me of being? I have only taught what the Bible teaches for doctrine, and shown how your church has failed to aligned it's self with those teachings. Example: The Bible teaches that ALL Church leaders are to be "...blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. (***us 1:6-9) How does Smith stack up with those requirements? Let's look.

God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go. For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ; they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me. They have got wonderful things in the land of Ham. I think the grand jury have strained at a gnat and swallowed the camel. (History of the Church Vol. 6.. I found this in the LDS church controlled http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_VI).

Look it up.. I see your denials and they are all without merit.. I don't use Anti-mormonism writings in my posts.. Everything I quote here is either from the Bible or LDS writings.. I am not smart enough to invent all the unbiblical nonsense that came from Smith and his successors. Come on, a prophet of God that taught that Adam was their Father and their God for over 30 years? I never would have thought that one up.. Granted it took Smith years to evolve the story that became the first vision after all in 1829 Smith believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Ghost) is one God (See the testimony of the three witnesses and 2 Nephi 31:21).. Then when "he figured it out" he stated that:

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit, and these three cons***ute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it? (Ibid)

Which Joseph Smith should we believe.. The one that said he was able to do a work that even Jesus couldn't do in keeping the church together, the Joseph Smith that said there were three Gods or the Joseph Smith that said that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God? These are NOT peripheral doctrines.. These are the very central saving doctrines of the Church. By denying these doctrines Joseph Smith has proven himself to be the center of out and out falsehoods and the imagination of his own heart. You have denied that the histories of the church are good enough to be counted as reliable. Can you believe Smith Himself of that point?

I know you are upset Julie. It is upsetting to hear the truth when you have been lied to all you life and you have believed those lies. I was mad enough to choke the life out of the first person that told me that mormonism isn't a Christian religion. But as I learned I was more ready to do the same to Smith if he had been alive to kill.. Now I am no longer mad, I am hurt that Smith has lied to a fine people, to a woman like you. IHS jim

BigJulie

05-06-2014, 09:06 PM

[SIZE=3]More evading Julie? Why don't YOU go and look up what James has posted over and over and prove him wrong? I have discussed my beliefs with him in many posts. Anyone who wants to see what I disagree with and why can read thread after thread after thread, but not just me, but other Mormons. I think James just likes to bait. I think he finds some type of enjoyment from it or something.

BigJulie

05-06-2014, 09:09 PM

Falsehoods? I know you are upset Julie. It is upsetting to hear the truth when you have been lied to all you life and you have believed those lies. I was mad enough to choke the life out of the first person that told me that mormonism isn't a Christian religion. But as I learned I was more ready to do the same to Smith if he had been alive to kill.. Now I am no longer mad, I am hurt that Smith has lied to a fine people, to a woman like you. IHS jim

Oh boy, should we go back to the thread regarding the Apocrypha and how you don't use the same standards for yourself as you do for us?

Do you note that the only scripture you do provide backs the belief of One God?

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 12:36 AM

I challenge you to use our scriptures to back every point you have made. See if you can do it. As we have discussed many times, these other articles are not our doctrine just as the Apocrypha is not your doctrine as well. Lets see if you can back your comments with our actual scriptures.

I give you this challenge. If you can't do it.....then you and I will both know that you know, but continue to bear false witness against us regardless.

James, I am still waiting for you to back your claims with scriptures. You have hundreds of pages---surely you can do it if it can be done.

Billyray

05-07-2014, 12:37 AM

Oh boy, should we go back to the thread regarding the Apocrypha and how you don't use the same standards for yourself as you do for us?

I thought you finally got it when it came to the Apocrypha. What is your question?

John T

05-07-2014, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Please go back and follow the discussion I had with Billyray here. You will see the discussion regarding the addition and subsequent removal of the books.

Please demonstrate where in ANY of those you cites any authoritative and objective resource. All I saw was your personal pontification parading as phacts. (I had to do that to keep up the alliteration!)

On the other hand, I gave you the exact place where the Apo****ha was ADDED, and I let you choose what sort of authority you chose to confirm the truth of what I said. Your recollections of things is not accurate, not are they authoritative.

If you want to learn truth, look up the Council of Trent. If you wish to remain ignorant of the facts, then do nothing. But willfully remaining in ignorance of the facts will not serve you well.

Originally Posted by BigJulie
James, I am still waiting for you to back your claims with scriptures. You have hundreds of pages---surely you can do it if it can be done.

You seem to be quite the comedian, BJ!

In light of your ignoring what I gave you to find objective truth, and your statement that "You will see the discussion regarding the addition and subsequent removal of the books." I find that you are unable to deal with the truth, and therefore you fabricate sulfurous falseness in order to obscure the rotten underbelly of your religion.

Is it pathological, or you simply unable to state truthful things, even on the simplest subjects, such as objective church history? I practically spoon fed the facts to you. All you needed to do was cut and paste "Council of Trent" into any search engine and get the truth.

The picture I have of you in my mind is someone sitting in darkness throwing the biggest stones at the light, you can find, preferring to remain in darkness instead of seeing things truthfully. That is such a pity!

neverending

05-07-2014, 07:39 AM

James Banta

05-07-2014, 08:34 AM

James, I am still waiting for you to back your claims with scriptures. You have hundreds of pages---surely you can do it if it can be done.

You are right Julie these statements from Joseph Smith can't be backed up in the Bible.. These statements can be shown to be taught by Smith OVER THE PULPIT as he instructed the LDS people.. When an LDS prophet teaches officially over the pulpit is that not as good as scripture?

I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom.
I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of
correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95, http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9608/rec/1)

Was this statement or any other Young gave or any given by Smith unavailable for them to correct? I have access to them didn't they? So these statements and all the wild nonsense statements such as Adam-God which were taught for over 30 years are right there easily accessed. They had the full ability to make correction before they were published to their church and the rest of the world.. So by this statement made by Young in the authority of his office, speaking in conference to the whole church, it is as much scripture as the BofM, the D&C, or the PofPG.. You are either a woman that denies the authority of the prophet seer and revelator of your church OR you are trying to hide the truth of what mormonism teaches and are trying to accuse me of bearing false witness as to what is taught by mormonism to be scripture in that accusation..

I doubt you will ever understand what I m saying here but most of the posters here do. Maybe someday if you will listen to the Holy Spirit as He explains the scripture (BIBLE) to you and you will come to see that I have neither bent, told half truths or out right falsehoods of my own imagination but in making the charge of Bearing False Witness it is you that is actually committing that sin. Your motive in doing so must be nothing but your own will demanding what you have dedicated your life both physical and spiritual to is a lie invented by an evil man, Joseph Smith. That dearly held emotion is all that is causing you to commit such a terrible SIN.. As I have said before I am not smart enough to make all this up out of my own imagination.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-07-2014, 08:48 AM

Oh boy, should we go back to the thread regarding the Apocrypha and how you don't use the same standards for yourself as you do for us?

Do you note that the only scripture you do provide backs the belief of One God?

Evasion alert

Julie again didn't bother to show one instance where I have born false witness. Not one example of a half truth or an out and out false statement.

What I said about the Apocrypha is that much of what is taught there in NOT supportable in known scripture. Since it is OUT of sync with the OT and the first 5 books of the New it is rejected as scripture, and rightly so.. Do you want to accept the concept of purgatory? No you don't want to accept that but still want to cling to the false teaching that Jesus was married with children.. So stop flower gardening the Apocrypha and either believe it or reject it.. You can't have it both ways.. But since Smith in his "translation" of the JST didn't see the Apocrypha as being part of the BIBLE, just where do you get off wanting to put forth any of it's doctrines as truth?

Yes only the Bible backs up the teaching that God in One Lord.. That theme is taught through all it volumes. Only the Bible is God's word, everything else are the commandments of men.. IHS jim

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 10:32 AM

You seem to be quite the comedian, BJ!

In light of your ignoring what I gave you to find objective truth, and your statement that "You will see the discussion regarding the addition and subsequent removal of the books." I find that you are unable to deal with the truth, and therefore you fabricate sulfurous falseness in order to obscure the rotten underbelly of your religion.

Is it pathological, or you simply unable to state truthful things, even on the simplest subjects, such as objective church history? I practically spoon fed the facts to you. All you needed to do was cut and paste "Council of Trent" into any search engine and get the truth.

The picture I have of you in my mind is someone sitting in darkness throwing the biggest stones at the light, you can find, preferring to remain in darkness instead of seeing things truthfully. That is such a pity!

Are you claiming that there was not an additional and subsequent removal of books from the Bible you have today?

What about these: Tobias, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees, First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Man***eh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans.

Please share your objective church history. I want to know why you think the Council of Trent did what they did. Do you think what they did was correct? Why or why not?

PS (By the way, anyone who understands history or how we come to understand knowledge would consider the term "objective history" an oxymoron.)

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 10:52 AM

You are right Julie these statements from Joseph Smith can't be backed up in the Bible.. These statements can be shown to be taught by Smith OVER THE PULPIT as he instructed the LDS people.. When an LDS prophet teaches officially over the pulpit is that not as good as scripture?

Or in the Book of Mormon. In other words, you can't do it.

If what you think was said over the pulpit does not match our scriptures, than you misunderstand what you think was said over the pulpit. Give me a scripture James--even one.

James Banta

05-07-2014, 11:03 AM

Or in the Book of Mormon. In other words, you can't do it.

I did do it.. You believe in Smith, you deny that he would teach false doctrine or he taught that there are three Gods.. And he taught that in a sermon before the church. I have also shown that he had scribes that took down his words preserving them for his church.. In the History of the Church much of those words are restated. That history has been controlled by the LDS church all these years.. It reflects the history through the church's perspective. True and accurate as to the LDS.. To deny Smith's sermons recorded there is to deny the truth of Smith's words. To deny that truth is to call either him or the LDS liars.. To do that is not the way of a believing member of the church. Doing so would make you as anti as you believe I am.. IHS jim

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 11:10 AM

I did do it.. You believe in Smith, you deny that he would teach false doctrine or he taught that there are three Gods.. And he taught that in a sermon before the church. I have also shown that he had scribes that took down his words preserving them for his church.. In the History of the Church much of those words are restated. That history has been controlled by the LDS church all these years.. It reflects the history through the church's perspective. True and accurate as to the LDS.. To deny Smith's sermons recorded there is to deny the truth of Smith's words. To deny that truth is to call either him or the LDS liars.. To do that is not the way of a believing member of the church. Doing so would make you as anti as you believe I am.. IHS jim

James, you don't know exactly what Joseph Smith taught, you weren't there. What you have is what you THINK he taught. Then you attack that. You see a tusk and so ***ume no one can see the elephant.

You are now trying to make a spin that the church controls its own history. Rather than the church keeps a history and does their best to understand it in light of KNOWN revelation.

But you know this and yet you ignore that there is something more and something greater.

neverending

05-07-2014, 11:40 AM

James, you don't know exactly what Joseph Smith taught, you weren't there. What you have is what you THINK he taught. Then you attack that. You see a tusk and so ***ume no one can see the elephant.

You are now trying to make a spin that the church controls its own history. Rather than the church keeps a history and does their best to understand it in light of KNOWN revelation.

But you know this and yet you ignore that there is something more and something greater.

Are you so uneducated that you have no clue as to writings by JS? You need to go to Deseret Book and buy a copy of the JS Papers. I can't believe your thinking. None of us were there when Christ was alive either but we have his word written in the Bible!! My Goodness Julie, you are grabbing at straws and failing miserably. James and I know full well that there is something more and greater but we must wait til God decides are time is up here on earth. We await that day with full knowledge that we will be with God the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit where we will no longer have pain, nor any suffering and every tear will be wiped away. Read 1 John 5:13.

If you had to be in James' shoes, you would be more thoughtful. You haven't been here to watch all he's been through with his health. You didn't have to watch your husband of over 30 years almost die due to a bowel rupture and a major car accident, which btw he has permanent nerve damage from and difficulty walking and needs a cane. Were you with him when he was given the diagnosis of heart failure? NO! you weren't but I was and I had no family to turn to so I had to deal with all of these things alone; other then having my faith in my Savior could I have been able to deal with everything and help James to recover as much as he has now. Julie, before accusing James of false things, why not check out what he has told you, then come back and tell him what you've learned, then and ONLY then do you have any room to talk.

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 12:11 PM

[SIZE=3]Are you so uneducated that you have no clue as to writings by JS?
I do, I just understand it is in the context of the greater knowledge of the church.

Your view of my beliefs is like finding a tusk and therefore thinking you see the whole elephant and claiming you do. As you noted, you can't back up what you think Joseph Smith said with our scriptures. Until you can, you don't really see nor understand what I believe.

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 12:14 PM

If you had to be in James' shoes, you would be more thoughtful. You haven't been here to watch all he's been through with his health. You didn't have to watch your husband of over 30 years almost die due to a bowel rupture and a major car accident, which btw he has permanent nerve damage from and difficulty walking and needs a cane. Were you with him when he was given the diagnosis of heart failure? NO! you weren't but I was and I had no family to turn to so I had to deal with all of these things alone; other then having my faith in my Savior could I have been able to deal with everything and help James to recover as much as he has now. Julie, before accusing James of false things, why not check out what he has told you, then come back and tell him what you've learned, then and ONLY then do you have any room to talk.

Then James really shouldn't be wasting his time here. If he bears false witness, I will point it out. I have checked out what he says--especially when he tries to put words in my mouth. I asked him to cut and paste where I said that. As we can both see--he can't.

And in all seriousness---I think both of you would have less stress and more enjoyment of life if you stopped attacking what you don't understand.

I can imagine this site is hard on his health. So sorry to hear it.

neverending

05-07-2014, 01:02 PM

Then James really shouldn't be wasting his time here. If he bears false witness, I will point it out. I have checked out what he says--especially when he tries to put words in my mouth. I asked him to cut and paste where I said that. As we can both see--he can't.

And in all seriousness---I think both of you would have less stress and more enjoyment of life if you stopped attacking what you don't understand.

I can imagine this site is hard on his health. So sorry to hear it.

Then you need to answer these questions. DO YOU believe JS was a prophet? DO YOU believe JS spoke to the world the things God wanted him say? DO YOU believe that the words he spoke over the pulpit to the members of your church were true? Simple questions for a TBM to answer. And again, just where did you go to check out what James has said here? If you really did that, I can not believe that you would still want to be a Mormon; most likely you skimmed over the majority of what was written. So, STOP with the accusations.

We will never stop pointing out to Mormons or anyone the lies that Mormonism teaches for we feel lead to do that to show Mormons that they do not believe in the true God of the Bible and our lost, that what goes on in the temples is evil and is not of God. The Holy Spirit spoke to me the day I was getting married and told me 3 times to leave for I didn't belong there. Oh so true but it took me 7 more years before I finally listened to the Holy Spirit and learned that all my life I had been lied to. It was not a good day to discover that knowledge but everything fell into place and so much was opened up to me. We only wish the same for you and all Mormons who are lost and don't have the truth.

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 01:18 PM

Then you need to answer these questions. DO YOU believe JS was a prophet? DO YOU believe JS spoke to the world the things God wanted him say? DO YOU believe that the words he spoke over the pulpit to the members of your church were true? Simple questions for a TBM to answer. And again, just where did you go to check out what James has said here? If you really did that, I can not believe that you would still want to be a Mormon; most likely you skimmed over the majority of what was written. So, STOP with the accusations. Yes, Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who restored His church here on earth. What God revealed to Him by revelation is found within our scriptures, recorded for the all to read as a testimony of Jesus Christ.

What I also understand is that you cannot take a snippet from history, ignore our doctrine found within our scriptures and then portray our beliefs accurately.

I have read what James has posted. All he has shown me is that he does not understand nor care to understand our beliefs fully OR he does understand an purposefully misleads. He is like an old gossip who tries to find dirt and share it and thinks they are doing the world a favor.

We will never stop pointing out to Mormons or anyone the lies that Mormonism teaches for we feel lead to do that to show Mormons that they do not believe in the true God of the Bible and our lost, that what goes on in the temples is evil and is not of God. The Holy Spirit spoke to me the day I was getting married and told me 3 times to leave for I didn't belong there. Oh so true but it took me 7 more years before I finally listened to the Holy Spirit and learned that all my life I had been lied to. It was not a good day to discover that knowledge but everything fell into place and so much was opened up to me. We only wish the same for you and all Mormons who are lost and don't have the truth.

And yet the only real falsehoods going on here can be directly seen in James' posts. He stated I "confess" a belief and when I ask him to show me where--he instead just continues to make accusations and does not back it. Therefore, anyone should be able to see that he is an unreliable witness and is untrustworthy to really share the truth.

RealFakeHair

05-07-2014, 01:26 PM

[QUOTE=BigJulie;156485]Yes, Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who restored His church here on earth. What God revealed to Him by revelation is found within our scriptures, recorded for the all to read as a testimony of Jesus Christ.

So you really believe Joseph Smith translated the Book of the Dead into the Book of Abraham?
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!

Billyray

05-07-2014, 01:26 PM

I do, I just understand it is in the context of the greater knowledge of the church.

So English words written in sentence form means many different things. Do you really believe that BigJ? How is it possible for anyone to communicate if this were the case. In fact how could I possibly understand what you have even written because it could mean anything depending depending on the person reading it.

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 01:48 PM

So English words written in sentence form means many different things. Do you really believe that BigJ? How is it possible for anyone to communicate if this were the case. In fact how could I possibly understand what you have even written because it could mean anything depending depending on the person reading it.

Billyray, I believe even you in the past have asked that your posts be left in context and not cut up. Is this not true? I believe you speak of learning the scriptures in context as well. Is this not true? When is it ever okay to take one snippet and act as if that is the whole of it, especially when the writer can see that on face value, left as it, it is misleading. I am sure you would agree with that.

James Banta

05-07-2014, 03:24 PM

I believe even you in the past have asked that your posts be left in context and not cut up. Is this not true? I believe you speak of learning the scriptures in context as well. Is this not true? When is it ever okay to take one snippet and act as if that is the whole of it, especially when the writer can see that on face value, left as it, it is misleading. I am sure you would agree with that.

Out of context.. Humm.. I could only have quoted the entire Vol 18 if you wanted more.. Even then I pointed right to where I got my reference. You have a opertunity to show me what I took from the context leaving the intent behind.. But you have never said that.. Not one of your post have you questioned my quotes as to it's contexts. I guess I am doing a good *** in presenting what is really being said.. You have said that I wasn't there so I don't know what was really being said.. If words didn't have meaning I would agree but they do. And even according to Smith those who recorded his history were excellent in their ***s.. Nothing said there is misleading or twisted.. What can the meaning of "We have three Gods" mean if it wasn't meant that Smith believed that we have three Gods.. It is clear that he meant that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are those three Gods.. But still that is something the Bible never teaches. It teaches that the Lord our God is one Lord.. Unlike the LDS that do put their our private interpretation of Scripture and History I take it all for the meaning it has as I read it.. A phrase like "the Yellow cat sat on the fence" Doesn't mean that the animal was a Dog that was pretending to be a cat or that it was black and wished it was yellow.. So when Smith said that we have three Gods I didn't ***ume me meant anything other that we have three Gods..

There in of course LDS scriptural evidence to uphold the idea that Smith taught in the name of at least three Gods.. It is in Abraham 4:3-12, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-29, 31.. That is LDS doctrine direct from LDS scripture.. Was Smith really teaching something you don't believe when he said "we have three Gods"? Scream till you turn blue but as long as you sustain Smith and all the other presidents of the LDS church as prophets seers and revelators you MUST believe the doctrine stated in it's scripture. Not one of them has ever taught that the BofA is in error and there is only one God.. Not one of them has ever taught that Smith was wrong and there aren't three Gods but just one.. The modern LDS church has also coincided that Emma hated polygamy and was a trial to Joseph in trying to live in it. It was so bad that the mormon god through Smith had to admonish her for her unbelief in the doctrine, to the point where her life was threatened. I guess you won't believe section 132 of the D&C either..

You can deny all you want to, you either believe that Smith taught that the Gods (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) are his Gods or you believe that Bible that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ONE GOD.. You keep accusing me of lying to you and others that read my posts, I think maybe you are the one doing that both to us and yourself.. IHS jim

Billyray

05-07-2014, 03:59 PM

Billyray, I believe even you in the past have asked that your posts be left in context and not cut up. Is this not true? I believe you speak of learning the scriptures in context as well. Is this not true? When is it ever okay to take one snippet and act as if that is the whole of it, especially when the writer can see that on face value, left as it, it is misleading. I am sure you would agree with that.
Here is your entire post and my follow up post

I do, I just understand it is in the context of the greater knowledge of the church.

Your view of my beliefs is like finding a tusk and therefore thinking you see the whole elephant and claiming you do. As you noted, you can't back up what you think Joseph Smith said with our scriptures. Until you can, you don't really see nor understand what I believe.

So English words written in sentence form means many different things. Do you really believe that BigJ? How is it possible for anyone to communicate if
this were the case. In fact how could I possibly understand what you have even written because it could mean anything depending depending on the person reading it.
Now do you have any comment on what I said?

So English words written in sentence form means many different things. Do you really believe that BigJ? How is it possible for anyone to communicate if this were the case. In fact how could I possibly understand what you have even written because it could mean anything depending depending on the person reading it.

Billyray

05-07-2014, 04:06 PM

I do, I just understand it is in the context of the greater knowledge of the church.

Your view of my beliefs is like finding a tusk and therefore thinking you see the whole elephant and claiming you do. As you noted, you can't back up what you think Joseph Smith said with our scriptures. Until you can, you don't really see nor understand what I believe.
When Brigham Young teaches about "blood atonement" can you tell us about the "whole elephant" since you claim to understand this topic "in the context of the greater knowledge of the church"?

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 04:31 PM

When Brigham Young teaches about "blood atonement" can you tell us about the "whole elephant" since you claim to understand this topic "in the context of the greater knowledge of the church"?

Those who are interested in what we believe regarding the atonement can find it in Mormon sources. We believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all mankind by the shedding of His blood. In so doing, we shall all overcome death and meet God. Those who accept Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Savior will be "crowned with glory" in the next life.

If anyone wants to see the argument regarding the term "blood atonement" they can go to such places as FAIR. While there are some who claim to mean that those who left the church would pay for it with their lives, there is no evidence for this. And as I come from pioneer stock, there is no history of it in any of my family, nor mention of it (and I have those who did what they pleased ;) )

Billyray

05-07-2014, 04:37 PM

Those who are interested in what we believe regarding the atonement can find it in Mormon sources. We believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all mankind by the shedding of His blood. In so doing, we shall all overcome death and meet God. Those who accept Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Savior will be "crowned with glory" in the next life.

If anyone wants to see the argument regarding the term "blood atonement" they can go to such places as FAIR. While there are some who claim to mean that those who left the church would pay for it with their lives, there is no evidence for this. And as I come from pioneer stock, there is no history of it in any of my family, nor mention of it (and I have those who did what they pleased ;) )

You asked if we thought that the messages of your leaders were in line with your scriptures and I said "no". You then said that we didn't understand. So I gave you a single example and asked you to show us how blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young was consistent with the lds scriptures. Why direct us to FAIR when I asked you--not them. Can you show us the entire "elephant" based on your vast experience and knowledge of Mormonism how this fits in with the overall lds doctrine?

Libby

05-07-2014, 04:40 PM

Is "blood atonement" a doctrine of the church? It was my understanding, as LDS, that it was not.

But, I'm not sure....just asking.

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 04:55 PM

Is "blood atonement" a doctrine of the church? It was my understanding, as LDS, that it was not.

But, I'm not sure....just asking.

No, it is not.

This is basically one line that some critic picked up and has sensationalized. (As is with most things.)

Libby

05-07-2014, 04:59 PM

Thanks, Julie. I was fairly sure it wasn't.

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 05:00 PM

You asked if we thought that the messages of your leaders were in line with your scriptures and I said "no". You then said that we didn't understand. So I gave you a single example and asked you to show us how blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young was consistent with the lds scriptures. Why direct us to FAIR when I asked you--not them. Can you show us the entire "elephant" based on your vast experience and knowledge of Mormonism how this fits in with the overall lds doctrine?

The elephant is that this is not our doctrine. It hasn't been and isn't. I direct to FAIR because this has already been discussed ad nauseam. This is an old critique already addressed.

You ***ume this was "taught by Brigham Young" as you understand it. You are wrong. Here is a release by the church:

The Deseret News reported the following on June 17, 2010, reporting the Church's recent statement on the subject of Blood Atonement:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this statement Wednesday: In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making res***ution for their sins by giving up their own lives. However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encomp***ing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.

This is pretty straight forward. In other words, you think there is a contradiction, when there is none because you misunderstood the original. As noted, there is no evidence that your understanding was ever correct.

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 05:03 PM

Your colors are showing. . .

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

Billyray

05-07-2014, 05:41 PM

The elephant is that this is not our doctrine. It hasn't been and isn't. I direct to FAIR because this has already been discussed ad nauseam. This is an old critique already addressed.

You ***ume this was "taught by Brigham Young" as you understand it. You are wrong. Here is a release by the church:

I don't ***ume that this was taught by Brigham Young--I KNOW that it was taught by Brigham Young. Blood atonement as taught by BY is a completely false doctrine and the lds church can in no way defend this doctrine by one of it's own prophets, so they must distance themselves from it by any means possibly which is evident by your quote. So how is it possible that a living prophet of god could be so wrong? Doesn't this at least bring up some red flags for you and ponder if it is even remotely possibly that he was not a true prophet of god but rather one of the many anticipated false prophets that would rear their ugly head before the second coming of Christ?

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 05:42 PM

I don't ***ume that this was taught by Brigham Young--I KNOW that it was taught by Brigham Young. Blood atonement as taught by BY is a completely false doctrine and the lds church can in no way defend this doctrine by one of it's own prophets, so they must distance themselves from it by any means possibly which is evident by your quote. So how is it possible that a living prophet of god could be so wrong? Doesn't this at least bring up some red flags for you and ponder if it is even remotely possibly that he was not a true prophet of god but rather one of the many anticipated false prophets that would rear their ugly head before the second coming of Christ?

Okay, you know more than us Mormons and our leaders and our historians. I give. I didn't realize--you are as God and know all.

(btw, I love how you state you know what is and what is not and our church does not and therefore, I must some how answer your conclusions about it. Oh brother.)

Billyray

05-07-2014, 05:50 PM

Okay, you know more than us Mormons and our leaders and our historians. I give. I didn't realize--you are God and know all.
I know exactly what you know but you are attempting to downplay and disregard it OR you are simply ignorant of what one of your own prophets has taught--I suspect the former. If you would like we can delve into this more and look at some of the quotes. We could hash it out on this thread and show you all of the quotes but the bottom line is that you and I both know that this was a false doctrine promoted by one of your so-called prophets of god--if you know what is best for you and your family you should ponder long and hard about this because if he was a false prophet then you will be in bad shape when it comes time for judgement day.

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 06:15 PM

I know exactly what you know but you are attempting to downplay and disregard it OR you are simply ignorant of what one of your own prophets has taught--I suspect the former.

Yes, you see yourself as God. I get that. I am beginning to see that is the problem with all of our conversations here Billyray. How can you reason with someone who already knows everything and even what others believe or think.

neverending

05-07-2014, 07:27 PM

Billyray

05-07-2014, 07:53 PM

Yes, you see yourself as God. I get that.

No BigJ I don't see myself as God.

I am beginning to see that is the problem with all of our conversations here Billyray. How can you reason with someone who already knows everything and even what others believe or think.
Until you are honest with yourself you are never going to see all of the problems with mormonism that all of the Christians posters are trying to show you. As I said above blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young is indefensible--that is why you don't want to talk about it. BigJ you should do some serious soul searching and ask yourself if a true prophet of god who speaks directly with god would teach this false doctrine.

BigJulie

05-07-2014, 09:30 PM

Until you are honest with yourself you are never going to see all of the problems with mormonism that all of the Christians posters are trying to show you. . And you will never see what is right with it. We are at an imp***e.

Billyray

05-07-2014, 10:39 PM

And you will never see what is right with it. We are at an imp***e.
Go ahead and tell what is right with mormonism.

RealFakeHair

05-08-2014, 06:40 AM

No, it is not.

This is basically one line that some critic picked up and has sensationalized. (As is with most things.)

Firing squad anyone?

John T

05-08-2014, 07:52 AM

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by John T http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?p=156448#post156448)

You seem to be quite the comedian, BJ!

In light of your ignoring what I gave you to find objective truth, and your statement that "You will see the discussion regarding the addition and subsequent removal of the books." I find that you are unable to deal with the truth, and therefore you fabricate sulfurous falseness in order to obscure the rotten underbelly of your religion.

Is it pathological, or you simply unable to state truthful things, even on the simplest subjects, such as objective church history? I practically spoon fed the facts to you. All you needed to do was cut and paste "Council of Trent" into any search engine and get the truth.

The picture I have of you in my mind is someone sitting in darkness throwing the biggest stones at the light, you can find, preferring to remain in darkness instead of seeing things truthfully. That is such a pity!

Are you claiming that there was not an additional and subsequent removal of books from the Bible you have today?

What about these: Tobias, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees, First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Man***eh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans.

Please share your objective church history. I want to know why you think the Council of Trent did what they did. Do you think what they did was correct? Why or why not?

PS (By the way, anyone who understands history or how we come to understand knowledge would consider the term "objective history" an oxymoron.)

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.

James Banta

05-08-2014, 08:29 AM

yes, this is how mixed up you guys are.....you stand against a teaching on one topic and support the same teaching on a different topic.

Go check out this
http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?2029-A-quot-what-if-quot-question-for-critics/page21

topic...post number #523

I am not confused and you know it.. Alan have you now abandoned the faith and gone over to the dark side of believing that there are three Gods and that the doctrine that the Lord our God is one Lord is a lie? You are sounding a bit like you have started to pander to the LDS... IHS jim

Apologette

05-08-2014, 09:31 AM

Thanks, Julie. I was fairly sure it wasn't.

You know very well that Brigham Young taught that there were some sins for which the Blood of Christ will not atone and a person had to shed their own blood for that sin; when Mark Hofmann admitted to ****ing up two Mormons in his quest to cover up his forgeries, his own father said he should be willing to have his blood shed in atonement. It might not be "officially" taught, but it is believed nevertheless.

So, have you left Yoganandaism yet?

James Banta

05-08-2014, 09:43 AM

Yes, you see yourself as God. I get that. I am beginning to see that is the problem with all of our conversations here Billyray. How can you reason with someone who already knows everything and even what others believe or think.

Isn't seeing one's self as at least a God in embryo a LDS teaching? No Christian would teach such blasphemy.. To believe that one must believe that becoming a God is a goal to be sought after.. So I guess you were bearing false witness.. AGAIN..

You now attack Billy with the same argument that you have tried unsuccessfully to use on me.. Yes I say unsuccessfully because you were never willing to confirm that following the prophet means you sustain him in all he teaches.. But you have disavowed the teaching of Young, and Smith.. To you they have to be false.. But we have been all through that, you just never were willing to comment on your beliefs as they run contrary to those that the prophets have taught.. Billy has said it again in his own way and this time you have tried to turn your own ANTI Bible beliefs on to a solid Christian.. They have fallen as flat as your non-answers to me.. IHS jim

RealFakeHair

05-08-2014, 10:31 AM

You know very well that Brigham Young taught that there were some sins for which the Blood of Christ will not atone and a person had to shed their own blood for that sin; when Mark Hofmann admitted to ****ing up two Mormons in his quest to cover up his forgeries, his own father said he should be willing to have his blood shed in atonement. It might not be "officially" taught, but it is believed nevertheless.

So, have you left Yoganandaism yet?

This is the part of LDSinc. Smoke screen I detest. Every TBM who is deep into the weeds of LDSinc. doctrine and teaching, and I underline, deep, knows what is meant by blood atonement for some sins that Brigham Young taught.

Libby

05-08-2014, 11:40 AM

You know very well that Brigham Young taught that there were some sins for which the Blood of Christ will not atone and a person had to shed their own blood for that sin; when Mark Hofmann admitted to ****ing up two Mormons in his quest to cover up his forgeries, his own father said he should be willing to have his blood shed in atonement. It might not be "officially" taught, but it is believed nevertheless.

So, have you left Yoganandaism yet?

Of course, I know that. But, it is not church doctrine and never has been, as far as I know. I never even heard of it, until I started talking to critics of Mormonism.

RealFakeHair

05-08-2014, 11:48 AM

Of course, I know that. But, it is not church doctrine and never has been, as far as I know. I never even heard of it, until I started talking to critics of Mormonism.

Of course you have never heard of it, you never got to the meat of mormonism. There are a lot of things strange to mormons that they don't know, just like this one, (spiritual sealings.)

Libby

05-08-2014, 11:50 AM

Of course you have never heard of it, you never got to the meat of mormonism. There are a lot of things strange to mormons that they don't know, just like this one, (spiritual sealings.)

I got the "meat", RFH. I was a Temple worker. I didn't hear about "blood atonement" because it is not taught in the church. It is a part of church history, but not doctrine.

James Banta

05-08-2014, 11:58 AM

Of course, I know that. But, it is not church doctrine and never has been, as far as I know. I never even heard of it, until I started talking to critics of Mormonism.

You had never heard of the doctrine of "Blood Atonement"? This is another reason you should rethink posting here.. You just don't know the subject.. here is a teaching of Joseph Feilding Smith on that doctrine:

Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore, their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone as far as possible, in their behalf. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. I, p. 135-136).

If you don't know this what else don't you know I wonder? IHS jim

neverending

05-08-2014, 12:23 PM

I got the "meat", RFH. I was a Temple worker. I didn't hear about "blood atonement" because it is not taught in the church. It is a part of church history, but not doctrine.

Libby, when were you a temple worker? Was it after 1990? If so I can see how you never heard about "blood atonement". But here in Utah it is still a part of the church since a criminal given the death penalty is given a choice of how they wish to die. Two choices, to be shot; which would allow their blood to be split or lethal injection. Have you ever heard of the Danites? I asked Julie this question but she either didn't see it or I am being ignored or maybe she has chosen to go away for awhile as she's done in the past.

RealFakeHair

05-08-2014, 01:10 PM

I got the "meat", RFH. I was a Temple worker. I didn't hear about "blood atonement" because it is not taught in the church. It is a part of church history, but not doctrine.

Libby, are you making excuses now for the LDSinc,? In saying you got the meat, did you ever get the t-bone part of the cow? what I mean is the part where LDSinc. TBM temple recommend male members would seal women who are not their wive's into what is called a (spiritual marriage?)

Libby

05-08-2014, 02:58 PM

You had never heard of the doctrine of "Blood Atonement"? This is another reason you should rethink posting here.. You just don't know the subject.. here is a teaching of Joseph Feilding Smith on that doctrine:

Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore, their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone as far as possible, in their behalf. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. I, p. 135-136).

If you don't know this what else don't you know I wonder? IHS jim

James, once again, you are misconstruing what I said. This is really a very bad habit of yours. You do not read carefully enough, and this has been a complaint from almost everyone on this board. Please slow down and READ CAREFULLY, before you respond!

Of course, I know about Brigham Young's "blood atonement" and I know who the Danites were, and I said as much, if you had just read my posts! Just because I said it's not church doctrine (which is TRUE...it is not) doesn't mean I don't know about it.

Libby

05-08-2014, 03:00 PM

Neverending, my Temple service was after 1990. There is nothing about blood atonement in the Temple, at this time.

neverending

05-08-2014, 04:51 PM

Neverending, my Temple service was after 1990. There is nothing about blood atonement in the Temple, at this time.

That's what I thought. You were never exposed to the real temple ceremony and ALL it's signs and penalties. Sorry Libby but you can't really discuss the temple when you have been given the watered down version. No, blood oaths, no secret hand shakes, no slitting your throat, or pretending to disembowel yourself. These are what most of us who were once Mormons and went through the temple before 1990 were forced to do. My question still remains, if the temple is such an important part of Mormonism and not one Mormon will gain their exaltation without it, why the drastic changes without a revelation. From what I know, JS was told to NEVER alter or change the ceremony, it was God ordained.

Libby

05-08-2014, 06:51 PM

Billyray

05-08-2014, 11:30 PM

My comment had to do with official doctrine. If it's not official doctrine, it's easy to dismiss as just someone trying to stir the pot.
First off tell me what is "official doctrine"?

Libby

05-08-2014, 11:47 PM

First off tell me what is "official doctrine"?

The Standard Works. Bible/Book of Mormon/Pearl of Great Price/Doctrine & Covenants

Billyray

05-09-2014, 01:01 AM

The Standard Works. Bible/Book of Mormon/Pearl of Great Price/Doctrine & Covenants
Would it be safe to say that you can throw out all of the words of all of the so called living prophets for the last 100 years along with all of the official LDS publications such as Gospel Principles since none of these are considered official doctrine (with the sole exception--official declaration 2 in 1978 about blacks and the priesthood)? Would it also be save to say that you can throw out all of the temple ceremony that is not found in the standard works since it is not official doctrine of the lds church?

Libby

05-09-2014, 01:10 AM

I don't know. You should probably ask someone who is LDS.

I think they would say that most of the teaching manuals are based on the standard works....and most everything else that is published, I would think? It all ties back to the standard works....even some of the Temple can be found in the Book of Abraham and Book of Moses (I think?)..and the D & C.

Billyray

05-09-2014, 01:15 AM

Libby

05-09-2014, 01:22 AM

Billyray

05-09-2014, 01:38 AM

Well....I was told that part of the role of a prophet is to teach the current generation what has already been revealed. When God feels they have a good grasp of what has already been given...then, they will be given more.
But their words that they teach are not official doctrine so you can't trust what they have taught.

Libby

05-09-2014, 01:51 AM

But their words that they teach are not official doctrine so you can't trust what they have taught.

That's true for some of the prophets, like Brigham. He (reportedly) taught a lot of things that were not doctrine and never became official doctrine.

Billyray

05-09-2014, 05:54 AM

That's true for some of the prophets, like Brigham. He (reportedly) taught a lot of things that were not doctrine and never became official doctrine.

That is true for all of their prophets unless it is part of the standard works--which is how you have defined official doctrine.

RealFakeHair

05-09-2014, 06:49 AM

neverending

05-09-2014, 08:50 AM

Yes, I'm aware of the changes in the Temple. There have been some recent changes, as well, having to do with the initiatories.

I'm not defending the Temple or blood atonement or any of that.

My comment had to do with official doctrine. If it's not official doctrine, it's easy to dismiss as just someone trying to stir the pot. I think that happens often, with these discussions.

If I were still LDS, I wouldn't give the time of day to someone who was digging up dirt from church history. What really grabbed my attention, in the beginning, was a Calvinist who knew his Bible and made wonderful arguments against LDS doctrine as being Biblical.

Everyone is different, I guess, but I just don't think these sensationalistic arguments over blood atonement and Danites mean anything to most LDS.

The history of Mormonism is of GREAT importance for it shows the world just what kind of people lead the church and the evil that lived in those leaders. You think that bringing up the past is creating, "sensationalistic arguments"? Every LDS member should want to know their history, it is part of who they are. Should I ignore that I came through a polygamous ancestry? Should I ignore that my great-great grandfather walked across the plains, was asked by BY to be part of the Mormon Battalion? This same grandfather suffered great hardships the first winter here in the Salt Lake valley, is this not important to me? YES! IF we forget history, we have the capability to repeat it. Now wouldn't that be great? The men who had their throats slit in the middle of the night by men (Danites) who BY sent out is of importance for again it shows the evil heart of BY. Would the LDS members today want to live like that again? I don't think so for in this day and age, no one could get away with murdering someone for the stupid reason that they weren't living exactly as the prophet of the LDS Church wanted. I am sure that the members here in Utah lived in fear all during BY's reign; at least those members who had their heads on straight.

What of the Mountain Meadows incident, should what happened in southern Utah be forgotten? Should all those innocent people be forgotten along with the children taken from their dead parents and given to LDS families? Libby, wake up, get real and realize that the history of Mormonism should cause members to rethink why they are members. It was one of the reasons I left the church after discovering the DARK secrets that the church would love to do wipe away, like wiping off a black board but must accept and live with. Anything BY said, even if it was never considered doctrine were ideas that the members of his day accepted. After all, he was their prophet and certainly knew more then they did for he was being lead by God, receiving revelation from God. Can you see how serious it is to follow one man and put ALL your trust in one man? We only need concern ourselves with what Christ taught us and anything outside of what He taught is to be ignored.

James Banta

05-09-2014, 09:00 AM

James, once again, you are misconstruing what I said. This is really a very bad habit of yours. You do not read carefully enough, and this has been a complaint from almost everyone on this board. Please slow down and READ CAREFULLY, before you respond!

Of course, I know about Brigham Young's "blood atonement" and I know who the Danites were, and I said as much, if you had just read my posts! Just because I said it's not church doctrine (which is TRUE...it is not) doesn't mean I don't know about it.

You said "I got the "meat", RFH. I was a Temple worker. I didn't hear about "blood atonement" because it is not taught in the church. It is a part of church history, but not doctrine. "

Just what is doctrine if it isn't what the prophet, seer, and revelator of the church teaches. What is doctrine if it isn't the highest form of worship in mormonism, the temple ceremony? It was therefore taught in the church AS DOCTRINE until 1991.. Oh and your Danite comment to me.. I never brought up the Danites in this thread, NOT EVEN ONCE.. Maybe it is you that isn't reading before you post.. maybe you should slow down a bit.. I would like to see you slow down until you never posted to this channel again..

As for not caring about these terrible EVIL doctrines of mormonism, these doctrines need to be remembered and brought to the attention of the world in order to put a stop to the incessantly evil church from spreading.. I was working one afternoon near temple Square and happened alone a black couple that was in awe of the beauty and message of mormonism. I opened my triple combination and showed them 2 Nephi 5 and Abraham 4. They were shocked at just how evil mormonism IS in it's scriptural teaching that a dark skin is a sign of evil.. We then discussed Acts 8 and saw how much God loves all men in choosing the Ethiopian Eunuch to be the first non-Jew to be brought into the church and that by miraculous means.. The beauty of the buildings, the water features, and the gardens that are temple square hide a church filled with corruption and dead men's bones.. IHS jim

James Banta

05-09-2014, 09:36 AM

This is the part of LDSinc. Smoke screen I detest. Every TBM who is deep into the weeds of LDSinc. doctrine and teaching, and I underline, deep, knows what is meant by blood atonement for some sins that Brigham Young taught.

And didn't he teach those things over the pulpit as the prophet of God? Did he not say that after he has checked them to make sure he was correctly quoted that they were scripture? Of course he did.. Wasn't the church taught daily in it's temples before 1991 that we would allow our bowels to be opened and our blood split if we spoke about the keys and signs given in the temple? YES!! And still they want to deny this as a doctrine that the church held. They have never accepted responsibility for their false doctrines, they just stop talking about them and hope they go away.. Tell a newly temple married woman that the anointing she had in the temple used to be far more than oil on her head, that they touched the whole body, and you will be called a liar.. Just as today when we say that Young taught that Adam was our Father and our God and the only God with whom we have to do. We are liars for saying such things.. Ok it's in their own books but we (dissenters) are the only ones that seem to be able to find it.. The same goes with blood atonement.. IHS jim