PDA

View Full Version : Why I like this forum so much



Pages : [1] 2

nrajeffreturns
08-22-2013, 06:59 PM
When I compare this forum with the anti-LDS forum at C@$m, I see similarities and differences.

A Similarity: Both sites have pro-LDS and anti-LDS trying to shoot holes in the other side's claims.

One big difference I see is that here, both sides can make their case without getting handicapped by the double-standard-ridden Infraction Nazis, aka Carm's "Moderator 18" and "4Him."

Apparently at Carm, they are afraid of a fair fight between the pro- and anti- LDS.

Here, both sides can freely make their arguments, and may the best argument win, regardless which side made it. I like that a lot.

At Carm, one has to put up with being banned by the terrible moderating for doing nothing wrong, while seeing the other side get off with no such punishment, such as this: (Note that Martureo's asking me whether I sin isn't slammed for being off topic, and his insults are condoned)


Dear NRA-Jeff, You have received an infraction at Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat.
Reason: General Rule violations: Check your post for possible violation of rule #29, or Links, #17, or All caps, or #23, English only, or #32, Plagiarism.
-------off topic -------
This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4659447

Quote Originally Posted by martureo
Since you just quoted Romans chapter 6, I'm getting the feeling that you've never actually read Romans all the way through.
You shouldn't trust your feelings. At least that's what a lot of your pals keep saying.

If you have, maybe you'd better slow down.
I can go as slowly as you need to.

By whom/what were believers made righteous?
Irrelevant who MADE them righteous. Either they are righteous, or they aren't. You seem to have just conceded that. If someone gives you immortality by MAKING you immortal, then by what stretch of logic would you conclude that it's not REALLY yours, it's just God's immortality and "there are none immortal, no not one" ? Try to be consistent. It's good for the soul.

Do you not understand that we cannot both be right? Either I am misreading Romans or you are.

Then, given that dichotomy, my vote is that you are the one who is misreading it.

And who does righteousness?

Lots of people. Everyone who gets eternal life is REQUIRED to do works of righteousness, and to become righteous, even as He is righteous. Even you aren't exempt from that. Hope that doesn't come as too much of a shock.

I wonder, do you sin?
Sometimes. But that doesn't prevent me from doing some of the good works that Jesus commands of anyone who wants to be His disciple. Nor does it prevent me from obeying His commandment to repent. Nor does it preclude me from attaining, "through Christ who strengthens me," righteousness.
That's the problem with Calvinism: It pays lip service to Bible verses that clearly teach that eternal life is conditioned on righteousness, but it spends most of its time conning people into thinking that righteousness is an impossible commandment and should be avoided like the plague.

James Banta
08-23-2013, 08:34 AM
When I compare this forum with the anti-LDS forum at C@$m, I see similarities and differences.

A Similarity: Both sites have pro-LDS and anti-LDS trying to shoot holes in the other side's claims.

One big difference I see is that here, both sides can make their case without getting handicapped by the double-standard-ridden Infraction Nazis, aka Carm's "Moderator 18" and "4Him."

Apparently at Carm, they are afraid of a fair fight between the pro- and anti- LDS.

Here, both sides can freely make their arguments, and may the best argument win, regardless which side made it. I like that a lot.

At Carm, one has to put up with being banned by the terrible moderating for doing nothing wrong, while seeing the other side get off with no such punishment, such as this: (Note that Martureo's asking me whether I sin isn't slammed for being off topic, and his insults are condoned)



Quote Originally Posted by martureo
Since you just quoted Romans chapter 6, I'm getting the feeling that you've never actually read Romans all the way through.
You shouldn't trust your feelings. At least that's what a lot of your pals keep saying.

If you have, maybe you'd better slow down.
I can go as slowly as you need to.

By whom/what were believers made righteous?
Irrelevant who MADE them righteous. Either they are righteous, or they aren't. You seem to have just conceded that. If someone gives you immortality by MAKING you immortal, then by what stretch of logic would you conclude that it's not REALLY yours, it's just God's immortality and "there are none immortal, no not one" ? Try to be consistent. It's good for the soul.

Do you not understand that we cannot both be right? Either I am misreading Romans or you are.

Then, given that dichotomy, my vote is that you are the one who is misreading it.

And who does righteousness?

Lots of people. Everyone who gets eternal life is REQUIRED to do works of righteousness, and to become righteous, even as He is righteous. Even you aren't exempt from that. Hope that doesn't come as too much of a shock.

I wonder, do you sin?
Sometimes. But that doesn't prevent me from doing some of the good works that Jesus commands of anyone who wants to be His disciple. Nor does it prevent me from obeying His commandment to repent. Nor does it preclude me from attaining, "through Christ who strengthens me," righteousness.
That's the problem with Calvinism: It pays lip service to Bible verses that clearly teach that eternal life is conditioned on righteousness, but it spends most of its time conning people into thinking that righteousness is an impossible commandment and should be avoided like the plague.


You are welcome here Jeff.. I don't see need to complain here about other sites. You don't like them don't go to them.. I like this site as well. I am a small church person. After a church grows to over 100 in regular attendance I start looking for my next church I can help to grow.. WM is small, I like that about it.. Will it die? Yes, eventually all things of this world die. Is it's death imminent? No, I don't see that.. For quite sometime just a few of the Christian here chatted about what we saw were issues in the LDS church and how best to reach the LDS people. If we have LDS here that want to defend their faith we are willing to talk to them too.. The prophecies of WM going away were nearly fulfilled because Jill got tired of trying to keep order here. But with our own desire for civility her constant babysitting has not been required. She is again adding members when she is asked to do so but she isn't needed to spend all her day watching over us.. So welcome, sit on down and stay awhile.. Defend mormonism attack the Christian teachings, just be civil and we will be able to keep WM around for a good long time.. IHS jim

Snow Patrol
08-23-2013, 09:23 AM
Yeah, I agree. Now all we need to do is get the old gang back together...Bhaktarob, Seebok, 2buyus.

James Banta
08-23-2013, 09:41 AM
Yeah, I agree. Now all we need to do is get the old gang back together...Bhaktarob, Seebok, 2buyus.

They are welcome.. Needed to keep this site in operation, no. Welcome to take part, yes.. IHS jim

Sir
08-23-2013, 10:08 AM
Needed to keep this site in operation, no. . IHS jim

I think James keeps repeating this in hopes that it will ring true, because we have already seen from other examples in the past that without the LDS posters an anti-mormon forum will die. Which logically means the LDS are needed in order to stay alive.

disciple
08-23-2013, 11:55 AM
I think James keeps repeating this in hopes that it will ring true, because we have already seen from other examples in the past that without the LDS posters an anti-mormon forum will die. Which logically means the LDS are needed in order to stay alive.

I remember the good old days when this was just an anti-Catholic forum.:D

RealFakeHair
08-23-2013, 02:37 PM
I remember the good old days when this was just an anti-Catholic forum.:D
I think I'd rather be mormon than catholic. Although the catholic pray for the dead, and the mormon baptize the dead. Both are wrong, but hey they aint listening to me, or the Holy Bible.

nrajeffreturns
08-23-2013, 07:25 PM
Yeah, I agree. Now all we need to do is get the old gang back together...Bhaktarob, Seebok, 2buyus.

They are occasionally in contact with me. I have contact info for all 3 if you ever want to track them down and say hi. I bet it would make their day.

James Banta
08-24-2013, 09:20 AM
I think James keeps repeating this in hopes that it will ring true, because we have already seen from other examples in the past that without the LDS posters an anti-mormon forum will die. Which logically means the LDS are needed in order to stay alive.

Then be my guest and leave.. It will be like pulling a finger out of a gl*** of water.. The level falls insignificantly but the hole you made in the water fills in right behind you.. Would the forum be as active, no not near, but we could still help each other with research to help in witnessing situations. Building each other up is another thing that WM forum can do and stay alive in so doing.. You doubt that ok, leave COME BACK IN A YEAR OR SO AND SEE THAT WE WILL STILL BE HERE.. IHS jim

James Banta
08-24-2013, 09:22 AM
They are occasionally in contact with me. I have contact info for all 3 if you ever want to track them down and say hi. I bet it would make their day.

One more thing the forum has given to you, friendships.. I am glad for that.. Congrats.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-24-2013, 09:26 AM
One more thing the forum has given to you, friendships.. I am glad for that.. Congrats.. IHS jim

Yes indeed, good point. That is a good thing for sure.

James Banta
08-24-2013, 09:39 AM
Yes indeed, good point. That is a good thing for sure.

It would seem that no matter how much sir demand that this forum is dead, it lives and give back more than it asks.. IHS jim

Sir
08-24-2013, 01:29 PM
Then be my guest and leave.. It will be like pulling a finger out of a gl*** of water.. The level falls insignificantly but the hole you made in the water fills in right behind you.. Would the forum be as active, no not near, but we could still help each other with research to help in witnessing situations. Building each other up is another thing that WM forum can do and stay alive in so doing.. You doubt that ok, leave COME BACK IN A YEAR OR SO AND SEE THAT WE WILL STILL BE HERE.. IHS jim

James, I don't doubt that YOU will still be here. Even if nobody else ever posted again, you would still post even if to yourself. It's a sad state, really, but I accept it.

The rest of your rant about building each other up, well, I understand you see it that way, but most of us know that there are maybe 2 other non-LDS posters here (one of which is realfakehair, who could probably use some building up from you). So have at it! :)

Honestly, I grow tired of arguing with those twice as old as me who are stubborn and set in their bitter ways and opinions. It's pitiful.

James Banta
08-24-2013, 07:11 PM
James, I don't doubt that YOU will still be here. Even if nobody else ever posted again, you would still post even if to yourself. It's a sad state, really, but I accept it.

The rest of your rant about building each other up, well, I understand you see it that way, but most of us know that there are maybe 2 other non-LDS posters here (one of which is realfakehair, who could probably use some building up from you). So have at it! :)

Honestly, I grow tired of arguing with those twice as old as me who are stubborn and set in their bitter ways and opinions. It's pitiful.

Without any evidence you fall for a 19th century hoax and you call me pitiful? There is no evidence that ANY part of the BofM is what it says it is.. No Patriarch from a non priesthood holding family would ever offer a sacrifice to God especially at a temple dedicated to an idol.. Then the name.. Mormonism like to point proudly at the name Nahom and see a similar name found in the initials NHM.. Smith then said this place is called Nahom. Where did he get that look at the minor prophets of the OT. See it? "Nahum" .. It also matches up with NHM. But look at this there is a name for a place in the video game "World of Warcraft" and it is spelled just as the LDS church teaches "NAHOM". Is WofW a true story of the ancient world because of having that name in it's story line? Please!!! It is fiction there, it's also fiction in the BofM..

Maybe those twice your age have twice your wisdom. You understand that your stubborn refusal to believe what the Bible teaches even about something as basic as the nature of God show that you lack both knowledge and wisdom.. The reason I added these specifics is because I personally hate general claims that have no basis in fact used in a discussion as you have done in your post. That makes me believe that you gave no facts at all.. That is pitiful IHS jim

Sir
08-24-2013, 09:35 PM
Without any evidence you fall for a 19th century hoax and you call me pitiful? There is no evidence that ANY part of the BofM is what it says it is.. No Patriarch from a non priesthood holding family would ever offer a sacrifice to God especially at a temple dedicated to an idol.. Then the name.. Mormonism like to point proudly at the name Nahom and see a similar name found in the initials NHM.. Smith then said this place is called Nahom. Where did he get that look at the minor prophets of the OT. See it? "Nahum" .. It also matches up with NHM. But look at this there is a name for a place in the video game "World of Warcraft" and it is spelled just as the LDS church teaches "NAHOM". Is WofW a true story of the ancient world because of having that name in it's story line? Please!!! It is fiction there, it's also fiction in the BofM..

Maybe those twice your age have twice your wisdom. You understand that your stubborn refusal to believe what the Bible teaches even about something as basic as the nature of God show that you lack both knowledge and wisdom.. The reason I added these specifics is because I personally hate general claims that have no basis in fact used in a discussion as you have done in your post. That makes me believe that you gave no facts at all.. That is pitiful IHS jim

1) Funny you should make so many claims, and yet you were once a believer in all those things.

2) I ***ure you that just because you are twice as old as me, that does not mean you have twice the wisdom. Most of your posts here and at CARM have proved otherwise. However, if it makes you feel better to say that and helps you believe it to be true, more power to you.

James Banta
08-25-2013, 11:18 AM
1) Funny you should make so many claims, and yet you were once a believer in all those things.

2) I ***ure you that just because you are twice as old as me, that does not mean you have twice the wisdom. Most of your posts here and at CARM have proved otherwise. However, if it makes you feel better to say that and helps you believe it to be true, more power to you.

Again you make unsupported charges without showing any evidence that what you are saying is the truth.. In believing all the NONSENSE taught by mormonism. All the stories of Joseph Smith seeing Gods, and angels, and finding golden book that had to weigh at least 50 LBS; tucking them under one arm, running with them, fighting off multiple attackers. I have had to carry 50# bags of grain. I have seem many a dock worker at Intermountian Farmers Coop. handle them. Not one of them tucks them under their arm and runs with them much less fights off attacking while doing so.. And that isn't even as heavey as the church admits the plates weighed..

Yes there was a time when I never thought about the problems with the claims mormonism makes. I was like so many that blindly followed and accepted everything the leadership taught.. Now I THINK, Now I QUESTION.. I have see that is is right to do so.. Jesus never did anything in secret. All he did He did before all the people. Smith did all his works in secret. That is what he did do.. The translation was all done in secret, his revelations all came in secret.. Unlike the Apostles in the book of acts Smith preformed no wondrous works of the Holy Spirit.. All he has in the BofM, the D&C, and the PofPG.. No healing recorded in any of that. No evidence of tongues.. NOTHING to show his Apostleship as Peter and Paul showed so clearly.. Yes once blind to reality as you are now. I have repented of that sin.. IHS jim

Sir
08-25-2013, 11:52 AM
Again you make unsupported charges without showing any evidence that what you are saying is the truth.. In believing all the NONSENSE taught by mormonism. All the stories of Joseph Smith seeing Gods, and angels, and finding golden book that had to weigh at least 50 LBS; tucking them under one arm, running with them, fighting off multiple attackers. I have had to carry 50# bags of grain. I have seem many a dock worker at Intermountian Farmers Coop. handle them. Not one of them tucks them under their arm and runs with them much less fights off attacking while doing so.. And that isn't even as heavey as the church admits the plates weighed..

For someone with twice the wisdom of me, you seem to be simply regurgitating the anti-LDS talking points from CARM/ Russ Bales.


Yes there was a time when I never thought about the problems with the claims mormonism makes. I was like so many that blindly followed and accepted everything the leadership taught.. Now I THINK, Now I QUESTION.. I have see that is is right to do so.. Jesus never did anything in secret. All he did He did before all the people. Smith did all his works in secret. That is what he did do.. The translation was all done in secret, his revelations all came in secret.. Unlike the Apostles in the book of acts Smith preformed no wondrous works of the Holy Spirit.. All he has in the BofM, the D&C, and the PofPG.. No healing recorded in any of that. No evidence of tongues.. NOTHING to show his Apostleship as Peter and Paul showed so clearly.. Yes once blind to reality as you are now. I have repented of that sin.. IHS jim

More CARM/ anti-LDS talking points. I can tell you've been reading CARM recently (the recent charge that Joseph Smith never performed any miracles or healings).

The notion that Jesus never did anything in secret is kind of funny since if he did it wouldn't be written down. Kind of like all the years between his youth and when he began his ministry in the Bible...there is no record of it. But logically He was doing stuff. So to us it's a secret. And what about the 40 days after his resurrection? He was doing lots of things that we don't know about.

Anyway, just some points. I really don't feel like arguing your anti-Mormon mantras and talking points and unoriginal thoughts.

James Banta
08-25-2013, 02:05 PM
[
Sir;147380]For someone with twice the wisdom of me, you seem to be simply regurgitating the anti-LDS talking points from CARM/ Russ Bales.

By all means don't believe me and my Anti talking points.. Who could imagine I would be FAIR.

Both witness testimony and the material of which the plates were made indicates that the weight of the plates was 40-60 lbs, and not 200 lbs. (fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Gold_plates)


I see because you disagree with even FAIR you call taking their estimation of the plates weight and call it an anti-LDS talking point.. Sorry but your bigotry is shown through more than you would have it.. More CARM/ anti-LDS talking points. I can tell you've been reading CARM recently (the recent charge that Joseph Smith never performed any miracles or healings).

The Bible is filled with the Miracles of Jesus and the Apostles. Yet not one expressed in the D&C, or the History of the Church. Amy one wanting to see them must go to diaries and journals of third parties such as these:

In the spring of 1831, Smith was said to have healed the lame arm of the wife of John Johnson but this was never recorded as the work of God through Smith.. In October of 1835 Smith related an experience in which he said the Lord gave him the power to raise his father from his deathbed. An event not recorded nor seen by anyone else.. July 23, 1839 Smith said he charged his brother and George Albert Smith to go and heal some 60 persons and yet this to is mere legend with no one coming forward to say they witnesses the event or even the one who was said to cured.

I believe in Miracles more than most people and hold that the following were miracles of God.

A Man on the south coast of Australia had a serious Heart Attack and was pronouced dead after all modern medicine could do to save him. His wife a believer offered a prayer "Lord Jesus, he is only 39, I am only 38 and we have a 10-year-old boy. I need a miracle. As soon as she said this it was as though someone had breathed life into me again and my heartbeat came back,” (christianpost.com/news/modern-day-miracles-51263/).

There are many examples of the miraculous works of the Holy Spirit on that page. Works of God, not of some man invented priesthood. Miracles given through Faith in Jesus.. These are the continuation of the works that Jesus promised, the Works of the Holy Spirit thought the years since He came upon the Church. These were worked in the open and testifies not just by one or two people but my tens who witnessed them.. It is a prayer of faith that raise up the sick.. Not a priesthood, not some self appointed apostle.. God is Good and will have grace on those He has chosen for His Grace.. Smith preformed no such works for he denied the one true and living God, the creator of all things.. ALL not some.. That include even the elements by which all other things exist..


The notion that Jesus never did anything in secret is kind of funny since if he did it wouldn't be written down. Kind of like all the years between his youth and when he began his ministry in the Bible...there is no record of it. But logically He was doing stuff. So to us it's a secret. And what about the 40 days after his resurrection? He was doing lots of things that we don't know about.

Anyway, just some points. I really don't feel like arguing your anti-Mormon mantras and talking points and unoriginal thoughts.

You have to make a choice here.. You believe what Jesus said and trust that even those things that were not reported to us in His word were not done in secret or Jesus is a liar. One or the other (John 18:20).. Still there is record that Jesus did miraculous work among the people. There was nothing secret, private, or even too sacred not to show to the whole world.. You can try to side step this issue but it will nag you because of YOUR UNWILLINGNESS to teach even that which your untrained young mind can find to support your church's lies.. IHS jim

Sir
08-25-2013, 03:52 PM
Sorry, I really couldn't even bring myself to read your lengthy diatribe.

James Banta
08-25-2013, 04:18 PM
Sorry, I really couldn't even bring myself to read your lengthy diatribe.

You won't read it, you don't know what it is.. Calling it a diatribe is prejudice.. Are you a bigot? IHS jim

Sir
08-25-2013, 04:26 PM
You won't read it, you don't know what it is.. Calling it a diatribe is prejudice.. Are you a bigot? IHS jim

Buwahahahaha.......

....and THAT is why I won't read it. My IQ seems to get lower with every post of yours I read.

James Banta
08-25-2013, 07:36 PM
Buwahahahaha.......

....and THAT is why I won't read it. My IQ seems to get lower with every post of yours I read.

I wouldn't want you to get any d u m b e r than you were when you got here.. You should leave this forum and never come back as a means of self protection.. Poor man.. I feel for you.. But I can tell from your unwillingness to provide any support got your claim that you must not have to much on the ball.. Or maybe it's that you are just lazy.. Which is worse? Lazy I think. it's a decision to not be obedient.. IHS jim

Sir
08-25-2013, 08:03 PM
I wouldn't want you to get any d u m b e r than you were when you got here.. IHS jim

James, as silly as it is, I knew that was going to be your response as I was writing mine. And frankly, coming from you, it simply makes me smile. Just remember that comment the next time you write an incoherent post and ramble on about inane things (which will probably be sooner rather than later). :)

James Banta
08-26-2013, 08:03 AM
James, as silly as it is, I knew that was going to be your response as I was writing mine. And frankly, coming from you, it simply makes me smile. Just remember that comment the next time you write an incoherent post and ramble on about inane things (which will probably be sooner rather than later). :)


Ok sir to you I am silly and incoherent. That excuses you from reading anything I post. You don't need to think, you don't need to give any reason for your faith as God commands us though His word.. You can be lazy and just name call people without even trying to know what is going on.. Oh the joys of I G N O R A N C E.. IHS jim

MacG
08-26-2013, 03:56 PM
When I compare this forum with the anti-LDS forum at C@$m, I see similarities and differences.

A Similarity: Both sites have pro-LDS and anti-LDS trying to shoot holes in the other side's claims.

One big difference I see is that here, both sides can make their case without getting handicapped by the double-standard-ridden Infraction Nazis, aka Carm's "Moderator 18" and "4Him."

Apparently at Carm, they are afraid of a fair fight between the pro- and anti- LDS.

Here, both sides can freely make their arguments, and may the best argument win, regardless which side made it. I like that a lot.

At Carm, one has to put up with being banned by the terrible moderating for doing nothing wrong, while seeing the other side get off with no such punishment, such as this: (Note that Martureo's asking me whether I sin isn't slammed for being off topic, and his insults are condoned)



Quote Originally Posted by martureo
Since you just quoted Romans chapter 6, I'm getting the feeling that you've never actually read Romans all the way through.
You shouldn't trust your feelings. At least that's what a lot of your pals keep saying.

If you have, maybe you'd better slow down.
I can go as slowly as you need to.

By whom/what were believers made righteous?
Irrelevant who MADE them righteous. Either they are righteous, or they aren't. You seem to have just conceded that. If someone gives you immortality by MAKING you immortal, then by what stretch of logic would you conclude that it's not REALLY yours, it's just God's immortality and "there are none immortal, no not one" ? Try to be consistent. It's good for the soul.

Do you not understand that we cannot both be right? Either I am misreading Romans or you are.

Then, given that dichotomy, my vote is that you are the one who is misreading it.

And who does righteousness?

Lots of people. Everyone who gets eternal life is REQUIRED to do works of righteousness, and to become righteous, even as He is righteous. Even you aren't exempt from that. Hope that doesn't come as too much of a shock.

I wonder, do you sin?
Sometimes. But that doesn't prevent me from doing some of the good works that Jesus commands of anyone who wants to be His disciple. Nor does it prevent me from obeying His commandment to repent. Nor does it preclude me from attaining, "through Christ who strengthens me," righteousness.
That's the problem with Calvinism: It pays lip service to Bible verses that clearly teach that eternal life is conditioned on righteousness, but it spends most of its time conning people into thinking that righteousness is an impossible commandment and should be avoided like the plague.


hey! hey! hey! I am seeing a lot of caps in these here replies...I am going to have to report all of you to carm?!!! :)

nrajeffreturns
08-27-2013, 08:35 PM
hey! hey! hey! I am seeing a lot of caps in these here replies...I am going to have to report all of you to carm?!!! :)

Oh-oh, we're in trouble NOW!!!

theway
08-29-2013, 11:15 AM
Yeah... I just got banned on the other site. I knew beforehand however that I was going to get banned no matter how I worded my replies. I don't mind getting banned every once in a while (this is like my 15th time now, with over 100 warnings) it tells me that I am doing something right, otherwise they wouldn't view me as a threat.

Here's what happened...

Desertscout posts an OP. I noticed that this same article was posted a month before word for word on an antiMormon blog site by creeksalmon. I also noticed by the language and the profile on creeksalmon's blog that creeksalmon was obviously Ivanhoe.

So I told desertscout that one of three conclusions could be reached with absolute certainty.

1. Either desertscout plagiarized his OP,
2. Or creeksalmon (aka Ivanhoe) plagiarized from him,
3. Or Ivanhoe and desertscout were the same person, which means that he has two accounts.

Desertscout told the mods that I was lying about people, and I needed to be dwelt with.

The mods deleted my post and told me that I can not make alagations without proof.
(And here's the kicker) the mod then posted for all to see that it is in fact Mormon Posters who are always guilty of breaking the rules and having multiple accounts.

So I reposted and replied with links and absolute evidence that either desertscout or creeksalmon was plagiarizing, or that desertcreek and Ivanhoe were the same person which meant he had two accounts.

Ivanhoe finally admitted (in his words) that he was the one who plagerized from desertscout, and that "yes" he was in fact creeksalmon.
To his credit desertscout then apologized to me for calling me a liar, and that he would accept the punishment of the mods for doing so.

Well... Can you guess what happened next?

You're right! Nothing happened to them, but I was the one who got banned.
Now what got me so upset though was that I was banned for "insulting another Poster".
Now I consider it a badge of honor to get banned for "interfering with the ministry" but for insulting another Poster? That in itself is insulting to me. I feel like writing them back and making them change it to a ban for interfering with their ministry, at least that way I can hold my head up.

RealFakeHair
08-29-2013, 11:25 AM
Yeah... I just got banned on the other site. I knew beforehand however that I was going to get banned no matter how I worded my replies. I don't mind getting banned every once in a while (this is like my 15th time now, with over 100 warnings) it tells me that I am doing something right, otherwise they wouldn't view me as a threat.

Desertscout posts an OP. I noticed that this same article was posted a month before word for word on an antiMormon blog site by creeksalmon. I also noticed by the language and the profile on creeksalmon's blog that creeksalmon was obviously Ivanhoe.

So I told desertscout that one of three conclusions could be reached with absolute certainty.

1. Either desertscout plagiarized his OP,
2. Or creeksalmon (aka Ivanhoe) plagiarized from him,
3. Or Ivanhoe and desertscout were the same person, which means that he has two accounts.

Desertscout told the mods that I was lying about people, and I needed to be dwelt with.

The mods deleted my post and told me that I can not make alagations without proof.
(And here's the kicker) the mod then posted for all to see that it is in fact Mormon Posters who are always guilty of breaking the rules and having multiple accounts.

So I reposted and replied with links and absolute evidence that either desertscout or creeksalmon was plagiarizing, or that desertcreek and Ivanhoe were the same person which meant he had two accounts.

Ivanhoe finally admitted (in his words) that he was the one who plagerized from desertscout, and that "yes" he was in fact creeksalmon.
To his credit desertscout then apologized to me for calling me a liar, and that he would accept the punishment of the mods for doing so.

Well... Can you guess what happened next?

You're right! Nothing happened to them, but I was the one who got banned.
Now what got me so upset though was that I was banned for "insulting a Poster".
Now I consider it a badge of honor to get banned for "interfering with the ministry" but for insulting a Poster? That in itself is insulting to me. I feel like writing them back and making them change it to a ban for interfering with their ministry, at least that why I can hold my head up.
Here's what happened...
Well at least September Dawn, didn't happen to you.
I was banned from a mormon site once, I think Dan the manless Peterson, had something to do with it.

nrajeffreturns
08-29-2013, 11:27 AM
Yeah... I just got banned on the other site. I knew beforehand however that I was going to get banned no matter how I worded my replies. I don't mind getting banned every once in a while (this is like my 15th time now, with over 100 warnings) it tells me that I am doing something right, otherwise they wouldn't view me as a threat.

Here's what happened...

Desertscout posts an OP. I noticed that this same article was posted a month before word for word on an antiMormon blog site by creeksalmon. I also noticed by the language and the profile on creeksalmon's blog that creeksalmon was obviously Ivanhoe.

So I told desertscout that one of three conclusions could be reached with absolute certainty.

1. Either desertscout plagiarized his OP,
2. Or creeksalmon (aka Ivanhoe) plagiarized from him,
3. Or Ivanhoe and desertscout were the same person, which means that he has two accounts.

Desertscout told the mods that I was lying about people, and I needed to be dwelt with.

The mods deleted my post and told me that I can not make alagations without proof.
(And here's the kicker) the mod then posted for all to see that it is in fact Mormon Posters who are always guilty of breaking the rules and having multiple accounts.

So I reposted and replied with links and absolute evidence that it was either desertscout or creeksalmon was plagerizing, or that desertcreek and Ivanhoe were the same person which meant he had two accounts.

Ivanhoe finally admitted (in his words) that he was the one who plagerized from desertscout, and that "yes" he was in fact creeksalmon.
To his credit desertscout then apologized to me for calling me a liar, and that he would accept the punishment of the mods for doing so.

Well... Can you guess what happened next?

You're right! Nothing happened to them, but I was the one who got banned.
Now what got me so upset though was that I was banned for "insulting a Poster".
Now I consider it a badge of honor to get banned for "interfering with the ministry" but for insulting a Poster? That in itself is insulting to me. I feel like writing them back and making them change it to a ban for interfering with their ministry, at least that why I can hold my head up.

That is perhaps a new low in Cr@m moderating. I say "perhaps" because it is hard to imagine them getting any lower than they already are. Their unfair double standard has got to be obvious even to the most rabid anti-LDS among the posters, such as Brian/Catherine/Yakster. As for "akaseerone," I am not sure he has the intellectual acumen to recognize the unfairness, but it may even be apparent to him, on some dim level.

BTW, the last time I tried to appeal a completely unfair punishment, I got yelled at because the lowly peons are not allowed to speak to the moderators. The mods are on some holier level and above being questioned. You can get banned for even speaking to them.

Which is ironic, since they are the ones attacking the LDS for believing that humans can become gods. LOL

theway
08-29-2013, 11:37 AM
That is perhaps a new low in Cr@m moderating. I say "perhaps" because it is hard to imagine them getting any lower than they already are. Their unfair double standard has got to be obvious even to the most rabid anti-LDS among the posters, such as Brian/Catherine/Yakster. As for "akaseerone," I am not sure he has the intellectual acumen to recognize the unfairness, but it may even be apparent to him, on some dim level.

BTW, the last time I tried to appeal a completely unfair punishment, I got yelled at because the lowly peons are not allowed to speak to the moderators. The mods are on some holier level and above being questioned. You can get banned for even speaking to them.

Which is ironic, since they are the ones attacking the LDS for believing that humans can become gods. LOL

Yeah... I had the same thing happen, only in my case I did not understand why I was being banned as they left no reason, so I asked them.
They then extended the ban for questioning the ruling of a Moderator???
The Mods over there are not ashamed of their bias. The time before this that I was banned for insulting another Poster, the Mod again left a message on the thread for all to see which said (paraphrasing) "well it looks like Theway is already banned yet again"
LOL... kinda hypocritical considering the reasoning in which he banned me.

Oh well, that's entertainment.

nrajeffreturns
08-29-2013, 03:06 PM
Some of my all-time favorites on the Double Standard Hit Parade, are the times when an anti made a truly insulting post such as accusing Bert of being insane, and I QUOTED the post as an example of attacking a poster.

The result?

"YOU have received an infraction. Reason: INSULTING or attacking another poster."

or

"YOU have received an infraction. Reason: Being divisive."

At that point, pretty much all you can do is shake your head in disbelief and marvel at how some of the antis praise the mods for the great, Christian way they are doing their ***.

James Banta
08-29-2013, 05:46 PM
Some of my all-time favorites on the Double Standard Hit Parade, are the times when an anti made a truly insulting post such as accusing Bert of being insane, and I QUOTED the post as an example of attacking a poster.

The result?

"YOU have received an infraction. Reason: INSULTING or attacking another poster."

or

"YOU have received an infraction. Reason: Being divisive."

At that point, pretty much all you can do is shake your head in disbelief and marvel at how some of the antis praise the mods for the great, Christian way they are doing their ***.

You get those here on WM? IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-29-2013, 06:35 PM
You get those here on WM? IHS jim

No, Jim. We get those over at C-A-R-M. We DON'T get that treatment here.....and.....


that's why we like this forum so much.

See the name of this thread.

James Banta
08-29-2013, 09:59 PM
No, Jim. We get those over at C-A-R-M. We DON'T get that treatment here.....and.....


that's why we like this forum so much.

See the name of this thread.

Good I am glad that wasn't your experience here.. As far as what does on at CARM let's leave it there.. I came here myself because of the ridged self importance I saw on CARM.. I like Jill. She allows Adults to be adults.. We all know the proper way to act.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
08-30-2013, 05:04 AM
Good I am glad that wasn't your experience here.. As far as what does on at CARM let's leave it there.
The problem is that Slick and his mob of mods at Carm won't allow us to leave it there. They won't allow us to discuss their unfairness over there. Discussing their unfairness is against their rules, and will result in punishments. So they force us to discuss their unfairness on other sites. I would be happy to follow the Biblical command that goes "If you have a problem with another person, take it up with him privately first." I guess Carm doesn't believe in following the Bible in that respect...


I came here myself because of the ridged self importance I saw on CARM..
Yes, you are right. And it is their self-importance that makes it impossible to get grievances redressed there.

James Banta
08-30-2013, 09:27 AM
[nrajeffreturns;147461]The problem is that Slick and his mob of mods at Carm won't allow us to leave it there. They won't allow us to discuss their unfairness over there. Discussing their unfairness is against their rules, and will result in punishments. So they force us to discuss their unfairness on other sites. I would be happy to follow the Biblical command that goes "If you have a problem with another person, take it up with him privately first." I guess Carm doesn't believe in following the Bible in that respect...

I don't much like CARM either, so what.. They aren't hear to hear your complaints about them. Here I really don't see how it effect the way WM is operated.. CARM is a non issue here.. I will not respond to such again because
1. It has nothing to do with the teaching of the Bible
2. It has nothing to do with with this forum
3. It has nothing to do with the truth of falsehood of mormonism..
4. By complaining about it you violate the request of our hostess who asked us not to discuss other sites on this one..


Yes, you are right. And it is their self-importance that makes it impossible to get grievances redressed there.

Please be respectful of Jill and do as she has asked.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
09-03-2013, 11:16 AM
Some of my all-time favorites on the Double Standard Hit Parade, are the times when an anti made a truly insulting post such as accusing Bert of being insane, and I QUOTED the post as an example of attacking a poster.

The result?
"YOU have received an infraction. Reason: INSULTING or attacking another poster."

or

"YOU have received an infraction. Reason: Being divisive."

At that point, pretty much all you can do is shake your head in disbelief and marvel at how some of the antis praise the mods for the great, Christian way they are doing their ***.


And what do you know, it just happened AGAIN. Prepare to shake your head. All I did was QUOTE armoredyak, so everyone could see his latest insult and attack, which would get him an infraction if he was pro-LDS.


Dear NRA-Jeff,
You have received a warning at Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat.

Reason:
-------
Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users. Rule 25: Freedom of Speech: Freedom of speech here comes with the responsibility to speak decently within the parameters of the rules.By registering you are agreeing not to be vulgar, divisive,insulting,profane, etc. (read all the rules). It helps to try and treat others as you want to be treated. (Luke 6:31)

Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users.
-------

Original Post:
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4704356
Quote Originally Posted by armoredyak View Post

'when the cretins hang on every word of whatever guru and drivel spewing con man says, they dont have to have a constant chorus of 'its a prophecy' accompanying their words/tripe. the 'faithful' will believe the bovine excrement....the sane will consign it to the dustbin. the delusional will find a way to prop up the scaffolding of silliness.'


Me: What a mature post from a literary genius. Anyway, someone asked for evidence that shows Huntington's story to be of questionable veracity...at least questionable to the non-bigoted. So here goes:

"...it is likely that Huntington was repeating a description provided by another Latter-day Saint, Philo Dibble. (Huntington was a child at the time Smith lived and was not a close contemporary of Smith at any time during his life.) It is unclear what Dibble's source for the statement is, because Dibble did not indicate whether the recollection was his own or something he had heard from another person.The alleged teaching was first recorded by Huntington in a journal entry after he heard it from Dibble approximately forty years after Smith's death. Regarding Huntington's second claim, the official LDS Church's record of the blessing indicates that it was given to Huntington by his father, William Huntington, and not by Joseph Smith, Sr.

There are no contemporary reports, records, or any other written support of Smith's alleged views or statements on extraterrestrials, nor are there any reports of statements other than the one claimed by Huntington, which both LDS and non-LDS scholars widely view as being entirely unreliable and unverified."

(from the Wikipedia article on Mormon cosmology)


Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.



So I somehow insulted the Yak by quoting HIS post where HE insulted the LDS.

A-mazing.

Sir
09-03-2013, 06:25 PM
And what do you know, it just happened AGAIN. Prepare to shake your head. All I did was QUOTE armoredyak, so everyone could see his latest insult and attack, which would get him an infraction if he was pro-LDS.


Dear NRA-Jeff,
You have received a warning at Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat.

Reason:
-------
Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users. Rule 25: Freedom of Speech: Freedom of speech here comes with the responsibility to speak decently within the parameters of the rules.By registering you are agreeing not to be vulgar, divisive,insulting,profane, etc. (read all the rules). It helps to try and treat others as you want to be treated. (Luke 6:31)

Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users.
-------

Original Post:
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4704356
Quote Originally Posted by armoredyak View Post

'when the cretins hang on every word of whatever guru and drivel spewing con man says, they dont have to have a constant chorus of 'its a prophecy' accompanying their words/tripe. the 'faithful' will believe the bovine excrement....the sane will consign it to the dustbin. the delusional will find a way to prop up the scaffolding of silliness.'


Me: What a mature post from a literary genius. Anyway, someone asked for evidence that shows Huntington's story to be of questionable veracity...at least questionable to the non-bigoted. So here goes:

"...it is likely that Huntington was repeating a description provided by another Latter-day Saint, Philo Dibble. (Huntington was a child at the time Smith lived and was not a close contemporary of Smith at any time during his life.) It is unclear what Dibble's source for the statement is, because Dibble did not indicate whether the recollection was his own or something he had heard from another person.The alleged teaching was first recorded by Huntington in a journal entry after he heard it from Dibble approximately forty years after Smith's death. Regarding Huntington's second claim, the official LDS Church's record of the blessing indicates that it was given to Huntington by his father, William Huntington, and not by Joseph Smith, Sr.

There are no contemporary reports, records, or any other written support of Smith's alleged views or statements on extraterrestrials, nor are there any reports of statements other than the one claimed by Huntington, which both LDS and non-LDS scholars widely view as being entirely unreliable and unverified."

(from the Wikipedia article on Mormon cosmology)


Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.



So I somehow insulted the Yak by quoting HIS post where HE insulted the LDS.

A-mazing.

In that thread, I made a post about "theway" getting banned. I said that he should've just called people cretins and called them insane so that he would get to stay and play longer. Someone reported that post of mine, and the mods gave it a "no violation". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......someone actually tried to report me for telling the LDS to use the attacking words of the anti-LDS, and the mods agreed with me that it was okay for me to tell a LDS to say those things.

A-mazing indeed.

P.S. - I also comment to you, Jeff, since Mod18 said it was easy for you to alert violations. I said that you only get 2, but if you do what the anti-s do (especially Apologette/ Catherine), you go to the visitor's wall of individual posters and lobby them to report posts after you've met your quota.

P.S.S - She sure likes talking about YOU, Jeff, on BrianH's wall...she's obsessed with you, and whether or not you are other posters as well. OBSESSED!!!

Sir
09-03-2013, 06:34 PM
In that thread, I made a post about "theway" getting banned. I said that he should've just called people cretins and called them insane so that he would get to stay and play longer. Someone reported that post of mine, and the mods gave it a "no violation". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......someone actually tried to report me for telling the LDS to use the attacking words of the anti-LDS, and the mods agreed with me that it was okay for me to tell a LDS to say those things.

A-mazing indeed.

P.S. - I also comment to you, Jeff, since Mod18 said it was easy for you to alert violations. I said that you only get 2, but if you do what the anti-s do (especially Apologette/ Catherine), you go to the visitor's wall of individual posters and lobby them to report posts after you've met your quota.

P.S.S - She sure likes talking about YOU, Jeff, on BrianH's wall...she's obsessed with you, and whether or not you are other posters as well. OBSESSED!!!

Watch what I mean, Jeff:






Catherine Aurelia - 08-16-13 08:43 AM

CBB MBC is either Jeff or Austin. Both of whom are suddenly missing. He pretends he's new, but he's full of the same kind of nasty responses that those two spout.



Catherine Aurelia - 08-08-13 09:18 AM


He likes to play both sides.


Catherine Aurelia - 08-06-13 07:14 AM


You know, I think you might be right. Hal only comes here periodically, and when Jeff is suspended! Good work!



Catherine Aurelia - 08-06-13 05:57 AM


I wonder if they didn't catch up with him now - he was suspended supposedly forever supposedly for using multiple accounts. This latest one with the hyphen between NRA and Jeff was simply another example. These Mormons are incredible! They think that rules don't apply to them.


That's just on page 1 of Brain's wall. I have read many of her posts on people's walls going back 2-3 years. She is OBSESSED with getting others to report LDS.

If you have time, read the walls of people like armoredyak, BrianH, NHisMage.....good stuff!

James Banta
09-03-2013, 07:08 PM
Sir please leave CARM on CARM.. It's hasn't any place here.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
09-03-2013, 07:15 PM
Thanks for that info. I almost never go check out such messages. I am not even sure that I am able to, unless the person allows others to see the messages. But this deserves investigation, I think.

I will let Jim have some peace, and quit bringing this up here, unless there's another egregious example that I think would be good to show in this thread. Anyone who wants to can reach me at my Hotmail address.

jdjhere
09-06-2013, 02:37 PM
This in an interesting discussion. I signed up for CARM and went there but got kinda lost. I was familiar with the WM site format and knew a few folks from here so I keep coming back here. I really never get any feelings of hatred between anybody here (though there is a lot of dry sarcasm!) and that helps. Is it like that at CARM? Even though I have violently disagreed with a few people here I surely dont hate them.

James Banta
09-06-2013, 03:39 PM
This in an interesting discussion. I signed up for CARM and went there but got kinda lost. I was familiar with the WM site format and knew a few folks from here so I keep coming back here. I really never get any feelings of hatred between anybody here (though there is a lot of dry sarcasm!) and that helps. Is it like that at CARM? Even though I have violently disagreed with a few people here I surely dont hate them.

If you hated them then it wouldn't be problem for you to just walk away without saying a word to them about Jesus and the judgement ahead for those that reject Him in favor of a different Jesus invented by a man.. A Jesus that became a god, the creation of a god who himself was the creation of an older god who was the creation of yet another older god and so on.. I don't hate these people They are my people.. I feel about them the way Paul felt for Israel.

Romans 10:1
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

IHS jim

theway
09-06-2013, 05:57 PM
If you hated them then it wouldn't be problem for you to just walk away without saying a word to them about Jesus and the judgement ahead for those that reject Him in favor of a different Jesus invented by a man.. A Jesus that became a god, the creation of a god who himself was the creation of an older god who was the creation of yet another older god and so on.. I don't hate these people They are my people.. I feel about them the way Paul felt for Israel.

Romans 10:1
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

IHS jimAnd this is exactly why I like CARM far more than I like it over here.

Over here there is only one real AntiMormon poster left, and he is sooooooo boring. I honestly don't remember that last time I was able to get past the first two sentences of one of his posts.

nrajeffreturns
09-06-2013, 09:33 PM
This in an interesting discussion. I signed up for CARM and went there but got kinda lost. I was familiar with the WM site format and knew a few folks from here so I keep coming back here. I really never get any feelings of hatred between anybody here (though there is a lot of dry sarcasm!) and that helps. Is it like that at CARM?

NO. It is not like that over there. You are right about this forum--not much really ill will. But if you lurk at the (anti-) LDS forum of Carm, you will see some of the most offensive, insulting mockery of another group of people. Not from ALL the anti-LDS posters, of course. Some of them are not too bad. But a few "usual suspects" make the forum deserve its nickname "cesspool."

jdjhere
09-07-2013, 11:13 AM
Well I will never bother going there then. Heck, I hardly come HERE anymore. As a Christian, I am called to love all people but not all beliefs. Some people are harder to love than others. For instance, it would be very difficult for me to love a radical islamist who just finished beheading someone simply because they are a Christian or american, or a Chinese Communist who has murdered people simply for being Christian and not conforming or believing in their humanistic belief system. Now I have a few friends that are atheists but are nice, well meaning people. I see the LDS people here the same way but with a bizarre belief in who or what God is. I see exactly what Walter Martin meant when he talked about the Truth being stuffed with a lie. It looks good on the outside but inside it is stuffed with lies, polluting the Truth of what God is. He is NOT an exalted man. Stop adding to the Bible. God is Spirit. I have nothing against LDS people and know many. I even know a wiccan woman and she is one of the most honest sincere people I know but I pray for her every day and am afraid for her on Judgement Day because Jesus said He is the Way, Truth and Life and that no one comes to the Father but by Him. 2 Cor 11:4 "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him" or Gal 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." I believe the LDS here are just as sincere as I know I am but we can not both be right about who and what God is, and that changes everything on who or what Jesus Christ is and if we truly know Him or not.

James Banta
09-07-2013, 07:28 PM
And this is exactly why I like CARM far more than I like it over here.

Over here there is only one real AntiMormon poster left, and he is sooooooo boring. I honestly don't remember that last time I was able to get past the first two sentences of one of his posts.

If that is where you like it best.. May you find your place there.. IHS jim

Sir
09-07-2013, 07:40 PM
Quote Originally Posted by theway View Post

And this is exactly why I like CARM far more than I like it over here.

Over here there is only one real AntiMormon poster left, and he is sooooooo boring. I honestly don't remember that last time I was able to get past the first two sentences of one of his posts.



If that is where you like it best.. May you find your place there.. IHS jim

theway,

at least in this post you only have 2 sentences, so you might get through it. :p

James Banta
09-08-2013, 07:31 AM
theway,

at least in this post you only have 2 sentences, so you might get through it. :p

It's a shame that he has such a short attention span.. IHS jim

Sir
09-08-2013, 10:27 AM
It's a shame that he has such a short attention span.. IHS jim

Now james, I thought you were the one who claimed to be above-board and to not make personal attacks on posters, and whine and complain about other posters that do, and call for civility in everyone's posts.

Why the change?

James Banta
09-08-2013, 11:34 AM
Now james, I thought you were the one who claimed to be above-board and to not make personal attacks on posters, and whine and complain about other posters that do, and call for civility in everyone's posts.

Why the change?

All I did was to restate what he said.. He can't get p*** two or three lines.. Sorry you saw that as a personal attack. I was just saying that being lime that is a sad condition.. He has my sympathy.. I will try to keep my responses down so he can read them.. IHS jim

Sir
09-08-2013, 03:25 PM
All I did was to restate what he said.. He can't get p*** two or three lines.. Sorry you saw that as a personal attack. I was just saying that being lime that is a sad condition.. He has my sympathy.. I will try to keep my responses down so he can read them.. IHS jim

LOL.....the sad part is you probably really believe what you just said.

Being a lime isn't a sad condition, it is maybe sour though. :p

James Banta
09-08-2013, 03:56 PM
LOL.....the sad part is you probably really believe what you just said.

Being a lime isn't a sad condition, it is maybe sour though. :p

I did mean it I thought it was sad.. IHS jim

Sir
09-08-2013, 09:30 PM
I did mean it I thought it was sad.. IHS jim

Right. So if I say I think it is sad that you are an old crabby anti-Mormon who has nothing better to do than to cheat on his wife and then spend everyday trying to tell Mormons why they are wrong, I'm not really insulting you, because....well.....I really am sad that such is the case.

That's your rationale.

BigJulie
09-08-2013, 09:33 PM
James, did you cheat on someone you were married to? (I am giving your a chance to deny this...as it sounds like something that has been established.)

Sir
09-08-2013, 10:57 PM
James, did you cheat on someone you were married to? (I am giving your a chance to deny this...as it sounds like something that has been established.)

Julie, here is James' words:

"Yes I sinned and committed adultery. I was totally in myself having had walked away from God. Then I came to see that sin and the Holy Spirit convicted me and brought me back to the cross where I saw what my sin had caused in the suffering of my Lord.. I accepted His sacrifice for my sin and thanked Him for His grace..

Since that day I have failed again and again in many ways and in differing ways.. It doesn't matter I still fail but as Paul said it is no longer I, but sin that lives within me.. He continues to work in me conforming me to the image of Jesus but unlike many He has a lit of work to do to get me where He wants me to be.. IHS jim"

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3018-Repentance&p=140054&viewfull=1#post140054

So, while I am fine that James feels he has repented and is forgiven, my point was to show that by me saying I am sad for him about it, it really comes off more as an insult than actually being genuine....like James is trying to claim he was doing above.

Billyray
09-09-2013, 01:22 AM
James, did you cheat on someone you were married to? (I am giving your a chance to deny this...as it sounds like something that has been established.)
And what point are you trying to make with this post BigJ?

BigJulie
09-09-2013, 09:35 AM
Julie, here is James' words:

"Yes I sinned and committed adultery. I was totally in myself having had walked away from God. Then I came to see that sin and the Holy Spirit convicted me and brought me back to the cross where I saw what my sin had caused in the suffering of my Lord.. I accepted His sacrifice for my sin and thanked Him for His grace..

Since that day I have failed again and again in many ways and in differing ways.. It doesn't matter I still fail but as Paul said it is no longer I, but sin that lives within me.. He continues to work in me conforming me to the image of Jesus but unlike many He has a lit of work to do to get me where He wants me to be.. IHS jim"

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3018-Repentance&p=140054&viewfull=1#post140054

So, while I am fine that James feels he has repented and is forgiven, my point was to show that by me saying I am sad for him about it, it really comes off more as an insult than actually being genuine....like James is trying to claim he was doing above.

Ahhh, this knowledge explains more about James then just about anything else I have read--his absolute insistent that all sins are of the same magnitude, etc.,--thanks, you have given me a great insight into what is happening here in this forum.

James Banta
09-09-2013, 09:47 AM
Ahhh, this knowledge explains more about James then just about anything else I have read--his absolute insistent that all sins are of the same magnitude, etc.,--thanks, you have given me a great insight into what is happening here in this forum.

You don't believe in repentance? Or is repentance only for the LDS? This happened will after I left mormonism and to my shame I allowed it to happen.. I sinned, yes.. I was also forgiven.. I claim the promise of Jesus in His word that "though our sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1:18).. Do you deny that because of the blood of Jesus we can be forgiven? No not a MORMON. once a man slips and falls on his face he is forever branded a sinner who is beyond the grace of God.. Unless he joins the LDS church then all can be forgiven.. That is hypocritical. I have never hidden my sin from anyone.. Read it, it's the truth I did committed adultery.. According to God's word so has Sir, and so have you (James 2:10).. I have at least faced my sin. I have taken it to Jesus and allowed Him to deal with it.. IHS jim

James Banta
09-09-2013, 09:59 AM
Julie, here is James' words:

"Yes I sinned and committed adultery. I was totally in myself having had walked away from God. Then I came to see that sin and the Holy Spirit convicted me and brought me back to the cross where I saw what my sin had caused in the suffering of my Lord.. I accepted His sacrifice for my sin and thanked Him for His grace..

Since that day I have failed again and again in many ways and in differing ways.. It doesn't matter I still fail but as Paul said it is no longer I, but sin that lives within me.. He continues to work in me conforming me to the image of Jesus but unlike many He has a lit of work to do to get me where He wants me to be.. IHS jim"

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showthread.php?3018-Repentance&p=140054&viewfull=1#post140054

So, while I am fine that James feels he has repented and is forgiven, my point was to show that by me saying I am sad for him about it, it really comes off more as an insult than actually being genuine....like James is trying to claim he was doing above.

Yeap, that was a report of my actions of 10 years ago. I have taken that to Jesus and it is GONE.. Are your adulteries gone? And don't say you have none.. You are so fond of James 2 throwing the Faith without works is dead around like a victory flag but ignore not just the meaning of that statement but also the rest of the Chapter. James 2:10 tells us that if we keep the whole law except one point we are guilty of all.. Are you ready to accept that a real Christian is only righteous through being imputed with the righteousness of Jesus or are you still trying to establish you own righteousness through your own good works? Now tell me you have never failed to be obedient? But you say I repented.. Sure repentance is good enough for you but denied to me? Isn't that hypocritical? IHS jim

BigJulie
09-09-2013, 01:40 PM
You don't believe in repentance? Or is repentance only for the LDS? This happened will after I left mormonism and to my shame I allowed it to happen.. I sinned, yes.. I was also forgiven.. I claim the promise of Jesus in His word that "though our sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1:18).. Do you deny that because of the blood of Jesus we can be forgiven? No not a MORMON. once a man slips and falls on his face he is forever branded a sinner who is beyond the grace of God.. Unless he joins the LDS church then all can be forgiven.. That is hypocritical. I have never hidden my sin from anyone.. Read it, it's the truth I did committed adultery.. According to God's word so has Sir, and so have you (James 2:10).. I have at least faced my sin. I have taken it to Jesus and allowed Him to deal with it.. IHS jim

Interesting that you took up adultery after you left Mormonism.

The difference between Mormonism and many other religions is that repentence takes on a whole new level. You are not permitted to just take up your sin with God--you also have to take it up with those in authority because you have not only offended God, but offended all those with whom you promised to be a representative a Christ. You took on Christ's name and with it a responsibility. Just like if you worked for a company and embezzled from them, it would not be enough to set things right just with God--there is a whole other group that you have hurt Therefore, the process of repentence in the LDS faith often means that one may be disfellowshiped or even excommunicated if the sin is serious enough. The sinner then gets to start the long-process of repentence in which God must be satisfied, your wife must be satisfied and those in authority must be satisfied that you have truely taken every step to right your wrong. The person can then be rebaptized and re-enter into God's grace.

You belive a person should be "tossed' if they do not believe the Bible is God's word. Well, committing adultery is a pretty big sign that you are not believing what God says

RealFakeHair
09-09-2013, 01:42 PM
[QUOTE=BigJulie;147683]Interesting that you took up adultery after you left Mormonism.
BigJulie, you are one evil person, shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

BigJulie
09-09-2013, 01:51 PM
BigJulie, you are one evil person, shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why, for noting that he committed such a large sin after he left? I just know from experience that had he stayed true and faithful to the covenants he had made in the LDS faith, this would not have happened. This is the protection of the Holy Ghost---it gives a warning. Members that I have persoanlly known that have done such a thing have stopped living in such a way that they kept them in touch with the spirit. Those "feelings' you criticize--one of them is guilt. It helps a lot, really---before you take such a giant leap into self destructive behavior.

I say interesting because this just confirms once again that this is a normal pattern I have witnessed.

Does this lessen my opinion of James--no. Do I feel he can repent? Yes. Do I believe he has fully repented? I believe that he believes he has---but I also know that it takes an awful lot of humility to sit before one who has authority from God to judge and to confess your sins and allow them to determine (with revelation) the next steps you must take to satisfy every level of repentence.

Do I believe in the atonement of Jesus Christ to wash away such a sin---absolutely! Do I believe James is going to hell. No.

You see, I have far less judgement of James than he has of me. Call me evil if you want, but I am just learning a little deeper what is happening with James. Truly, he has my comp***ion.

Billyray
09-09-2013, 02:05 PM
Interesting that you took up adultery after you left Mormonism.

The difference between Mormonism and many other religions is that repentence takes on a whole new level.
We all sin BigJ but the irony of your post is that your sins are far worse than Jim's and yet you are completely unaware of it.

BigJulie
09-09-2013, 02:13 PM
We all sin BigJ but the irony of your post is that your sins are far worse than Jim's and yet you are completely unaware of it.

Yes, we all sin---all this knowledge of James sin did was teach me a little bit about him. It actually gives me more comp***ion for him. I understand that he has experienced some far greater trouble than I had realized.

This I also know with a surety. Had he stayed in the church and stayed close to the Spirit, this would not have happened. As I noted, those "feelings' that are often looked so down on by those here--those feelings have the capacity to guide and direct one back to God (such as guilt) and take away any desire to sin because when God touches our heart, it does more than any intellectual understanding of God can do. God is not just found in the page of a book--He is found within us when we seek Him. James could have spared his wife the pain I am sure she felt.

BigJulie
09-09-2013, 02:26 PM
There are three men I have personally known who have left the church---2 blatently and one just doesn't go to church. The first two have grabbed onto anything negative about the church. What I also know is that both have had some pretty serious problems with pornography and one has had some pretty serious problems with same-sex attraction. Both, when confronted wtih guilt for their behavior, instead of softening their heart and seeking strength from God, instead choose to harden their hearts and find problems with the church to help absolve them of their guilt feelings.

Well, I have p***ed bill-boards in which other denominations claim things such as "give up the guilt." Well--in my experience, that guilt is a necessary thing. It is a saving thing. It is part of God's grace. The answer isn't to just give up the guilt---it is to learn how to use the atonement to cleanse ourselves of the impurity that is causing the guilt. As we do so, we feel the love of God as He changes our hearts. That is really the miracle.

Both of these men have gone onto further self-destruction. The absolution of their guilt did not make them better---they went further into darkness. It has been very sad to watch.

On the other hand, I have known men with pornography problems who choose instead to soften their hearts and to come unto Christ. I have watch them become strong in their faith---as they watched the power of the Atonement in their lives and see God's ability to cleanse them from this desire. It really is a miracle to behold.

Namely, to deny that God teaches us through our hearts--through feelings---is one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed. I have seen so muh destruction from those who have denied those God given feelings. Is that to say that there are not feelings that are destructive---certainly there are, such as lust. But to come to know God is to know the Spirit and to recognize which feeling is from God and which feeling is from our flesh.

James Banta
09-09-2013, 05:32 PM
There are three men I have personally known who have left the church---2 blatently and one just doesn't go to church. The first two have grabbed onto anything negative about the church. What I also know is that both have had some pretty serious problems with pornography and one has had some pretty serious problems with same-sex attraction. Both, when confronted wtih guilt for their behavior, instead of softening their heart and seeking strength from God, instead choose to harden their hearts and find problems with the church to help absolve them of their guilt feelings.

Well, I have p***ed bill-boards in which other denominations claim things such as "give up the guilt." Well--in my experience, that guilt is a necessary thing. It is a saving thing. It is part of God's grace. The answer isn't to just give up the guilt---it is to learn how to use the atonement to cleanse ourselves of the impurity that is causing the guilt. As we do so, we feel the love of God as He changes our hearts. That is really the miracle.

Both of these men have gone onto further self-destruction. The absolution of their guilt did not make them better---they went further into darkness. It has been very sad to watch.

On the other hand, I have known men with pornography problems who choose instead to soften their hearts and to come unto Christ. I have watch them become strong in their faith---as they watched the power of the Atonement in their lives and see God's ability to cleanse them from this desire. It really is a miracle to behold.

Namely, to deny that God teaches us through our hearts--through feelings---is one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed. I have seen so muh destruction from those who have denied those God given feelings. Is that to say that there are not feelings that are destructive---certainly there are, such as lust. But to come to know God is to know the Spirit and to recognize which feeling is from God and which feeling is from our flesh.

If Jesus has become sin for us and has given those of us that believe His righteousness what is there to be guilty about? Guilty that we are now perfect in Him? You make no sense at all.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
09-09-2013, 05:53 PM
There are three men I have personally known who have left the church---2 blatently and one just doesn't go to church. The first two have grabbed onto anything negative about the church. What I also know is that both have had some pretty serious problems with pornography and one has had some pretty serious problems with same-sex attraction. Both, when confronted wtih guilt for their behavior, instead of softening their heart and seeking strength from God, instead choose to harden their hearts and find problems with the church to help absolve them of their guilt feelings.

Well, I have p***ed bill-boards in which other denominations claim things such as "give up the guilt." Well--in my experience, that guilt is a necessary thing. It is a saving thing. It is part of God's grace. The answer isn't to just give up the guilt---it is to learn how to use the atonement to cleanse ourselves of the impurity that is causing the guilt. As we do so, we feel the love of God as He changes our hearts. That is really the miracle.

Both of these men have gone onto further self-destruction. The absolution of their guilt did not make them better---they went further into darkness. It has been very sad to watch.

On the other hand, I have known men with pornography problems who choose instead to soften their hearts and to come unto Christ. I have watch them become strong in their faith---as they watched the power of the Atonement in their lives and see God's ability to cleanse them from this desire. It really is a miracle to behold.

Namely, to deny that God teaches us through our hearts--through feelings---is one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed. I have seen so muh destruction from those who have denied those God given feelings. Is that to say that there are not feelings that are destructive---certainly there are, such as lust. But to come to know God is to know the Spirit and to recognize which feeling is from God and which feeling is from our flesh.

I have to give you kudos for that post.

Sir
09-09-2013, 06:00 PM
If Jesus has become sin for us and has given those of us that believe His righteousness what is there to be guilty about? Guilty that we are now perfect in Him? You make no sense at all.. IHS jim

That's a perfect example of why people flock to the easy false gospel of cheap grace. They blame their sins on the "sin that is inside them", then they claim that Jesus has simply paid for their sin so there is no need to feel guilty for sinning. Oops, I committed adultery. Oh well, no need to feel guilty. Jesus paid for it and hey!, my actually committing adultery is no different than anybody else who has simply looked at a woman.

No wonder people like James find anything else as "not making sense". Their gospel relieves them of any responsibility or guilt of committing sin, which actually cheapens the atonement and gives them a sense of license to sin since they can easily blame their sin on sin and claim that they are still righteous and holy since God doesn't see their sin.

Billyray
09-09-2013, 07:18 PM
Yes, we all sin---all this knowledge of James sin did was teach me a little bit about him. It actually gives me more comp***ion for him. I understand that he has experienced some far greater trouble than I had realized.

This I also know with a surety. Had he stayed in the church and stayed close to the Spirit, this would not have happened. As I noted, those "feelings' that are often looked so down on by those here--those feelings have the capacity to guide and direct one back to God (such as guilt) and take away any desire to sin because when God touches our heart, it does more than any intellectual understanding of God can do. God is not just found in the page of a book--He is found within us when we seek Him. James could have spared his wife the pain I am sure she felt.
And again you completely sidestepped what I said. Here it is again for you.

We all sin BigJ but the irony of your post is that your sins are far worse than Jim's and yet you are completely unaware of it.

Sir
09-09-2013, 07:34 PM
And again you completely sidestepped what I said. Here it is again for you.

We all sin BigJ but the irony of your post is that your sins are far worse than Jim's and yet you are completely unaware of it.

The actual "irony" here is that James' whole contention is that his sins are NO worse than anyone else's, and that in fact all sin is equal in severity.

That's the gospel of fringe-anti-Mormon-evangelicals who once called themselves Mormons.

Here we see that according to a different member of that cult, some sins are WORSE than others. For example, believing in Jesus differently than they do is WORSE than going behind your wife's back and sleeping with another woman.

*shrug*

Billyray
09-09-2013, 11:38 PM
The actual "irony" here is that James' whole contention is that his sins are NO worse than anyone else's, and that in fact all sin is equal in severity.

That's the gospel of fringe-anti-Mormon-evangelicals who once called themselves Mormons.

Here we see that according to a different member of that cult, some sins are WORSE than others. For example, believing in Jesus differently than they do is WORSE than going behind your wife's back and sleeping with another woman.

*shrug*
Believing in and worshipping false gods is certainly far worse and Jim has repented but you and BigJ have not.

Sir
09-10-2013, 01:07 PM
Believing in and worshipping false gods is certainly far worse and Jim has repented but you and BigJ have not.

Opinion. Conjecture. false accusations based on negative bias. Same old billy.

Nothing new.

jdjhere
09-10-2013, 01:17 PM
Lets be fair and lets not forget the "prophets" sins...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith's_wives#List_of_wives

Why is this OK and you guys practically crucify James Banta? Hypocrites....

nrajeffreturns
09-10-2013, 01:28 PM
That might be a valid point. Let's consider it:

Which is worse?

a) Sleeping with women who you didn't marry.
b) Marrying more than one woman at a time.

I am not the first to wonder at the society we live in, where it's illegal to be married to more than one wife, but it's legal to have one-night stands with people, as long as you're NOT married to them.

Something about that just seems upside-down, common-sense-wise.

RealFakeHair
09-10-2013, 02:26 PM
That might be a valid point. Let's consider it:

Which is worse?

a) Sleeping with women who you didn't marry.
b) Marrying more than one woman at a time.

I am not the first to wonder at the society we live in, where it's illegal to be married to more than one wife, but it's legal to have one-night stands with people, as long as you're NOT married to them.

Something about that just seems upside-down, common-sense-wise.

Well it depend if the women was married. According to the Old Testament.

Billyray
09-10-2013, 03:08 PM
Opinion. Conjecture. false accusations based on negative bias. Same old billy.

Nothing new.

And nothing new with you--denying the truth that I have said. You are only hurting yourself.

RealFakeHair
09-10-2013, 03:15 PM
And nothing new with you--denying the truth that I have said. You are only hurting yourself.

I believe in planting seeds, however sometimes we plant the whole lower 40 and still the Spirit is blocked. Such is the work of the counterfeit jesus of Joseph Smith jr. Mind. Sad, but they got it bad, and the best thing I can do is have fun with it.
Fun doesn't sound like the right word, but it beats crying.

Sir
09-10-2013, 04:43 PM
I believe in planting seeds, however sometimes we plant the whole lower 40 and still the Spirit is blocked. Such is the work of the counterfeit jesus of Joseph Smith jr. Mind. Sad, but they got it bad, and the best thing I can do is have fun with it.
Fun doesn't sound like the right word, but it beats crying.

That's how I feel about you guys.

So I have fun with your posts and point out the problems with your logic.

People like billyray simply chant that they are truth-tellers and anyone who doesn't listen to them are Hell-bound.

Simply funny since everything that he says can be simply switched around and refer to himself.

It's a silly cycle so the fun comes in pointing out the [il]logical positions of the posters.

Billyray
09-10-2013, 11:50 PM
That's how I feel about you guys.

So I have fun with your posts and point out the problems with your logic.

People like billyray simply chant that they are truth-tellers and anyone who doesn't listen to them are Hell-bound.

Simply funny since everything that he says can be simply switched around and refer to himself.

It's a silly cycle so the fun comes in pointing out the [il]logical positions of the posters.
The only problem with your position is that you can't seem to back it up with the Bible.

Sir
09-11-2013, 11:09 AM
The only problem with your position is that you can't seem to back it up with the Bible.

and the merry go round starts.

RealFakeHair
09-11-2013, 11:21 AM
and the merry go round starts.

Great metaphor for Joseph Smith jr. imaginary religion. Reaching the top of what mormonism offers ie EXALTATION is like being on a merry-go-round. No matter which horse you are ridding and no matter how fast the ride goes you are still going around in a circle, ever reaching for the br*** ring that is just out of reach.

James Banta
09-11-2013, 11:57 AM
That's a perfect example of why people flock to the easy false gospel of cheap grace. They blame their sins on the "sin that is inside them", then they claim that Jesus has simply paid for their sin so there is no need to feel guilty for sinning. Oops, I committed adultery. Oh well, no need to feel guilty. Jesus paid for it and hey!, my actually committing adultery is no different than anybody else who has simply looked at a woman.

No wonder people like James find anything else as "not making sense". Their gospel relieves them of any responsibility or guilt of committing sin, which actually cheapens the atonement and gives them a sense of license to sin since they can easily blame their sin on sin and claim that they are still righteous and holy since God doesn't see their sin.

You sin, I sin, ALL HUMAN BEING SIN.. (Romans 3:23). James tells u that if we offend in one point of the Law we are guilty of all (James 2:10).. The Holy spirit through Paul teaches us that:

2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him

As well as

Romans 7:14-17
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Seems that all you have done here is to deny the Bible at every turn.. You want to consider me to be a liar, FINE do so. Please leave room that God doesn't lie in your lack of faith in His teachings.. You should know by now that everything I say here has the backing of the Bible.. I have seen nothing you teach as having any at all.. IHS jim

theway
09-12-2013, 07:17 AM
I believe in planting seeds, however sometimes we plant the whole lower 40 and still the Spirit is blocked. Such is the work of the counterfeit jesus of Joseph Smith jr. Mind. Sad, but they got it bad, and the best thing I can do is have fun with it.
Fun doesn't sound like the right word, but it beats crying.
Maybe that's because all you plant are tares.

You reap what you sow.

James Banta
09-12-2013, 07:43 AM
Maybe that's because all you plant are tares.

You reap what you sow.

All your arguments are a "Is so, is not" variety. There is no substance to any such argument.. I guess this is the best that we can except from mormonism.. IHS jim

RealFakeHair
09-12-2013, 08:06 AM
Maybe that's because all you plant are tares.

You reap what you sow.

I was goin to say that bout U folks, but then thougth, it was just too easy.

theway
09-12-2013, 08:39 AM
All your arguments are a "Is so, is not" variety. There is no substance to any such argument.. I guess this is the best that we can except from mormonism.. IHS jim
No... That's just the best you can expect from me on this tired forum, as there is nobody listening anyway.

RealFakeHair
09-12-2013, 09:27 AM
No... That's just the best you can expect from me on this tired forum, as there is nobody listening anyway.

Somebody was listening. Hack, Hack, Hack! lol

jdjhere
09-12-2013, 11:31 AM
jdjhere stated (post 74):
Let's be fair and let's not forget the "prophets" sins...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...#List_of_wives
Why is this OK but you guys practically crucify James Banta?

nrajeffreturns stated (post 75):
That might be a valid point. Let's consider it:
Which is worse?
a) Sleeping with women who you didn't marry.
b) Marrying more than one woman at a time.
I am not the first to wonder at the society we live in, where it's illegal to be married to more than one wife, but it's legal to have one-night stands with people, as long as you're NOT married to them.
Something about that just seems upside-down, common-sense-wise.

Note: I totally agree with you, Jeff, at least to the bottom part. My answer to a and b would be both.

You tell me, Jeff. Which one of these things did Joseph Smith do? Did he legally marry these women? That was and still is against the law in the U.S. So, did he not marry these women? Did he not have sexual relations with any of them? I think that seems very naïve to think he didn't but if you think that then that is your right. If you don’t mind Jeff tell us what you believe Joseph Smith did with these "wives" (or concubines??). It seems logical to me that he was just trying to fulfill what he taught, mainly that he needed wives and children to populate his next phase of his existence, right? Oh yes, and perhaps following his carnal "needs" as well. Talk for awhile Jeff and tell us what you think. Thanks.

* Just as a side note, at least James Banta recognized his sin and has repented and turned away from it and has asked God for forgiveness through Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith to his last breathe claimed that what he did was from God Himself because, after all, that was what God Himself had done as an exalted man!

jdjhere
09-12-2013, 12:00 PM
Is CARM as slow as this website is? I have noticed that Sir and TheWay are back since I have left so I see a few people are coming back in.

RealFakeHair
09-12-2013, 12:04 PM
Is CARM as slow as this website is? I have noticed that Sir and TheWay are back since I have left so I see a few people are coming back in.
Well when U aint got much else to do in the morning.

jdjhere
09-12-2013, 12:37 PM
And then there was good old brother Parley...

http://jared.pratt-family.org/parley_histories/list_parley.html

shot off his horse for marrying another mans wife...

http://jared.pratt-family.org/parley_histories/parley_death_interviews.html

seems they all wanted to get into the act.

RealFakeHair
09-12-2013, 12:48 PM
And then there was good old brother Parley...

http://jared.pratt-family.org/parley_histories/list_parley.html

shot off his horse for marrying another mans wife...

http://jared.pratt-family.org/parley_histories/parley_death_interviews.html

seems they all wanted to get into the act.

It was kinda funny today. I was watching the BYU channel and the morning discussion was on, the pearl of great price.
Here they were reading from the Book of Abraham, like it was really a true reading from the hand of Abraham. I something think, they have got to know better. It was from an Egyptian book of the Dead, not from Abraham!
How ****** they appeared to me discussing a fairy-tail as if it were true.
Amazing, I tell you simply amazing.

jdjhere
09-12-2013, 01:11 PM
Here are just a few more
Matthew 19:36
Jesus said "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife (not plural): and they shall be one flesh." In this p***age, He cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, saying ‘the two will become one flesh’, not more than two.
1 Timothy 3:2
"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach..."
Ephesians 5:22–33
Another important biblical teaching is the parallel of husband and wife with Christ and the Church in which makes sense only with monogamy — Jesus will not have multiple brides.
Exodus 20:17
The 10th Commandment "You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife" [singular]) also presupposes the ideal that there is only one wife.

nrajeffreturns
09-12-2013, 01:12 PM
Note: I totally agree with you, Jeff, at least to the bottom part. My answer to a and b would be both.

My answer would be: IMO, a dozen "casual" encounters with people you just met that day from a bar or brothel, and have no love for and no intention of providing for, is terrible, compared to the COMMITMENT that courtship followed by MARRIAGE for life entails.


You tell me, Jeff. Which one of these things did Joseph Smith do? Did he legally marry these women?
Perhaps.


That was and still is against the law in the U.S.
The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act became law in 1862. Joseph Smith was killed in 1844.


So, did he not marry these women?
Many of them were merely sealed to him in the afterlife, which federal laws really can't touch.


Did he not have sexual relations with any of them?
I don't know and neither do you; we weren't there.


I think that seems very naïve to think he didn't
According to all available evidence, Smith was the father of none of those women's children. So your only recourse is hearsay and allegations.


If you don’t mind Jeff tell us what you believe Joseph Smith did with these "wives" (or concubines??).
If his marriages were not really illegal, I'd say he was free to do what any married man is free to do.


Joseph Smith to his last breathe claimed that what he did was from God Himself because, after all, that was what God Himself had done as an exalted man!
I don't think you can back that allegation/opinion of yours up with a quote. Prove me wrong.

jdjhere
09-12-2013, 01:17 PM
Which allegation do you mean? That Joseph Smith believed polygamy was given directly to him from God? Or the other part... that God is an exalted man?

jdjhere
09-12-2013, 01:20 PM
By the way... are the people on Sister Wives Reorganized LDS or ? Does anyone know?
Oh, I found it

Apostolic United Brethern

The AUB’s claims to authority are based around the accounts of John Wickersham Woolley, Lorin Calvin Woolley and others, of a meeting in September 1886 between LDS Church President John Taylor, the Woolleys, and others. Prior to the meeting, Taylor is said to have met with Jesus Christ and the deceased church founder, Joseph Smith, Jr., and to have received a revelation commanding that plural marriage should not cease, but be kept alive by a group separate from the LDS Church. The following day, the Woolleys, as well as Taylor’s counselor, George Q. Cannon, and others, were said to have been set apart to keep “the principle” alive.

Do LDS here agree this is what happened?

RealFakeHair
09-12-2013, 01:22 PM
My answer would be: IMO, a dozen "casual" encounters with people you just met that day from a bar or brothel, and have no love for and no intention of providing for, is terrible, compared to the COMMITMENT that courtship followed by MARRIAGE for life entails.


Perhaps.


The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act became law in 1862. Joseph Smith was killed in 1844.


Many of them were merely sealed to him in the afterlife, which federal laws really can't touch.


I don't know and neither do you; we weren't there.


According to all available evidence, Smith was the father of none of those women. So your only recourse is hearsay and allegations.


If his marriages were not really illegal, I'd say he was free to do what any married man is free to do.


I don't think you can back that allegation/opinion of yours up with a quote. Prove me wrong.

Why do you make excuses for the man? You sound like the democrits making excuses for Bill Clinton.
Lets just replace Bill's name with Joseph's name. Here is one excuse. What Joseph did with Monica did not interfere with his ability to do his *** as president.

jdjhere
09-12-2013, 02:06 PM
Warren Jeff's church-
(Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints)
The FLDS Church teaches that a man having multiple wives is ordained by God and is a requirement for a man to receive the highest form of salvation.
It is generally believed in the church that a man should have a minimum of three wives to fulfill this requirement.
Wives are required to be subordinate to their husbands.
The church has come under fire over allegations of sexual and mental abuse of wives and underage polygamous marriages.
There are said to be over 30,000 people practising polygamy in Utah, Idaho, Montana and Arizona, even though it is illegal.


Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk

jdjhere
09-12-2013, 02:10 PM
nrajeffreturns stated: "I don't think you can back that allegation/opinion of yours up with a quote. Prove me wrong."

jdjhere asked: "Which allegation do you mean? That Joseph Smith believed polygamy was given directly to him from God? Or the other part... that God is an exalted man?"

RealFakeHair
09-12-2013, 02:21 PM
nrajeffreturns stated: "I don't think you can back that allegation/opinion of yours up with a quote. Prove me wrong."

jdjhere asked: "Which allegation do you mean? That Joseph Smith believed polygamy was given directly to him from God? Or the other part... that God is an exalted man?"

The saddest thing about a TBM is their devotion to a sexual predator of the likes of Joseph Smith jr. This I can not understand or excuse away. He used religion the lowest form of con-ery to be-witch his followers. The word HATE can't explain my distaste for the lowlife sub-human Joseph Smith jr.
Oh, did I ever tell you how I feel about Joseph Smiht jr.?

jdjhere
09-12-2013, 02:51 PM
Yeah, its amazing the denial of history. If you read the Doctrines and Covenants Section 132 55, 62-63 and Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses 4:56 you get the idea of what these early men taught. Then you read Jacob 2:24 and you are like "huh??" Crazy

nrajeffreturns
09-12-2013, 09:50 PM
Which allegation do you mean?

This one, and I will italicize the part you need to substantiate:

"Joseph Smith to his last breathe claimed that what he did was from God Himself because, after all, that was what God Himself had done as an exalted man! "

thanks

nrajeffreturns
09-12-2013, 09:51 PM
The word HATE can't explain my distaste for the lowlife sub-human Joseph Smith jr. Oh, did I ever tell you how I feel about Joseph Smiht jr.?

So it's safe to say that you're anti-Joseph Smith...

jdjhere
09-13-2013, 07:37 AM
"Joseph Smith to his last breathe claimed that what he did was from God Himself because, after all, that was what God Himself had done as an exalted man! "

Joseph Smith never retracted any of his statements or "scriptures" about multiple wives (or ANYTHING for that matter) before he died, like this one- (apparently this is God speaking) Doctrines and Covenants 132 51-54 " Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice. And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God. For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him. And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law."

So Joe gets as many wives as the Lord will give him... but NOT Emma or she will be destroyed. Wow.

Brigham Young taught it as well, and where did he get the idea from?
"If you have in your hearts to say…'we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"-the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. The Lord gave a revelation through Joseph Smith, His servant; and we have believed and practiced it. -Journal of Discourses 11:269 (Aug. 19, 1866)

nrajeffreturns- Why would Brigham practice it if Joseph ever retracted it?

jdjhere
09-13-2013, 07:54 AM
"Joseph Smith to his last breathe claimed that what he did was from God Himself because, after all, that was what God Himself had done as an exalted man!

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:303-304

"I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in their own heart, what kind of a being God is? ... Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen him, heard him, or communed with him? . . . God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make Himself visible, I say -- if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in form -- like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God Himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."

Brigham Young taught: "Our Father begot all the spirits that were before any tabernacle was made. When our Father came into the Garden He came with his Celestial body and brought one of his wives (Eve) with him and ate of the fruit of the Garden until He could beget a Tabernacle. And Adam is Michael God and all the God that we have anything to do with. They ate of this fruit and formed the first Tabernacle that was formed. And when the Virgin Mary was begotten with Child it was by the Father and in no other way only as we were begotten. I will tell you the truth as it is in God. The world don't know that Jesus Christ our Elder Brother was begotten by our Father in Heaven. Handle it as you please, it will either seal the ****ation or salvation of man. He was begotten by the Father and not by the Holy Ghost.
Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff's Journal, April 9, 1852

RealFakeHair
09-13-2013, 12:53 PM
So it's safe to say that you're anti-Joseph Smith...

Might say I am leaning that way. lol

jdjhere
09-13-2013, 01:20 PM
Interesting that this was on the MSN startup page today. To me, these FLDS folks are following what Joseph Smith actually taught and lived and the LDS are not.

http://www.today.com/video/today/52999777?from=en-us_msnhp#52999777

Be sure to watch this tonight (Friday 9-13-13): Dateline NBC 9:00PM
An interview with Rebecca Musser, a former member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Musser speaks out about leaving the polygamous sect and fighting for justice against church leader Warren Jeffs.

James Banta
09-13-2013, 01:36 PM
No... That's just the best you can expect from me on this tired forum, as there is nobody listening anyway.

I have to believe that is all you are capable of.. IHS jim

jdjhere
09-13-2013, 02:13 PM
Nobody is listening here? Thats ok... God is, and anybody can stop by at any time to read the posts. Maybe even one hundred years from now. Go ahead James and tell us about some of your experiences as an LDS. :)

nrajeffreturns
09-13-2013, 07:58 PM
jdj, you did a really good *** of NOT providing the evidence I asked for. Is that because you failed to find any, so you had to throw in, as a subs***ute for the requested evidence, some non-evidencial quotes that didn't support your claim?

Are you ready to just admit that your allegation was a false one? If so, I am ready to give you some integrity points.

Billyray
09-13-2013, 10:13 PM
Many of them were merely sealed to him in the afterlife, which federal laws really can't touch.
So you don't believe that Joseph was married to anyone besides his first wife?

jdjhere
09-14-2013, 10:34 AM
nrajeffreturns, I guess I dont understand what exactly you are asking for. How can I fail to find what you are asking for when I dont even know what it is you want? I dont need your approval of my integrity either because I have plenty of it. So, now that you have questioned my integrity when I was just trying to answer you, spell out exactly what you are asking for and I will do my best to give it to you. Ask it in a simple question and I will try to answer you. Thanks.

nrajeffstated: "This one, and I will italicize the part you need to substantiate..."

The whole thing looked italicized to me, nrajeffreturns.

Here is what I stated: "Joseph Smith to his last breathe claimed that what he did was from God Himself because, after all, that was what God Himself had done as an exalted man!"

Now, what part of the above statement do you have a problem with?

nrajeffreturns
09-14-2013, 11:28 AM
Maybe you're running a browser that italicizes everything. This should work, though:

"Joseph Smith to his last breathe claimed that what he did was from God Himself because, after all, that was what God Himself had done as an exalted man!"

I saw NOTHING in the quotes you posted that supports your allegation that Joseph Smith claimed that what he did was what God had done as an exalted man.

If your quotes actually did support your claim and I missed it, then all you need to do is re-post JUST THE PARTS that actually support your claim.

I hope I just missed it, and that's why I saw nothing that supports your claim, because otherwise, your other claim--to have plenty of integrity--might be questionable.

Billyray
09-14-2013, 12:31 PM
"Joseph Smith to his last breathe claimed that what he did was from God Himself because, after all, that was what God Himself had done as an exalted man!"

I saw NOTHING in the quotes you posted that supports your allegation that Joseph Smith claimed that what he did was what God had done as an exalted man.

What do you think that quote means?

jdjhere
09-15-2013, 07:48 AM
I will just ignore your comments about my integrity since you don't even know me. To answer (I hope) what you have asked me, I ***ume I am understanding you and you are asking this- Joseph Smith (himself) claimed that what he did was what God had done as an exalted man. King Follet Sermon- "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret... You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you..." Joseph Smith

Read History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844. Joseph smith claims there are many gods and that we can BECOME one. Why? For exaltation and to move on to the next plane of existence in the telestial heaven and to populate that heaven with his host of wives. This is CLEARLY taught and Joseph Smith NEVER retracted any of his statements about this. That is why Brigham Young said this: " Brigham Young taught: "Our Father begot all the spirits that were before any tabernacle was made. When our Father came into the Garden He came with his Celestial body and brought one of his wives (Eve) with him and ate of the fruit of the Garden until He could beget a Tabernacle. And Adam is Michael God and all the God that we have anything to do with. They ate of this fruit and formed the first Tabernacle that was formed. And when the Virgin Mary was begotten with Child it was by the Father and in no other way only as we were begotten. I will tell you the truth as it is in God. The world don't know that Jesus Christ our Elder Brother was begotten by our Father in Heaven. Handle it as you please, it will either seal the ****ation or salvation of man. He was begotten by the Father and not by the Holy Ghost. Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff's Journal, April 9, 1852

And WHY did Brigham Young teach this anyway? WHERE did it come from? Lets see in his own words: "If you have in your hearts to say…'we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"-the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. The Lord gave a revelation through Joseph Smith, His servant; and we have believed and practiced it. -Journal of Discourses 11:269 (Aug. 19, 1866)

If Joseph Smith did NOT teach this then WHY did Brigham Young PRACTICE it? Because Joseph Smith TAUGHT it or Brigham Young is lying, take your pick.

Joseph Smith never retracted any of his statements or "scriptures" about multiple wives (or ANYTHING for that matter) before he died, like this one- (apparently this is God speaking) Doctrines and Covenants 132 51-54 " Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice. And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God. For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him. And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law."

So Joe gets as many wives as the Lord will give him... but NOT Emma or she will be destroyed. Wow.
To me, these FLDS folks are following what Joseph Smith actually taught and lived and the LDS are not.
http://www.today.com/video/today/529...msnhp#52999777
An interview with Rebecca Musser, a former member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Musser speaks out about leaving the polygamous sect and fighting for justice against church leader Warren Jeffs. Interestingly, Warren Jeffs told Rebecca Musser he would BREAK her and DESTROY her if she did not marry him. The parallel is noteable. A prophet using his power in the church for his carnal pleasure. LDS are STUCK with this splinter group coming from them, the FLDS church. They believe in the "prophet" Joseph Smith as well, and practice more closely what he taught on polygamy and plural Marriage than LDS do.

nrajeffreturns
09-15-2013, 08:48 PM
I will just ignore your comments about my integrity since you don't even know me.
You don't seem to refrain from attacking Joseph Smith's integrity, yet you never met him....

Are you saying that it's impossible, or wrong, to reach conclusions about a person's character based on things they have written, or have refused to provide? Help me out here.


To answer (I hope) what you have asked me,
I asked you to re-post ONLY the stuff that actually supports your accusation. You keep posting a lot of irrelevant stuff. So no, I am not thinking that you are finally giving what I actually asked for.


I ***ume I am understanding you and you are asking this- Joseph Smith (himself) claimed that what he did was what God had done as an exalted man.
That is the accusation that I have been asking you to substantiate. The question is whether you have done so.


King Follet Sermon- "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret... You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you..." Joseph Smith

Doesn't really support your accusation.


Read History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479. Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple, June 16, 1844. Joseph smith claims there are many gods and that we can BECOME one. Why? For exaltation and to move on to the next plane of existence in the telestial heaven and to populate that heaven with his host of wives.
Unsatisfactory as evidence. It's just your claim. Let's see QUOTES. "Populate the TELESTIAL heaven with a host of wives"?

If your citation really says that, I am quite ready to issue a sincere apology for doubting you. So bring on the quotes.


This is CLEARLY taught
See above. I question and challenge your ***ERTION that what you have CLAIMED was clearly taught BY JOSEPH SMITH, really WAS clearly taught BY JOSEPH SMITH.


" Brigham Young taught: "Our Father begot all the spirits that were before any tabernacle was made. When our Father came into the Garden He came with his Celestial body and brought one of his wives (Eve) with him and ate of the fruit of the Garden until He could beget a Tabernacle. And Adam is Michael God and all the God that we have anything to do with. They ate of this fruit and formed the first Tabernacle that was formed. And when the Virgin Mary was begotten with Child it was by the Father and in no other way only as we were begotten. I will tell you the truth as it is in God. The world don't know that Jesus Christ our Elder Brother was begotten by our Father in Heaven. Handle it as you please, it will either seal the ****ation or salvation of man. He was begotten by the Father and not by the Holy Ghost. Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff's Journal, April 9, 1852
Disappointing, if you believe THAT counts as proof that Joseph Smith (himself) claimed that what he did was what God had done as an exalted man. The "one of his wives" comment, which was made NOT by Joseph Smith but allegedly by BRIGHAM YOUNG, refers to ADAM. Not to anything GOD did as an exalted man.

You are striking out.

jdjhere
09-15-2013, 10:10 PM
Brigham Young said "The Lord gave a revelation through Joseph Smith, His servant; and we have believed and practiced it. -Journal of Discourses 11:269 (Aug. 19, 1866)
This was in reference to Polygamy.

I dont have anything written about me historically so you would have a hard time judging my integrity, nrajeffreturns,... but Joseph Smith has plenty. Therefore, without knowing him I can get an idea of what he taught and see the fruits of what he taught (LDS, FLDS, RLDS, etc...) If LDS scribes recorded him accurately we can see what he taught. If they did not the BOM should not be believed.

The funny thing with you LDS here is that you ignore your "prophets." This statement by Brigham is either true or false. If it is true, then Joseph Smith TAUGHT this, never retracted it or Brigham would not have SAID it or practiced it. If it is false, then your "prophets" are lying about your other "prophets" and the "only true church" needs to clean up its act.
By the way, nrajeffreturns, I dont even have one strike yet let alone striking out. You have some explaining to do about WHY, not just Brigham Young, but a HOST of your prophets teach, or have taught in the past, polygamy. It ALL began with Joseph Smith and everybody KNOWS it.
Why THIS? In 1890, church president Wilford Woodruff issued a Manifesto that officially terminated the practice of polygamy. Although this Manifesto did not dissolve existing plural marriages, relations with the United States markedly improved after 1890, such that Utah was admitted as a U.S. state. After the Manifesto, some Mormons continued to enter into polygamous marriages, but these eventually stopped in 1904 when church president Joseph F. Smith disavowed polygamy before Congress and issued a "Second Manifesto" calling for all plural marriages in the church to cease."
Joseph Smith taught Polygamy, practiced it, never recanted it and p***ed it on to the following "prophets." The "manifesto" kept the LDS church from getting kicked out of the country. For the interested reader, this was because it was taught that the LDS people needed to produce bodies for awaiting LDS spirits so they could live here, possible become exalted as gods and move on to popylate their own universes. That is why they teach god the father is an exalted man, once a human man like us. Also look above at what nrajeffreturns stated that Brigham Young said about ADAM, that he was a polygamous god before he ever came to earth, that he came here with ONE of his wives. This stuff gets pretty crazy!

RealFakeHair
09-16-2013, 06:49 AM
nrajeffreturns RN,You don't seem to refrain from attacking Adoft Hitler integrity, yet you never met him....

Are you saying that it's impossible, or wrong, to reach conclusions about a person's character based on things they have written, or have refused to provide? Help me out here

Billyray
09-16-2013, 11:54 AM
You don't seem to refrain from attacking Joseph Smith's integrity, yet you never met him....

Is that your criteria to judge someone's integrity--actually having to meet someone face to face?

Jeff it amazes me the lengths you go to defend your false religion.

jdjhere
09-16-2013, 12:08 PM
jdjhere stated: "Joseph Smith to his last breathe claimed that what he did was from God Himself because, after all, that was what God Himself had done as an exalted man!"

nrajeffreturns stated: "I saw NOTHING in the quotes you posted that supports your allegation that Joseph Smith claimed that what he did was what God had done as an exalted man."

Why isnt this clear to you, nrajeffreturns? Lets take it one step at a time- Do you believe Joseph Smith taught that there is more than one God?

RealFakeHair
09-16-2013, 12:25 PM
jdjhere stated: "Joseph Smith to his last breathe claimed that what he did was from God Himself because, after all, that was what God Himself had done as an exalted man!"

nrajeffreturns stated: "I saw NOTHING in the quotes you posted that supports your allegation that Joseph Smith claimed that what he did was what God had done as an exalted man."
.
Why isnt this clear to you, nrajeffreturns? Lets take it one step at a time- Do you believe Joseph Smith taught that there is more than one God?

nrajeffreturns, rn, is doing the mormon full monty. I can't blame him it is all they have.

nrajeffreturns
09-16-2013, 12:42 PM
nrajeffreturns RN,You don't seem to refrain from attacking Adoft Hitler integrity, yet you never met him....


Uh, you're going after the wrong target. It was jdj who implied that you can't make conclusions about person's integrity unless you know him.

nrajeffreturns
09-16-2013, 12:44 PM
Is that your criteria to judge someone's integrity--actually having to meet someone face to face?

Jeff it amazes me the lengths you go to defend your false religion.


Uh, you're going after the wrong target. It was jdj who implied that you can't make conclusions about person's integrity unless you know him. So what does this news mean to your implication that it's a defense of one's false religion, if one states that you can't make conclusions about person's integrity unless you know him?

Are you happy, now that you realize what you're saying about jdj?

RealFakeHair
09-16-2013, 12:46 PM
Uh, you're going after the wrong target. It was jdj who implied that you can't make conclusions about person's integrity unless you know him.

Well, then, I am glad U don't know me! lol

jdjhere
09-16-2013, 12:48 PM
Joseph Smith: These are the first principles of consolation. ... To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 306)

jdjhere
09-16-2013, 12:57 PM
That's a great try nrajeffreturns- to try to turn Christians against each other to get off the topic at hand... but it won't work. Now did Joseph Smith believe more than one god existed and was this p***ed on to your other "prophets?" I believe so from simply reading LDS materials:

Speaking in the Tabernacle on August 8, 1852, Brigham Young stated,
"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; when we have been proved in our present capacity, and been faithful with all things He puts into our possession. We are created, we are born for the express purpose of growing up from the low estate of manhood, to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven. That is the truth about it, just as it is" (Journal of Discourses 3:93).
Mormon Apostle James Talmage wrote:
"We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement -- a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share" (The Articles of Faith, p. 430).
Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt explains:
"Each God, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever and ever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits, and his Heavenly inheritance becomes too small, to comfortably accommodate his great family, he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world, after a similar order to the one which we now inhabit, where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones. Thus each God forms a world for the accommodation of his own sons and daughters who are sent forth in their times and seasons, and generations to be born into the same. The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited" (The Seer, p. 37).
Following the revelations he received, Joseph Smith taught with authority many truths recorded in the Bible which previously had not been understood. Some of these are: that we are spirit children of God, that we had a pre-mortal existence, that we are in mortality to prove ourselves, and that if we are faithful we can return to live eternally in the presence of God and through eternal progression become Godlike,” (N. Eldon Tanner, “The Contributions of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1979, p.52).
• "The principal purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the ultimate goal of eternal progression is to receive eternal life, i.e., to become as God is. It is thoroughly understood, however, that a vast majority of the human family will never become gods, because to do so they must accept the true gospel, receive all of the ordinances-including celestial marriage-and obey all of God's commandments faithfully to the end," (Milton R. Hunter, Christ in Ancient America, p.168).
Joseph Smith: June 16, 1844 sermon he said:
I will preach on the plurality of Gods. . . . 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. (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 474)
• Joseph Smith: According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, ... (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32)

• In 1842 Joseph Smith began the publication of his Book of Abraham which has a number of references to plural gods. For example, Abraham 4:1 states
• ...they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
Joseph Smith- In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 130, verse 22, we read:
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.
Joseph Smith: "These are the first principles of consolation. ... To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 306)

Pretty clear to me.

Billyray
09-16-2013, 01:56 PM
U. So what does this news mean to your implication that it's a defense of one's false religion, if one states that you can't make conclusions about person's integrity unless you know him?

We know a lot about Joseph and his life based on extensive writings from Joseph himself and those around him. You aren't given the same luxury with jdj so your comparison doesn't hold water. But you will do everything you can to defend your false religion.

jdjhere
09-16-2013, 02:21 PM
"Joseph Smith to his last breathe claimed that what he did was from God Himself because, after all, that was what God Himself had done as an exalted man! "

Here is your quote nrajeffreturns since you seem to think you need one-
Joseph Smith: "These are the first principles of consolation. ... To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before." (Eternal Progression of the gods.)

nrajeffreturns
09-16-2013, 06:38 PM
"Joseph Smith to his last breathe claimed that what he did was from God Himself because, after all, that was what God Himself had done as an exalted man! "

Here is your quote nrajeffreturns since you seem to think you need one-
Joseph Smith: "These are the first principles of consolation. ... To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before." (Eternal Progression of the gods.)

How can you not see that your quote does NOT support your claim that Joseph Smith TAUGHT that what he did...was what God Himself had done as an exalted man? To be specific, polygamy. You have yet to provide a quote of Smith saying "God Himself, as an exalted man, got married to multiple wives."

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you're referring to when you talk about "what Smith had done" when you say he taught that God, as an exalted man, had done the same things.

So why don't you give your list of specific "things that Smith did" that you think he said God had, as an exalted man, also done?

nrajeffreturns
09-16-2013, 06:41 PM
Joseph Smith: These are the first principles of consolation. ... To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 306)

I hope you aren't thinking that Smith is talking about HIMSELF in that part where he says

"Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself."

That part is what he imagines Jesus would say in answer to the question "What did Jesus do?"

jdjhere
09-17-2013, 05:46 AM
nrajeffreturns- I am not as concerned with that part as I know he is talking about what Jesus would do. I am more concerened with the first part of the statement that says; Joseph Smith: "These are the first principles of consolation. ... To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those (plural) who have gone before."

As an LDS I would like to hear what you think Joseph is saying here. Thanks.

nrajeffreturns
09-17-2013, 07:37 PM
nrajeffreturns- I am not as concerned with that part as I know he is talking about what Jesus would do. I am more concerened with the first part of the statement that says; Joseph Smith: "These are the first principles of consolation. ... To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those (plural) who have gone before."

But all that's saying is that we have the potential to become like God. I see NOTHING in there about "I'm marrying wives because God, as an exalted man, did that very same thing."

So it looks like it's Strike Three for you.

jdjhere
09-17-2013, 09:01 PM
nrajeffreturns stated: "So it looks like it's Strike Three for you. "

No strikes. Lets forget the baseball ****ogy. It states "you arrive at the station of A GOD." and you get ETERNAL POWER. It is saying you can become a god.

nrajeffreturns stated: "But all that's saying is that we have the potential to become like God."

Again, No. It states "you arrive at the station of A GOD." and you get ETERNAL POWER. It is saying you can become a god." (the same as those (plural) who have gone before."

In 1842, Joseph Smith began the publication of his Book of Abraham which has a number of references to plural gods. For example, Abraham 4:1 states "they, that is, the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth."

nrajeffreturns stated: "But all that's saying is that we have the potential to become like God."

You mean like this?
Isaiah 14:14 "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High". (satan)
2 Thessalonians 2:4 "He (satan)will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."
Ezekiel 28:2 "Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "'In the PRIDE of your heart you say, "I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas." But you are a mere mortal and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god."
Isaiah 14:12-15 "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! (satan) You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart,“I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of ***embly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the realm of the dead, to the depths of the pit."
Ezekiel 28:17: “Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor.” (satan)
Rev 12:9 "So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the devil and satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Philippians 2:5-8: “Your at***ude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped..."

God is the Creator and we are the created, Jeff. Even in the afterlife this is so. He is INFINITE PERFECTION and, as created beings, we will never be that.

jdjhere
09-17-2013, 09:50 PM
Just to be clear, other LDS "prophets" have claimed the same thing:

Speaking in the Tabernacle on August 8, 1852, Brigham Young stated,
"The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself; when we have been proved in our present capacity, and been faithful with all things He puts into our possession. We are created, we are born for the express purpose of growing up from the low estate of manhood, to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven. That is the truth about it, just as it is" (Journal of Discourses 3:93).
Mormon Apostle James Talmage wrote:
"We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement -- a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share" (The Articles of Faith, p. 430).
Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt explains:
"Each God, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever and ever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits, and his Heavenly inheritance becomes too small, to comfortably accommodate his great family, he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world, after a similar order to the one which we now inhabit, where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones. Thus each God forms a world for the accommodation of his own sons and daughters who are sent forth in their times and seasons, and generations to be born into the same. The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited" (The Seer, p. 37).
Following the revelations he received, Joseph Smith taught with authority many truths recorded in the Bible which previously had not been understood. Some of these are: that we are spirit children of God, that we had a pre-mortal existence, that we are in mortality to prove ourselves, and that if we are faithful we can return to live eternally in the presence of God and through eternal progression become Godlike,” (N. Eldon Tanner, “The Contributions of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1979, p.52).
• "The principal purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the ultimate goal of eternal progression is to receive eternal life, i.e., to become as God is. It is thoroughly understood, however, that a vast majority of the human family will never become gods, because to do so they must accept the true gospel, receive all of the ordinances-including celestial marriage-and obey all of God's commandments faithfully to the end," (Milton R. Hunter, Christ in Ancient America, p.168).
Joseph Smith: June 16, 1844 sermon he said:
I will preach on the plurality of Gods. . . . 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. (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 474)
Joseph Smith: According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, ... (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32)
Joseph Smith- In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 130, verse 22, we read:
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.
Joseph Smith: These are the first principles of consolation. ... To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 306)

They get it from Joseph Smith. Follow the "prophet."

nrajeffreturns
09-18-2013, 05:51 AM
I see NOTHING in there about "I'm marrying wives because God, as an exalted man, did that very same thing."

So it looks like it's Strike 4 for you.

jdjhere
09-18-2013, 07:34 AM
OK, so? It is CLEARLY taught .... and could you please explain to us why Joseph Smith took all these wives or concubines or whatever it is he called them and explain to us why Brigham Young taught that plural marriage MUST be entered into to get into the celestial heaven- "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses 11:269 Aug. 19, 1866)

By the way....Did Orson Pratt lie then?

Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt explains:
"Each God (plural), through his wife or wives (plural), raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever and ever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits, and his Heavenly inheritance becomes too small, to comfortably accommodate his great family, he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world, after a similar order to the one which we now inhabit, where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones. Thus each God (plural) forms a world for the accommodation of his own sons and daughters who are sent forth in their times and seasons, and generations to be born into the same. The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited" (The Seer, p. 37).

James Banta
09-18-2013, 07:57 AM
I see NOTHING in there about "I'm marrying wives because God, as an exalted man, did that very same thing."

So it looks like it's Strike 4 for you.

I would say that you have fouled out. It is clear from all mormon doctrine that God is married and even a polygamist. It is clear that even the virgin Mary was considered one of God's wives by an Apostle of the LDS church.. You are very thin ice of truthfulness and about ready to break through by this denial.. IHS jim

jdjhere
09-18-2013, 08:06 AM
Funny... I don't even play baseball.

Its a slight of hand in the beliefs arena, James. Re-write history... deny "prophets" said certain things, even things recorded by LDS scribes (King Follett Discourse)... deny things clearly taught AND practiced. Amazing.

nrajeffreturns- Could you please explain these things that were said or taught then? You just keep asking for something I believe I have already given you and you just keep saying "nuh-uh" to all the quotes I have given you to what your "prophets" have stated or taught. Could you please give us some explanations of some of these verses then?

Let's start with this one- "Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt explains:

"Each God (plural), through his wife or wives (plural), raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters; indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever and ever. As soon as each God (plural) has begotten many millions of male and female spirits, and his Heavenly inheritance becomes too small, to comfortably accommodate his great family, he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world, after a similar order to the one which we now inhabit, where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones. Thus each God (plural) forms a world for the accommodation of his own sons and daughters who are sent forth in their times and seasons, and generations to be born into the same. The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited" (The Seer, p. 37)

What did Orson Pratt mean by this above statement??

Thanks.

nrajeffreturns
09-18-2013, 12:24 PM
JD, you are going further and further AWAY from supporting your original claim. Now you're appealing to something that Orson Pratt said, as proof that Joseph Smith taught it.

I guess you aren't aware that Orson Pratt was a loose cannon who said a lot of stuff that was his own personal speculation and opinion, and was so NOT LDS doctrine that he was kicked out as an apostle, and had to make public APOLOGIES and confessions that his opinions and speculations were out of line and should NOT be ***umed to be church doctrines.

Plus, I didn't see where even Pratt said that JOSEPH SMITH taught "I'm marrying wives because God, as an exalted man, did that very same thing."

Remember? Your claim is that Joseph Smith taught it. Not that some of his apostles, or successors seem to have taught it.

Strike 5.

jdjhere
09-18-2013, 12:56 PM
Ok. So, Orson Pratt is "out" as an apostle then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Pratt Thats one down. Tell me... WHO can be trusted in the LDS church as to their apostleship, prophetship, etc. How about Mormon Apostle James Talmage?:
"We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement (this is an oxymoron)-- a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share" (The Articles of Faith, p. 430).

Explain this verse. Is James Talmage a loose cannon as well?

nrajeffstated: "Your claim is that Joseph Smith taught it."

I not only claim that he taught it but I also claim that he LIVED it. His wives / concubines and statements prove it. You are denying history and your "prophets" own statements. Yeah yeah yeah... I know... strike 6. Whatever.

Following the revelations he received, Joseph Smith taught with authority many truths recorded in the Bible which previously had not been understood. Some of these are: that we are spirit children of God, that we had a pre-mortal existence, that we are in mortality to prove ourselves, and that if we are faithful we can return to live eternally in the presence of God and through eternal progression become Godlike,” (N. Eldon Tanner, “The Contributions of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1979, p.52).

Is N. Eldon Tanner a "rogue" apostle as well?

Joseph Smith: June 16, 1844 sermon:
"I will preach on the plurality of Gods. . . . 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. (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 474)
Joseph Smith: According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, ... (Doctrine and Covenants 121:32)
Joseph Smith- In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 130, verse 22, we read:
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.
Joseph Smith: These are the first principles of consolation. ... To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 306)

In 1842 Joseph Smith began the publication of his Book of Abraham which has a number of references to plural gods. For example, Abraham 4:1 states
...they, that is, the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

jdjhere
09-18-2013, 01:37 PM
Apostle LeGrand Richards (1886 - 1983):
“Your third question: ‘Is the Adam-God Doctrine, as taught in the Journal of Discourses, true?’ Answer: No.”
- Apostle LeGrand Richards, Letter, dated May 11, 1966; online at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech8.htm

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie (1915 - 1985):

“Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the Father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel.... Wise gospel students do not build their philosophies of life on the quotations of individuals, even though those quotations come from presidents of the Church.”
- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Apostle, “Letter to Mr. Eugene England,” dated Feb. 19, 1981; online at http://home.teleport.com/~packham/contra.htm

Wow! Who CAN YOU believe then?? I thought these guys were living prophets on earth?

jdjhere
09-18-2013, 01:50 PM
http://www.ldslearning.org/heavenlymother.htm Interesting page that goes along with eternal progression and mother gods existence. Just one more confusing teaching in the LDS church.

nrajeffreturns, do you believe Jesus had a wife (or wives) and children?

James Banta
09-19-2013, 07:44 AM
http://www.ldslearning.org/heavenlymother.htm Interesting page that goes along with eternal progression and mother gods existence. Just one more confusing teaching in the LDS church.

nrajeffreturns, do you believe Jesus had a wife (or wives) and children?

According to Brigham Young we could have entered exaltation without being a polygamist, or at least being a polygamist in His heart.. So I guess all believing LDS would have to say "Yes, Jesus was married and had children".. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
09-19-2013, 11:17 AM
nrajeffreturns, do you believe Jesus had a wife (or wives) and children?

I see nothing in the scriptures that say that Jesus, as a mortal, had any children, so my belief is "no" in that regard. As for a wife, there is a little evidence for that claim, and zero evidence against, but I haven't decided one way or another. I am keeping an open mind until more evidence is there to consider.

Now that I have answered, how does my answer help you support your claim that Joseph Smith taught that by having multiple wives AS A MORTAL, he was doing the same thing that God, as an exalted man, had done?

RealFakeHair
09-19-2013, 11:58 AM
I see nothing in the scriptures that say that Jesus, as a mortal, had any children, so my belief is "no" in that regard. As for a wife, there is a little evidence for that claim, and zero evidence against, but I haven't decided one way or another. I am keeping an open mind until more evidence is there to consider.

Now that I have answered, how does my answer help you support your claim that Joseph Smith taught that by having multiple wives AS A MORTAL, he was doing the same thing that God, as an exalted man, had done?

Another luke warm mormon here. lol
Man up and believe all of what your prophet said!

nrajeffreturns
09-19-2013, 01:03 PM
Another luke warm mormon here. lol
Man up and believe all of what your prophet said!

Don't you mean "Man up and believe all that us antis believe your prophet said" ???

Billyray
09-19-2013, 04:21 PM
Don't you mean "Man up and believe all that us antis believe your prophet said" ???
Jeff what your prophets have said is written in plain English. Why not accept what they have said?

nrajeffreturns
09-19-2013, 07:00 PM
Jeff what your prophets have said is written in plain English. Why not accept what they have said?
The Bible is written in plain English, too, yet people have been arguing over what their intended meaning is for almost as long as there has been an English language.

Billyray
09-20-2013, 12:58 AM
The Bible is written in plain English, too, yet people have been arguing over what their intended meaning is for almost as long as there has been an English language.
The problem is that you don't believe that the Bible is the word of God as written--rather you believe the LDS lie that large sections have been ripped out and the text that we have today have been corrupted by evil men.

nrajeffreturns
09-20-2013, 05:27 AM
The problem is that you don't believe that the Bible is the word of God as written--r.

...as written by WHO? The original authors? Or as it currently exists? I believe that what the original authors wrote was inspired and doctrinally correct. I believe that TODAY'S Bible is inspired and doctrinally correct wherever it has stayed true to what the original authors intended their words to mean.

So I agree, essentially, with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy to a large degree, I think.

Is that a problem?

jdjhere
09-20-2013, 08:43 AM
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:303-304

"I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in their own heart, what kind of a being God is? ... Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen him, heard him, or communed with him? . . . God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make Himself visible, I say -- if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in form -- like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God Himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."

Ok, so God the Father was once a man… yes, nrajeffreturns??

Joseph Smith: These are the first principles of consolation. ... To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 306)

nrajeffreturns: Who are these "same as those who have gone before" Joseph is referencing here?

Brigham Young taught it as well, and where did he get the idea from?
"If you have in your hearts to say…'we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"-the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. The Lord gave a revelation through Joseph Smith, His servant; and we have believed and practiced it. -Journal of Discourses 11:269 (Aug. 19, 1866)

nrajeffreturns: How are you with Milton R. Hunter?

"The principal purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the ultimate goal of eternal progression is to receive eternal life, i.e., to become as God is. It is thoroughly understood, however, that a vast majority of the human family will never become gods, because to do so they must accept the true gospel, receive all of the ordinances-including celestial marriage-and obey all of God's commandments faithfully to the end," (Milton R. Hunter, Christ in Ancient America, p.168).


Post #130 (nrajeffreturns stated) "How can you not see that your quote does NOT support your claim that Joseph Smith TAUGHT that what he did…"
If Joseph DID this you don't think he taught it by example??

nrajeffreturns- Why would Brigham practice polygamy if Joseph ever retracted it or never taught it? Was Brigham Young a "loose cannon" as well? Did he just come up with this idea on his own then? Historical evidence (historical writings) show JS as being a polygamist, even Emma being upset about it and God threatening to "destroy her" if she did not accept it. We have a list of concubines. We have other apostles in the LDS church teaching it or practicing it. We have splinter groups we still see today following more closely what Joseph Smith DID than the LDS church does.

I don't see how you can honestly or logically deny this, nrajeffreturns.

James Banta
09-20-2013, 09:25 AM
The Bible is written in plain English, too, yet people have been arguing over what their intended meaning is for almost as long as there has been an English language.

Ask any Believing Bible scholar of any sect.. The message of God is the same to all.. All who believe it's message.. To the doubters and the cultists it is contradictory, with many changes over the years.. I know you believe the Bible to be inaccurate so which do you see yourself as a doubter of a cultist? IHS jim

James Banta
09-20-2013, 09:35 AM
Yes, we all sin---all this knowledge of James sin did was teach me a little bit about him. It actually gives me more comp***ion for him. I understand that he has experienced some far greater trouble than I had realized.

This I also know with a surety. Had he stayed in the church and stayed close to the Spirit, this would not have happened. As I noted, those "feelings' that are often looked so down on by those here--those feelings have the capacity to guide and direct one back to God (such as guilt) and take away any desire to sin because when God touches our heart, it does more than any intellectual understanding of God can do. God is not just found in the page of a book--He is found within us when we seek Him. James could have spared his wife the pain I am sure she felt.

My sin was 10 years ago Julie without a reoccurrence.. I have confessed it, I have taken it to God, I had to take my humps over it as well. I lost a lot during that time. I deserved to lose a lot more but by God's grace I was forgiven.. Seems the only people now that hold this sin against me committed so long ago are either those with an agenda to so how evil someone is when they leave mormonism or disbelieve the Bible about what God does with sin of which we repent.. Disbelievers and haters.. Which one of those are you siding with Julie?

Rev 12:10
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Seems that after I had repented and that is shown by the fact that no further sin has sprung up in me that the only one left to accuse me before God is Satan.. Who are you willing to side with here Jesus who was crucified shedding His blood that I might gain forgiveness or Satan who still accuses me before God even up to the day when he will finally be cast down? Will you trust in repentance as shown in the word of God or ally with Satan in your continued accusation of those Jesus died to forgive? Most of the LDS here have determined that being allied with Satan in keeping the accusation in front and center is the right way to go..

While I will not run from the fact that I sinned, I will confess it to anyone who asks, it is not on the forefront of my mind any longer.. Old things have pasted away Jesus has made everything New.. Go ahead and deny that, I won't judge you by what you have done, but I will by what you are doing.. If you insist on being allied with Satan I will see you as being his child..

No one in the LDS church has ever committed such a sin now have they?

Albert Carrington, who once named to the church hierarchy used his authority to seduce far younger women, including British converts barely out of their teens. Despite allegations stretching back a decade, Carrington escaped punishment until one of his mistresses confessed the sexual escapades to her new husband. ( Doug Gibson , Ogden Standard-Examiner March 19, 2012)

Yes that was a while ago and yet since that time there have been other men of lesser prominence that have found themselves chained by sexual sin, bishops, stake presidents, missionaries.. All members in good standing when they sinned and yet I sinned only because I left mormonism.. I sinned because I was weak and allowed my flesh to overrule my spirit.. I know your emotion want to deny that "Good" LDS people can sin but the facts are that they can and do sin.. Most are not as forthcoming as I have been about it.. When I was asked. I didn't lie but confessed it even those you and your people.. That is rare inside mormonism.. IHS jim

IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
09-20-2013, 11:17 AM
Ok, so God the Father was once a man… yes, nrajeffreturns??
Just like His Son, according to the Bible. Jesus was once mortal, but is now immortal, & glorified. How does that help you support your claim that Joseph Smith taught that by having multiple wives, he was doing the same thing God, as an exalted man, had done?

You know the answer: IT DOESN'T.


nrajeffreturns: Who are these "same as those who have gone before" Joseph is referencing here?
They are other beings who started out as mortals, but who inherited eternal life and thus were deified.
But how does that help you support your claim that Joseph Smith taught that by having multiple wives, he was doing the same thing God, as an exalted man, had done?

You know the answer: IT DOESN'T.


Brigham Young taught it as well, and where did he get the idea from?
He had his own thoughts and ideas and opinions. Using your logic, the stuff Isaiah taught had to also be the stuff that Moses taught, because, well, if he didn't get it Moses, then where did he get his ideas from?

nrajeffreturns: How are you with Milton R. Hunter?
I like him. I agree with some of his scholarship. I have at least one copy of the book you're about to cite. But how does M. Hunter's statement help you support your claim that Joseph Smith taught that by having multiple wives, he was doing the same thing God, as an exalted man, had done?

You know the answer: IT DOESN'T.

"The principal purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the ultimate goal of eternal progression is to receive eternal life, i.e., to become as God is. It is thoroughly understood, however, that a vast majority of the human family will never become gods, because to do so they must accept the true gospel, receive all of the ordinances-including celestial marriage-and obey all of God's commandments faithfully to the end," (Milton R. Hunter, Christ in Ancient America, p.168).
Celestial marriage is marriage that lasts beyond death. It's not necessarily POLYGAMY. My wife and I were married under the ordinance of celestial marriage, where if we are both faithful to Christ's commandments, we stay married even after we die. No one said "Oh, you also have to be polygamists, too."


If Joseph DID this you don't think he taught it by example??
How does that help you support your claim that Joseph Smith taught that by having multiple wives, he was doing the same thing God, as an exalted man, had done?

You know the answer: IT DOESN'T.


nrajeffreturns- Why would Brigham practice polygamy if Joseph ever retracted it or never taught it?
Only 20% of LDS men ever had multiple wives. Joseph Smith never taught that everyone was required to be polygamists. But that is irrelevant to your problem, because what you're supposed to be proving is that Joseph Smith taught that by having multiple wives, he was doing the same thing God, as an exalted man, had done, and are you proving that?

You know the answer: No.


Was Brigham Young a "loose cannon" as well?
Most people think he was occasionally, as do I. He was free to express his opinion on any number of issues, such as whether the Sun is inhabited.


Did he just come up with this idea on his own then?
Wait, you're getting ahead of yourself. Have you shown that Brigham Young taught that by having multiple wives, he was doing the same thing God, as an exalted man, had done?

You know the answer.


Historical evidence (historical writings) show JS as being a polygamist, even Emma being upset about it and God threatening to "destroy her" if she did not accept it.
Yes, so what?


We have a list of concubines.
We do? Who are these concubines?


We have other apostles in the LDS church teaching it or practicing it. We have splinter groups we still see today following more closely what Joseph Smith DID than the LDS church does.
You have those people teaching that by having multiple wives, they are doing the same thing God, as an exalted man, had done?

When do you plan to provide the quotes to support that claim?


I don't see how you can honestly or logically deny this, nrajeffreturns.
I do so quite easily, since you have yet to provide any real evidence that supports your actual claim.

jdjhere
09-20-2013, 11:18 AM
Post #154 (JamesBanta) "No one in the LDS church has ever committed such a sin now have they?"

Joseph Smith- at least 29 girls (and some LDS claim he only had ONE wife (Emma) who was irrate about the whole matter but was told she would be "destroyed" if she did not accept all them that "god" gave to Joseph.
Emma Hale (Smith)
Jan. 17, 1827 The only woman to be legally wed to Joseph Smith, Jr. and whom he claimed publicly was his only spouse. Continued church activity within the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Throughout life and on her deathbed denied Joseph Smith, Jr. had plural wives. Claimed that the very first time she ever became aware of a polygamy revelation being attributed to Joseph Smith was when she read about it in Orson Pratt's booklet The Seer in 1853.
Fanny Alger
Early 1833 According to George D. Smith, Alger's marriage to Smith was attested to by several people, including Emma Smith, Warren Parish, Oliver Cowdery, and Heber C. Kimball. Compton cites Mosiah Han****'s handwritten report of his father Levi's account of the marriage ceremony of Smith and Alger, and records his father's account of negotiations between Levi and Smith in procuring their respective wives. Compton also notes that nineteenth-century Mormons in Utah, including Benjamin Johnson, Heber C. Kimball and Andrew Jenson, and former Mormons Chauncey Webb and Ann Eliza Webb Young, regarded the Smith-Alger relationship as a marriage. Historian Lawrence Foster ***erts a claim that later Mormons may have falsely ***umed there was a marriage where there was only a sexual relationship: he views the marriage of Alger to Joseph Smith as "debatable supposition" rather than "established fact".
Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris Historians Richard Lloyd Anderson and Scott H. Faulring dismiss this claim as being based on "no solid evidence". Compton L notes the following evidence: she is the third woman on Andrew Jenson's 1887 list of Joseph Smith's plural wives; Compton writes that "Sarah Pratt reported that while in Nauvoo Lucinda had admitted a long-standing relationship with Smith"; and that there is an "early Nauvoo temple proxy sealing to Smith...." This marriage was polyandrous, as Lucinda lived with her then husband George Washington Harris until about 1853. Compton believes the marriage occurred around 1838, when Smith was living with Lucinda and her husband.
Louisa Beaman
Apr. 5, 1841 Single (February 7, 1815 - May 16, 1850). Though Mormon history and press indicate Beaman was not baptized until May 11, 1843, she had migrated with Mormons to Nauvoo in 1839 or 1840. She has been called the "first plural wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith." After Smith's death, Beaman remarried, becoming the ninth wife of Brigham Young. They had five children together, all of whom predeceased Beaman, who died young at age 35. [U]Listed as a Smith plural wife by Joseph F. Smith, who noted 1869 affidavit of Beaman's brother-in-law Joseph B. Noble, stating he officiated at the wedding, William Clayton said Smith told him in February 1843 that Beaman was one of his plural wives. This would have been prior to her baptism.
Zina Diantha Huntington (Jacobs)
Oct. 27, 1841 Husband was Henry Bailey Jacobs, who was aware of Zina's plural marriage to Smith. Jacobs wrote, "Whatever the Prophet did [U]was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man." (Compton 1997, pp. 81–82) Sister of Presendia Huntington. After Smith's death, married Brigham Young while husband Jacobs was on mission to England.
Presendia Lathrop Huntington (Buell)
Dec. 11, 1841 (7 September 1810 in Watertown, New York - 1 February 1892 in Salt Lake City, Utah) Sister of Zina. After Smith's death, married Heber C. Kimball.
Agnes Moulton Coolbrith
Jan. 6, 1842 Single Widow of Smith's brother Don Carlos. (1808–1876). After Don Carlos died in 1841, Coolbrith married Joseph in 1842. Coolbrith was the mother of Ina Coolbrith, who became the first poet laureate of California.
Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon
Feb. 8, 1842 Daughter of David Sessions and Patty Bartlett Sessions, who married Joseph Smith one month after her daughter's marriage to him. On her deathbed, Sylvia informed her daughter Josephine Lyons that she was Smith's daughter:
"Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside … to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith." (Newell & Avery 1994, pp. 44, Compton 1997, pp. 183)
Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner Jan. 17, 1842 (9 April 1818 in Lima, New York–17 December 1913 in Minersville, Utah) Claimed that Smith had a private conversation with her in 1831 when she was twelve years old,
[At age 12 in 1831], [Smith] told me about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife. … In 1834 he was commanded to take me for a Wife … [In 1842} I went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing … for time, and all Eternity. I did just as Joseph told me to do.
After Smith's death, she remarried, becoming the 24th plural wife of Brigham Young. They married in 1845 and she bore him no children.
Patty Bartlett (Sessions)
Mar. 9, 1842 47 (4 February 1795 in Bethel, Maine - 14 December 1893 in Bountiful, Utah). Her daughter Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon, who had married Smith one month before, was present at Session's wedding to Smith.
Marinda Nancy Johnson (Hyde)
Apr. 1842
(28 June 1815 in Pomfret, Vermont - 24 March 1886 in Salt Lake City, Utah). Jon Krakauer wrote in Under the Banner of Heaven,
"In the summer of 1831 the Johnson family took Joseph and Emma Smith into their home as boarders, and soon thereafter the prophet purportedly bedded young Marinda. Unfortunately, the liaison did not go unnoticed, and a gang of indignant Ohioans—including a number of Mormons—resolved to ******** Joseph so that he would be disinclined to commit such acts of depravity in the future."
According to Anderson and Faulring, this claim is based on Bennett and "an ambiguous statement attributed to Sarah Pratt by the hostile journalist Wyl."
Emily Dow Partridge Mar. 4, 1843 Daughter of Edward Partridge and sister of Eliza. After Smith's death, she married Brigham Young. William Clayton listed her as one of Smith's wives married during the early May 1843 period.[41]
Eliza Maria PartridgeMar.8, 1843 Daughter of Edward Partridge and sister of Emily. Eliza married after Smith's death, to Amasa M. Lyman, who was already husband to Eliza's older sister, Caroline. William Clayton listed her as one of Smith's wives married during the early May 1843 period. Wrote about her plural marriage to Smith, "In the year 1842 President Joseph Smith sought an interview with me, and said, ‘I have a message for you, I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.' … He asked me if I believed him to be a Prophet of God. … He fully Explained to me the principle of plural or celestial marriage … that it would prove an everlasting blessing to my father's house. … [Joseph encouraged her to pray] 'that the grave would kindly receive me that I might find rest on the bosom of my dear [recently deceased] mother … Why Should I be chosen from among thy daughters, Father I am only a child in years and experience.' And thus I prayed in the agony of my soul. … [The marriage] was not a love matter—at least on my part it was not, but simply the giving up of myself as a sacrifice to establish that grand and glorious principle that God had revealed to the world."
Helen Mar Kimball May 1843 Daughter of Heber C. Kimball. At aged 14, Helen Mar Kimball wrote, "[My father] asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph … [Smith] said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father's household & all of your kindred. This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. … [After the marriage] I felt quite sore over it … and thought myself an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur." William Clayton listed her as one of Smith's wives married during the early May 1843 period.
Desdemona FullmerJul. 1843 (6 October 1809 in Huntington, Pennsylvania - 9 February 1886 in Salt Lake City, Utah). William Clayton said Smith told him in February 1843 that Fullmer was one of his plural wives.
Olive Grey Frost Summer 1843 (24 July 1816 in Bethel, Maine - 6 October 1845 in Nauvoo, Illinois) After Smith's death, Frost would remarry, becoming the eighteenth plural wife of Brigham Young. They married in 1844, and she bore him no children.
Mary Ann Frost (Pratt) Summer 1843 (14 January 1809 in Groton, Vermont - 24 August 1891 in Pleasant Grove, Utah) Sister of Olive Grey Frost. First married to Nathan Stearns in 1831 but he died about 18 months later. Baptized into LDS Church in 1835 by David W. Patten. Married Parley Parker Pratt on 14 May 1837 in Kirtland, Ohio. Moved to Missouri and Nauvoo with Pratt. Went on mission trip with Pratt to England in 1840. Returned from England without Pratt and was divorced soon after Pratt's return. Emigrated with the Harmon Cutler Company to Utah Territory in 1852. She was accompanied by her daughter Olivia Pratt (b. 1841) and son Moroni Llewellyn Pratt (b. 1844). They settled in Pleasant Grove, Utah.

I believe it would be stretching it to call all these people liars. There are more to list but I ran out of characters for this page!

jdjhere
09-20-2013, 11:44 AM
I truly believe that no matter what I give you or how much evidence is piled up on your head you just continue to put your head in the sand, nrajeffreturns. I believe even if you were alive when Joseph Smith was and walked in on him in the very act of this: (In 1838, Oliver Cowdery, one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, claimed that the married Joseph Smith had "A dirty, nasty, filthy affair" with a young woman named Fanny Alger) that you would STILL deny it. I do not even HAVE to give you what you ask for (though I believe I already have) for you to not be backed into a corner and keep asking for something that is irrelevant. Your church is chalked FULL of prophets, apostles, presidents, etc... that claim things at the slightest whim while the LDS boasts of having "living prophets" and such, all the while the members stating you can only believe maybe HALF of what they say. You are a PERFECT example of this. Thank you for chatting and making anyone that sees our discussion realize this. Everybody KNOWS where RLDS, FLDS and other splinter groups came from and why they are polygamists and why they are doing it, because Joseph Smith said "the same as those who have gone before." (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 306). Plural marriage, creating LDS spirits to inhabit bodies for progression, getting to the celestial heaven to become a "god" ALL started with the god that Joseph Smith preached, and that is why he said god was once a man. Good luck trying to convince anyone else of anything different.

"The principal purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the ultimate goal of eternal progression is to receive eternal life, i.e., to become as God is. It is thoroughly understood, however, that a vast majority of the human family will never become gods, because to do so they must accept the true gospel, receive all of the ordinances-including celestial marriage-and obey all of God's commandments faithfully to the end," (Milton R. Hunter, Christ in Ancient America, p.168).

nrajeffreturns: "I like him. I agree with some of his scholarship."

How about his above statement?

jdjhere
09-20-2013, 02:10 PM
Joseph Smith Jr History of the Church Chapter 6: 305-6 "and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power."

Why are wives "sealed" to LDS men in the temple? nrajeffreturns, would you like to answer that since you said you are sealed to your current wife? Thanks.

nrajeffreturns
09-20-2013, 09:15 PM
Why are wives "sealed" to LDS men in the temple? nrajeffreturns, would you like to answer that since you said you are sealed to your current wife? Thanks.
Sure, but I think I already told you in a previous post, so I am just telling you again: Sealing means that as long as both you and your wife are faithful, and are obedient to the commandments, your marriage can outlast death. That's ***uming you WANT to stay married forever, of course. Some people would go nuts being married to their spouse for eternity. As for me, it sounds great.

Billyray
09-20-2013, 10:14 PM
Sure, but I think I already told you in a previous post, so I am just telling you again: Sealing means that as long as both you and your wife are faithful, and are obedient to the commandments, your marriage can outlast death. That's ***uming you WANT to stay married forever, of course. Some people would go nuts being married to their spouse for eternity. As for me, it sounds great.

But Christ himself said that marriage ends at death. Another Mormon belief that contradicts the Bible.

James Banta
09-21-2013, 07:56 AM
Sure, but I think I already told you in a previous post, so I am just telling you again: Sealing means that as long as both you and your wife are faithful, and are obedient to the commandments, your marriage can outlast death. That's ***uming you WANT to stay married forever, of course. Some people would go nuts being married to their spouse for eternity. As for me, it sounds great.

We are told in the word that Love above all the other gifts of God is eternal. You love people, Good you will always love them.. If they share a faith with you in the God of the Bible you will always be with them. They will most likely have to be in second place as we will be in the arms of God experiencing His love first hand. Jesus tell us that those who are "worthy" of gaining that salvation are like the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30).. They are not like mortal men.. Marriage in not continued into eternity..

Again you put a condition on salvation that no one can rise to.. NO ONE, not you, not me is obedient.. There are over 600 commandments given in the OT. Most of which are unknown to modern society. There are over 1,000 commandment given in the NT among which is a command to be perfect as the Father in Heaven is perfect. That isn't a commandment that say "Do your best" to be as perfect as He is. It is a commandment to BE AS PERFECT AS HE IS.. Do you keep that commandment? You have scoffed at me when I have shown you from the Bible that Jesus was made to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Corinthians 5:21).. He took all our sin to the cross suffering the penalty for sin in our place so we can enjoy the blessing of eternal life in His righteousness. In that way a believer keeps the commandment of Matthew 22:30, as they keep all the commandments of God, all in the righteousness imputed on them because of their faith in Jesus (Romans 4:22-24)..

Your desire to be married eternally is a pipe dream.. No where in the scripture is this spoken of as fact.. Jesus never taught it when it was brought up as a possibility Jesus said "You err not knowing the scripture or the power of God" Your desire of eternal marriage that "Sound Great" to you are the ways of a man, not the ways of God.. IHS jim

jdjhere
09-21-2013, 08:31 AM
Ok, thanks for explaining your views again, nrajeffreturns. I appreciate the fact that you are here and open to dialogue. Please understand that even though at times I get very sarcastic and combative I have nothing against you personally. I don't even know you and you are probably a very nice person. I definitely do not consider you my enemy but just so there are no misunderstandings I DO consider false doctrine and the LDS church an enemy of God. I get VERY angry at THAT, and the Bible warns us to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." It is my responsibility as a Christian to warn you about this and I have tried to do that. We all have free choice to believe as we want and thank God we have that freedom. If you are correct (which I don't believe you are) I will settle for the 2nd or 3rd heaven in your beliefs. If I am correct (which I believe I am ) your very soul is at stake and I worry about that. Identification of who Jesus Christ is is critical. He is God incarnate and God does not change (Malachi 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I change not" and Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." There is ONLY one God and He is NOT an ever evolving Being- He is INFINITELY Holy, Righteous, Just and Good and has ALWAYS been God. There, I have said it and now the rest is up to you. Read the Bible ALONE for your search for God and pray while you read. That's all I can say about it.

Billyray
09-21-2013, 12:36 PM
Billyray
The problem is that you don't believe that the Bible is the word of God as written

nrajeff
...as written by WHO? The original authors? Or as it currently exists?
As it currently exists.

jdjhere
09-22-2013, 10:08 AM
As a sidenote, I never added this stuff for pre-existence of the soul or the mother-god theories:

Joseph Smith- “For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. . . . And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air; But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.” (Book of Moses 3:5-7. June – October 1830) (emphasis added).

Nrajeffreturns, would you mind explaining the LDS view of why God would create spirits in heaven first without bodies? What is the reason for this in the LDS view?

"Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (Abraham 3:22-23).
Joseph taught in 1839, “The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of Man & organized them.”

But WHERE did these spirits come from and how were they "created?"

Heavenly Mother is absent in the visionary experiences of Book of Mormon and Old and New Testament Prophets. The only recorded visionary experience is related by Zebedee Coltrin and recorded in the journal of Abraham H. Cannon.
"One day the Prophet Joseph asked him [Coltrin] and Sidney Rigdon to accompany him into the woods to pray. When they had reached a secluded spot Joseph laid down on his back and stretched out his arms. He told the brethren to lie one on each arm, and then shut their eyes. After they had prayed he told them to open their eyes. They did so and saw a brilliant light surrounding a pedestal which seemed to rest on the earth. They closed their eyes and again prayed. They then saw, on opening them, the Father seated upon a throne; they prayed again and on looking saw the Mother also; after praying and looking the fourth time they saw the Savior added to the group.

O My Father, LDS hymn #292, refers to a mother in heaven. Oh, What Songs of the Heart, LDS hymn #286, refers to "heavenly parents". The Family: A Proclamation to the World mentions "heavenly parents". Various LDS curriculum materials refer to a Heavenly Mother. E.g.: The Latter Day Saint Women, Lesson 9; "Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family", Gospel Principles, 11 (1997); Spencer W. Kimball, "The True Way of Life and Salvation", Ensign, May 1978, 4.

"O My Father" (originally "My Father in Heaven", also "Invocation, or The Eternal Father and Mother) is a Latter-day Saint hymn written by Eliza R. Snow, who felt inspired to write the lyrics after Joseph Smith had taught her the principle of heavenly parents. The hymn is significant in terms of Mormon theology in that it is one of the few direct references to a "Heavenly Mother" in materials published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
After discussing pre-mortal existence and a sense of belonging to "a more exalted sphere" in heaven, stanza three reasons that if there is an eternal Father there must also be an eternal Mother:

"I had learned to call thee Father, Through thy Spirit from on high,
But until the key of knowledge Was restored, I knew not why.
In the heavens are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare!
Truth is reason, truth eternal Tells me I've a mother there".

Snow wrote "O My Father" as a poem under the ***le "My Father in Heaven" in October 1845 in Nauvoo, Illinois. The Times and Seasons first published the words on 15 November 1845, more than a year after Joseph Smith, Jr. was killed. The poetry was later set to the music of another Christian hymn, "My Redeemer" by James McGranahan, and included in Latter-day Saint hymnals, including the current one. When a collection of Snow's poems were published in 1856, this work was placed first in the double-volume set and en***led "Invocation, or The Eternal Father and Mother".

RealFakeHair
09-22-2013, 10:21 AM
Sure, but I think I already told you in a previous post, so I am just telling you again: Sealing means that as long as both you and your wife are faithful, and are obedient to the commandments, your marriage can outlast death. That's ***uming you WANT to stay married forever, of course. Some people would go nuts being married to their spouse for eternity. As for me, it sounds great.

I want my 72 virgins, unless they are 72 year old virgins!

jdjhere
09-22-2013, 10:41 AM
Nrajeffreturns asked: “But how does that help you support your claim that Joseph Smith taught that by having multiple wives, he was doing the same thing God, as an exalted man, had done?”

Even though it is not an official doctrine of your church, it WAS taught by Smith…

Joseph Smith Jr History of the Church Chapter 6: 305-6 "and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power."

O My Father(originally "My Father in Heaven", also "Invocation, or The Eternal Father and Mother) is a Latter-day Saint hymn written by Eliza R. Snow, who felt inspired to write the lyrics after Joseph Smith had taught her the principle of heavenly parents.

"One day the Prophet Joseph asked him (Coltrin) and Sidney Rigdon to accompany him into the woods to pray. When they had reached a secluded spot Joseph laid down on his back and stretched out his arms. He told the brethren to lie one on each arm, and then shut their eyes. After they had prayed he told them to open their eyes. They did so and saw a brilliant light surrounding a pedestal which seemed to rest on the earth. They closed their eyes and again prayed. They then saw, on opening them, the Father seated upon a throne; they prayed again and on looking saw the Mother also; after praying and looking the fourth time they saw the Savior added to the group. (Recorded in the journal of Abraham H. Cannon.)

Brigham Young taught it as well, and where did he get the idea from?
"If you have in your hearts to say…'we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"-the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessing offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. The Lord gave a revelation through Joseph Smith, His servant; and we have believed and practiced it. -Journal of Discourses 11:269 (Aug. 19, 1866)

nrajeffreturns
09-22-2013, 11:04 PM
But Christ himself said that marriage ends at death.

You won't be able to find a verse where Jesus says that all marriages necessarily get dissolved upon death.
If you try to the use one that says that in the resurrection no marriages are performed, you have lost the debate, since it can be true that in the resurrection no marriages are performed while also be true that people who get married BEFORE Resurrection Day can remain married if they want to.

That is the always-fatal flaw in trying that verse as a proof-text. Just saying....

nrajeffreturns
09-22-2013, 11:10 PM
...as written by WHO? The original authors? Or as it currently exists?


As it currently exists.

Thanks for clarifying. Now I can resume this debate with you, and simultaneously continue another debate with jdj. Not easy, because I am not good at multi-tasking.

So as I said, I believe that what the original authors wrote was inspired and doctrinally correct. I believe that TODAY'S Bible is inspired and doctrinally correct wherever it has stayed true to what the original authors intended their words to mean.

So I agree, essentially, with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy to a large degree, I think.

Is that a problem? Do you have a problem with the Chicago Statement?

nrajeffreturns
09-22-2013, 11:11 PM
I want my 72 virgins, unless they are 72 year old virgins!
The good news: Yes, you can have young ones.
The bad news: They're all men.

RealFakeHair
09-23-2013, 07:54 AM
...as written by WHO? The original authors? Or as it currently exists? I believe that what the original authors wrote was inspired and doctrinally correct. I believe that TODAY'S Bible is inspired and doctrinally correct wherever it has stayed true to what the original authors intended their words to mean.

So I agree, essentially, with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy to a large degree, I think.

Is that a problem?

There is a dis-connect here. On the one had you take everything Joseph Smith jr. wrote, and from a maginary book called the Book of Mormon, yet you question the Holy Bible. Beam me up Scottie.

James Banta
09-23-2013, 08:14 AM
...as written by WHO? The original authors? Or as it currently exists?



Thanks for clarifying. Now I can resume this debate with you, and simultaneously continue another debate with jdj. Not easy, because I am not good at multi-tasking.

So as I said, I believe that what the original authors wrote was inspired and doctrinally correct. I believe that TODAY'S Bible is inspired and doctrinally correct wherever it has stayed true to what the original authors intended their words to mean.

So I agree, essentially, with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy to a large degree, I think.

Is that a problem? Do you have a problem with the Chicago Statement?

Jeff you haven't shown, even one instance, that the message of the scripture has been in anyway corrupted.. There is nothing to so that the intent, the meaning, of the scripture has in anyway been changed.. The facts are that all men are sinners, that God in the person of Jesus took on mortal flesh died for the sins of all, and offers salvation by His grace to all that hold faith in Him.. I have shown clearly here that a message doesn't have to use the same words to have the same meaning.. It is the message that is the word of God not the thees and thous of the KJV of the Bible.. You seem to agree with that and yet you are allowing the wording used by translators to cause you to stumble.. Forget the small things . Put away the LDS idea that taught that not even a single verse of the scripture has escaped corruption as to be able to convey the same meaning as the original writers put within then as the Holy Spirit gave to them.. IHS jim

Billyray
09-23-2013, 02:23 PM
So as I said, I believe that what the original authors wrote was inspired and doctrinally correct.

But in the example that you gave me you said that Matthew got it wrong.

jdjhere
09-23-2013, 02:42 PM
nrajeffreturns stated: "Now I can resume this debate with you, and simultaneously continue another debate with jdj. Not easy, because I am not good at multi-tasking.

Dont worry about me, Jeff. I will be around.

Billyray
09-23-2013, 06:09 PM
So I agree, essentially, with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy to a large degree, I think.

Is that a problem? Do you have a problem with the Chicago Statement?
You don't agree with the Chicago Statement because you believe that that Bible has been corrupted--which would include all of the additions that Joseph Smith made in his JST. The problem is that there is no evidence for all of the changes that Joseph made in the Bible--especially the section where he wrote himself into the Bible.

nrajeffreturns
09-24-2013, 05:16 AM
There is a dis-connect here.
Yes--and the location of that disconnect is between the facts and your mistaken inferences. :)


On the one had you take everything Joseph Smith jr. wrote, and from a maginary book called the Book of Mormon, yet you question the Holy Bible
Nice try, but the facts are these: I believe BOTH of them contain inspired scripture, and I believe that what the original authors wrote in BOTH of them was inspired and doctrinally correct . I believe that TODAY'S Bible and BOM are inspired and doctrinally correct wherever they have stayed true to what the original authors intended their words to mean.


Beam me up Scottie.
Scottie can't beam you up until you acknowledge that.

James Banta
09-24-2013, 07:53 AM
Yes--and the location of that disconnect is between the facts and your mistaken inferences. :)


Nice try, but the facts are these: I believe BOTH of them contain inspired scripture, and I believe that what the original authors wrote in BOTH of them was inspired and doctrinally correct . I believe that TODAY'S Bible and BOM are inspired and doctrinally correct wherever they have stayed true to what the original authors intended their words to mean.


Scottie can't beam you up until you acknowledge that.

What you believe are not necessarily facts.. They are positions of your faith.. That isn't bad I have positions of my faith just like you do, The first is that I believe that Jesus is God, being God the whole of the Bible is His word.. Then I couple that to His promise that His words would never p*** away, even if heaven and earth do. Therefore through my faith in who Jesus is I hold that the Bible is both pure and complete.. It needs no other testament. It has the authority to point us toward the one true God, it has the power through the Holy Spirit to direct all peoples to salvation. It tells us we are saved by God's grace (Unmerited favor) through faith in Jesus. Not through grace AFTER ALL WE CAN DO.. No person has ever done all they could do. Not even Jesus.. There were still people who were blind, lame, and possessed by evil spirits in Judah as He walked among us but because of the flesh He was limited.. He did what He did in fulfillment of prophecy..

We are much less likely to do all we can do. We will watch a movie instead of study His word. We will visit with friends before to go out to spread the word of God. We sleep instead of pray. No one alive does ALL THEY CAN DO.. I don't claim that what I teach are facts. I do claim that those things I teach are BIBLICAL.. IHS jim

RealFakeHair
09-24-2013, 08:11 AM
Yes--and the location of that disconnect is between the facts and your mistaken inferences. :)


Nice try, but the facts are these: I believe BOTH of them contain inspired scripture, and I believe that what the original authors wrote in BOTH of them was inspired and doctrinally correct . I believe that TODAY'S Bible and BOM are inspired and doctrinally correct wherever they have stayed true to what the original authors intended their words to mean.


Scottie can't beam you up until you acknowledge that.

Scottie, beamed me up and said, "now go back down and wait for his answer about Joseph Smith jr.

MacG
09-24-2013, 02:24 PM
I believe that TODAY'S Bible and BOM are inspired and doctrinally correct wherever they have stayed true to what the original authors intended their words to mean..

One of the ways we clear the errors of transmission is by finding older copies and their fragments. The Bible due to its wide spread acceptance and reverence for it has the benefit of going back in time as it were. What we find is that is is largely been transmitted faithfully with few errors of import. Fragments that we have are copies of bible texts without dispute. So one would think the bible is a reliable foundation for believability from these types of forensics.

The Book of Mormon however has the severe handicap of only one copy to go from and nothing further back to indicate its accuracy of transmission through JS. It is as if it appeared whole cloth in the 1800's. You have to take his word for it. This handicap leaves those who trust it in a conundrum. One one hand it is believed to be accurate insofar as it has been accurately translated and on the other hand nothing to check it against for such errors. One has no idea where it has been incorrectly translated much less where it has been accurately translated.

More over when some of the sacred texts are purported to be one thing and translated into the Book of Abraham and forensically it turns out to be an entirely different sacred text then that casts shadows on the unverifiable transmission of the BoM. Degradation by ***ociation.

Bible texts are never anything other than bible texts and we have fragments back to the first century. The BoM has no such support. I suppose more faith is need to believe it in the face of these forensics but then that's why it is called faith, no?

nrajeffreturns
09-24-2013, 08:36 PM
But in the example that you gave me you said that Matthew got it wrong.

Did I really say that? I could have sworn that what I said was that

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.

nrajeffreturns
09-24-2013, 09:57 PM
Getting back to why I like this forum much more than I like C@%m, guess what I just got? An infraction for QUOTING BrianH. Apparently, quoting his insults and using them as responses to his other insults, is insulting to him, and guess who gets punished? Not him, nooooooo. It's the person who merely quotes what he said. Somehow, for some unfathomable reason, when he says it then it's fine, but when you quote him saying it, you have insulted him. I will never understand how that works in the fevered minds of Cram mods.

Dear NRA-Jeff,
You have received an infraction at Christian Discussion Forums | CARM Christian Forums | Christian Chat.

Reason: Rule 12: Insulted Other Member(s). Attacking users.

Original Post:http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4783028
Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
I guess we can add paranoia to the long list of deleterious side-effects of Mormonism.

(then I quoted his insult/attack he later made on ME:

"Just more pseudo-cleaver adolescent jeering. No substance. No argument. No reasoning. Just ...jeering.
That's just ...pitiful," BRIAN.

(then he said)
...the intellectual and spiritual poverty induced by your religion...

(so I quoted him again)

"Just more pseudo-cleaver adolescent jeering. No substance. No argument. No reasoning. Just ...jeering.
That's just ...pitiful," BRIAN.

(then he said this about another pro-LDS poster)
..Thus, I have no more use for him.

(my response was this)
So you view yourself as so superior that others are just here for your use, and when you have no more use for them, you feel that they should be disposed of, by you. Interesting insight into some people's egos.

Billyray
09-25-2013, 09:48 PM
Did I really say that? I could have sworn that what I said was that

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.
Yea you did say that Matthew got it wrong.


Matthew 27:9-10 reads:

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." (ESV)

There is no such verse in Jeremiah. Matthew is instead (very loosely) quoting Zechariah 11:13:
Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter. (ESV)"

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.
So are you going to retract your statement?

nrajeffreturns
09-26-2013, 11:17 AM
Yea you did say that Matthew got it wrong.
You are making a false statement, and it's hard to figure out how you could take

"the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake"

and conclude that I said that Matthew got it wrong.


So are you going to retract your statement?

L O L

Let's look at your fallacious reasoning: Suppose you found a verse in the BOM that said that 2+2=5, and you found a Bible verse saying that 2+2=4. So you concluded "Either the BOM or the Bible is wrong." (Since there's no way they could both be right)

Using your fallacious reasoning, you would be accusing the Bible of being wrong.

See how fallacious that is?

RealFakeHair
09-26-2013, 12:08 PM
You are making a false statement, and it's hard to figure out how you could take

"the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake"

and conclude that I said that Matthew got it wrong.



L O L

Let's look at your fallacious reasoning: Suppose you found a verse in the BOM that said that 2+2=5, and you found a Bible verse saying that 2+2=4. So you concluded "Either the BOM or the Bible is wrong." (Since there's no way they could both be right)

Using your fallacious reasoning, you would be accusing the Bible of being wrong.

See how fallacious that is?

What, 2=2 aint 5? Even Joseph Smith jr. knows 2+2=5.
The fact is we have only Joseph Smith jr. Word on the Book of Mormon, and that is how he found it. The angel Boroni told him to walk about the Hill Coocumorah four times, but as we know he walked around it 5 times thus he missed the real book of moron and the rest is history.

Billyray
09-26-2013, 12:30 PM
You are making a false statement, and it's hard to figure out how you could take

"the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake"

and conclude that I said that Matthew got it wrong.

You are the one who mentioned that Matthew got it wrong. Or are you now saying that Matthew got it right and the mistake was made later? Which is it? You are the one who makes the claim the the Bible is wrong but you are having a hard time telling me where the a so called mistake crept into the Bible.

nrajeffreturns
09-26-2013, 12:45 PM
You are the one who mentioned that Matthew got it wrong.
What part of

"Matthew OR A SCRIBE got it wrong"

is tripping you up and causing you to make the obviously FALSE claim that I said that Matthew got it wrong?

And are you saying that the scribe got it wrong?

jdjhere
09-26-2013, 01:02 PM
What part of Matthew are you guys talking about?

RealFakeHair
09-26-2013, 01:22 PM
What part of Matthew are you guys talking about?

lol, with a mormon what does it matter about any part of the Holy Bible? Oh I guss with the exception of the Joseph Smith jr. Plagiarized edition.

MacG
09-26-2013, 02:55 PM
What part of Matthew are you guys talking about?

Where Matthew quoted Jeremiah but in reality the idea is found in Zedekiah. But don't quote me on that :)

nrajeffreturns
09-26-2013, 03:21 PM
What part of Matthew are you guys talking about?

Scroll up 5 posts before your post asking this, to Post 181, where you should find the latest instance of it, OR look below, where I will re-re-repeat it:

Matthew 27:9-10 reads:

"Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me." (ESV)

There is no such verse in Jeremiah. Matthew is instead (very loosely) quoting Zechariah 11:13:
Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter" - the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter. (ESV)"

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.

MacG
09-26-2013, 05:19 PM
Scroll up 5 posts before your post asking this, to Post 181, where you should find the latest instance of it, OR look below, where I will re-re-repeat it:

Matthew 27:9-10 reads:

IMO, the most likely explanation for this is that Matthew or a careless scribe made a mistake and named the wrong prophet in the m****cript.

Either way, these verses are in the Bible, and one of them is incorrect.

Other's POV is that the order of the books or rather scrolls played a part in this. It seems that it was customary to refer to the first book of the scroll, in this case Jeremiah, even if the 'quoted' material was further in and by another writer.

Some make the case that Matthew says it was spoken by Jeremiah and therefore may have been referring to an oral tradition but I am not sure that is a very powerful apologetic - it seems to speculative. I much prefer the first one.

There is a little more here (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=658)

nrajeffreturns
09-26-2013, 06:50 PM
Other's POV is that the order of the books or rather scrolls played a part in this. It seems that it was customary to refer to the first book of the scroll, in this case Jeremiah, even if the 'quoted' material was further in and by another writer.
Some make the case that Matthew says it was spoken by Jeremiah and therefore may have been referring to an oral tradition but I am not sure that is a very powerful apologetic - it seems to speculative. I much prefer the first one.There is a little more here (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=658)

Thanks for that competing theory, Mac, but the simpler explanation--that Matthew or more probably a scribe just wrote the wrong prophet, no harm, no foul--is more likely the correct one, IMO.

This discrepancy is only a big deal to people who raise the Bible's authors AND copyists to the level of God, and feel compelled to believe that it's impossible for an author or copyist to accidentally put in the wrong word occasionally.

It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, nor does it mean that the scriptures aren't inspired. It just means that of mortal humans and God, only God doesn't make mistakes.

Such mistakes surely don't diminish my faith in God one bit.

Billyray
09-26-2013, 06:57 PM
What part of

"Matthew OR A SCRIBE got it wrong"

is tripping you up and causing you to make the obviously FALSE claim that I said that Matthew got it wrong?

And are you saying that the scribe got it wrong?
So do you think Matthew may have gotten it wrong? This is a simple question Jeff.

nrajeffreturns
09-26-2013, 08:47 PM
So do you think Matthew may have gotten it wrong? This is a simple question Jeff.

"...of mortal humans and God, only God doesn't make mistakes."

Why didn't that answer your question the first time?

Billyray
09-26-2013, 10:51 PM
"...of mortal humans and God, only God doesn't make mistakes."

Why didn't that answer your question the first time?

It makes a big difference to understand your position so we can tease out your theory. On the one hand you believe that Matthew got it wrong which would mean that you don't even believe that the original was correct. This also goes against what your own church teaches. On the other hand you have big problems with your theory but we haven't gotten there yet. Perhaps you can give us a succinct story line to fit what you really believe and then we can go from there.

nrajeffreturns
09-26-2013, 11:06 PM
Well, given the obvious fact that someone got it wrong (unless the theory Mac cited is the solution), I will state that I think it's more likely that a scribe/copyist was the one who made the mistake, then Matthew himself.


Why, Billy? Which of the 2 do YOU think made the mistake? Matthew, or a scribe or copyist? I gave you my answer, now you give yours.

Billyray
09-27-2013, 12:01 AM
Well, given the obvious fact that someone got it wrong (unless the theory Mac cited is the solution), I will state that I think it's more likely that a scribe/copyist was the one who made the mistake, then Matthew himself.

OK so you are going to drop Matthew as the culprit for this "so-called" error. Fair enough. Now you are going with the scribe/copyist as the one who made a mistake. When do you think that this mistake took place?

BTW I don't think it is a mistake--rather I believe that what we have is exactly what Matthew wrote down originally.

MacG
09-27-2013, 09:56 AM
Thanks for that competing theory, Mac, but the simpler explanation--that Matthew or more probably a scribe just wrote the wrong prophet, no harm, no foul--is more likely the correct one, IMO.

This discrepancy is only a big deal to people who raise the Bible's authors AND copyists to the level of God, and feel compelled to believe that it's impossible for an author or copyist to accidentally put in the wrong word occasionally.

It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, nor does it mean that the scriptures aren't inspired. It just means that of mortal humans and God, only God doesn't make mistakes.

Such mistakes surely don't diminish my faith in God one bit.

I find it interesting that you would hand wave off an historical indexing practice in favor of your prejudice for corruption. I mean isn't it more better to weed out our misperceptions when we can for a more accurate presentation and understanding of life 2k years ago and what cultural framework the writers were influenced by? I recognize that accepting such an explanation would remove one more perceived error in the text and force one to recognize ones bias may not be as comprehensive or unified as once thought but it would be more accurate representation of the text. For me accepting it means one more answer to those who ask about these kinds of things one less hurdle on the path to Christ.

We make use of the same ***umption mechanism really. I ***ume because there are explanations for things such as this there will be more and that there are some errors which are being weeded out with the p***age of time. A sort of anti-entropy. You on the other hand seem to accept there are errors and that's it. If I took that position then for me everything I read has the possibility of error. Not proofing it out would lead to doubt in my case. I think this is why so many evangelical kids drop out of church when they get to a secular college. They have not been armed with such decent apologetics and are left red-faced in cl***. Looking the fool they only re***ert for the Professor that Christians are, shall we say, opiated by their belief unable to think for themselves in dreamland. I personally do not like it when my wit makes for a bad witness.

James Banta
09-27-2013, 02:49 PM
I find it interesting that you would hand wave off an historical indexing practice in favor of your prejudice for corruption. I mean isn't it more better to weed out our misperceptions when we can for a more accurate presentation and understanding of life 2k years ago and what cultural framework the writers were influenced by? I recognize that accepting such an explanation would remove one more perceived error in the text and force one to recognize ones bias may not be as comprehensive or unified as once thought but it would be more accurate representation of the text. For me accepting it means one more answer to those who ask about these kinds of things one less hurdle on the path to Christ.

We make use of the same ***umption mechanism really. I ***ume because there are explanations for things such as this there will be more and that there are some errors which are being weeded out with the p***age of time. A sort of anti-entropy. You on the other hand seem to accept there are errors and that's it. If I took that position then for me everything I read has the possibility of error. Not proofing it out would lead to doubt in my case. I think this is why so many evangelical kids drop out of church when they get to a secular college. They have not been armed with such decent apologetics and are left red-faced in cl***. Looking the fool they only re***ert for the Professor that Christians are, shall we say, opiated by their belief unable to think for themselves in dreamland. I personally do not like it when my wit makes for a bad witness.

This is so simple to explain. The Bible contains wisdom where such a statement is wisdom and it is wise. Jude quotes from the book of Enoch.. Here Matthew quotes from an apocryphal work ascribed to Jeremiah.. That is as complex as it is.. Even children can understand that. But there are those that will do anything to try to make the promises of Jesus into the lies of Jesus. Of such men beware, there is no truth in them.. IHS jim

MacG
09-27-2013, 03:07 PM
Interesting. An Apocryphal book. Which one?

James Banta
09-27-2013, 06:05 PM
Interesting. An Apocryphal book. Which one?

Just because it was available to Matthew doesn't mean that it had to be protected by God like scripture was, and available to us.. Not a single p***age in any Apocryphal book is scripture unless a p***age is quoted in the Bible.. Those p***ages are protected.. IHS jim

MacG
09-27-2013, 11:56 PM
Just because it was available to Matthew doesn't mean that it had to be protected by God like scripture was, and available to us.. Not a single p***age in any Apocryphal book is scripture unless a p***age is quoted in the Bible.. Those p***ages are protected.. IHS jim

So you're saying that you don't know which apocryphal book because it was destroyed. Not a very good apologetic, below par for you Jim - you might as well claim it was written on gold plates too...

nrajeffreturns
09-28-2013, 04:22 PM
So you're saying that you don't know which apocryphal book because it was destroyed. Not a very good apologetic, below par for you Jim - you might as well claim it was written on gold plates too...

That's what I was thinking, too. But in Jim's defense, the explanation/rationalization that you cited was quite similar, IMO--it seems to be, basically, "Embrace any explanations that keep us from questioning the theory that the Bible was and is absolutely error-free."

This or variations of it is a common human tendency, and it's probably common among LDS as much as any other group.

IMO

Billyray
09-28-2013, 06:45 PM
OK so you are going to drop Matthew as the culprit for this "so-called" error. Fair enough. Now you are going with the scribe/copyist as the one who made a mistake. When do you think that this mistake took place?

Bump for Jeff.

nrajeffreturns
09-28-2013, 08:33 PM
Bump for Jeff.OK so you are going to drop Matthew as the culprit for this "so-called" error. Fair enough. Now you are going with the scribe/copyist as the one who made a mistake. When do you think that this mistake took place?

I am non-closed-minded enough to allow for the POSSIBILITY that EITHER Matthew OR a copyist made a mistake in writing relatively unimportant details of events. My personal BELIEF is that it was more likely the copyist. Is that clear enough this time?

As for when the mistake first occurred, I don't care enough to waste my time finding out, but if you want a rough estimate, I will go with "Sometime between the late 1st century and late 10th century."

Billyray
09-29-2013, 12:28 AM
I am non-closed-minded enough to allow for the POSSIBILITY that EITHER Matthew OR a copyist made a mistake in writing relatively unimportant details of events. My personal BELIEF is that it was more likely the copyist. Is that clear enough this time?

Your own church states that Matthew did not make a mistake. So why on earth did you throw that out as a possibility?


As for when the mistake first occurred, I don't care enough to waste my time finding out, but if you want a rough estimate, I will go with "Sometime between the late 1st century and late 10th century."
OK let's expand on this theory of yours that you have a single person who made a copy of Matthew made the so called error that you brought up. Can you tell me how this single error made it into all of the existing copies that were around at that time?

MacG
09-29-2013, 09:01 AM
, IMO--it seems to be, basically, "Embrace any explanations that keep us from questioning the theory that the Bible was and is absolutely error-free."
IMO


I never said that. What I did say that we are are erasing the discrepancies as we go about examining not only scripture but the culture around it. The reference to Jeremiah makes sense now and a likely paraphrase like we do today. "The Bible says "The lust for money feeds the roots of evil resulting in forgiveness and the root of bitterness to wrap around one's soul." As you have said the point remains and this variance is not such a big deal.

My objection to Jim's idea is that the evidence for it is no better than TCJCLD's m****cript evidence for the BoM. It is duly noted that you defended Jim however I still think it is a below par apologetic until some m****cript evidence shows up. I thought of this apologetic by saying it is probably another m****cript which got destroyed which we no longer have access to. Very similar to Jim's apocryphal ***ertion but did not hold it out as a possibility due my very same critique. Neither do I hold to the "it says that Jeremiah spoke and therefore it was part of the oral tradition" for the same reason.

James Banta
09-29-2013, 09:11 AM
Your own church states that Matthew did not make a mistake. So why on earth did you throw that out as a possibility?

OK let's expand on this theory of yours that you have a single person who made a copy of Matthew made the so called error that you brought up. Can you tell me how this single error made it into all of the existing copies that were around at that time?

Many LDS think that there was one copy of the text made, by which all copies were made.. The facts are that there were thousands. They have no way to explain why all those thousands of m****cripts contains the same "ERRORS" as all those others when many weren't copies of of any common m****cript save the one penned under the direct dictation of the apostle.. Copies were made and sent all over the known world. Those again were copied.. The copies of the copies had no common pedigree other than the original but those copies were also copied and copied again. The copies held by the church at Rome had never been near the copies held in Ephesus. Yet the pure undefiled context of the original dictation from Matthew as brought to his remembrance through the HOLY Spirit was present in each m****cript. It is there today in the KJ, NIV, and NASB.. The only place it is absent is in the non scholarly attempts to "correct" the Bible made by the cults.. Those such as the New World Translation or the Inspired Version.. The promised of Jesus (GOD), that His words would live eternally are proof enough for the believer that His word is there and trustworthy throughout all time.. IHS jim

James Banta
09-29-2013, 09:49 AM
Interesting that you took up adultery after you left Mormonism.

The difference between Mormonism and many other religions is that repentence takes on a whole new level. You are not permitted to just take up your sin with God--you also have to take it up with those in authority because you have not only offended God, but offended all those with whom you promised to be a representative a Christ. You took on Christ's name and with it a responsibility. Just like if you worked for a company and embezzled from them, it would not be enough to set things right just with God--there is a whole other group that you have hurt Therefore, the process of repentence in the LDS faith often means that one may be disfellowshiped or even excommunicated if the sin is serious enough. The sinner then gets to start the long-process of repentence in which God must be satisfied, your wife must be satisfied and those in authority must be satisfied that you have truely taken every step to right your wrong. The person can then be rebaptized and re-enter into God's grace.

You belive a person should be "tossed' if they do not believe the Bible is God's word. Well, committing adultery is a pretty big sign that you are not believing what God says

When do mormons take up adultery?


Many people throughout the Church and, generally speaking, throughout the world have now abandoned the anciently cherished Hebraic-Christian moral standard of chas***y. Frequently married people commit adultery and single people indulge their p***ions in acts of fornication. The results are unhappiness, the loss of love, breaking up of homes and destroying of family life, increase in the number of divorces, shame, loss of spirituality, apostasy, and eventually loss of eternal salvation.

Let us cite only a few of the numerous cases that have come to my personal attention recently. A few months ago a mother of five children came to my office. She wept bitterly as she told me that her husband had spent most of his time during the past year with another man’s wife. She explained that on a number of occasions she followed him in her car to the other woman’s place. Naturally, the sinful husband was miserable, the wife was very sorrowful, and the children were brokenhearted. “… wickedness never was happiness.” (Alma 41:10.)

About a year ago a young man came to my office and wept as if his heart would break. He said, “I committed adultery about two years ago. The sin is causing me such mental anguish that I cannot bear it any longer. If I must be excommunicated, please have the Church take action soon. My suffering is beyond description. I want to do what I can to pay for that terrible sin.”

Cases could be multiplied. But these two examples should be enough to illustrate the gravity of the sin of adultery. (Elder Milton R. Hunter April Conference 1971)

Oh course members of the LDS church are perfect and never commit adultery. As Elder Hunter put it "Many people throughout the Church" commit this terrible sin.. Does that mean they can't be forgiven? According to your reaction it is clear that I can't be.. I think I should set your judgments aside and go with what the Bible teaches.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Should your judgment be final when God has told me that? You understand that He also said that if I confess my sin He is faithful and just to forgive me of my sin and cleanse me of all unrighteousness (1John 1:9). You stand here denouncing me for a sin that was confessed to my Lord, before the Church, and even to nonbelievers and you doubt the virility of my repentance? It was ten years ago now and this act has not been repeated and yet you doubt my repentance and haul it up as a sign of my unfaithfulness? There is one who is the accuser and you and those of your fellows that continue to dwell on a sin from years ago, a sin that I have turned away from and denounced to all in the Church and without, are doing his work (Revelation 12:7-12).. Is that where you elegance exists? It is not I that is aligned with Satan in this matter, look where those other three fingers are pointing at as you point at me.. IHS jim

neverending
09-29-2013, 10:07 AM
Julie,
It has been ages since I last was here on this forum. After reading your latest post and pointing fingers at James and accusing him of adultery, I had to come and let you know that you are such a hateful person!! It is because of LDS members such as yourself that I left Mormonism. Course it was long before I was treated so badly by members like you that I began questioning the doctrines but that is for another time.
You are familiar with the saying, "those who live in gl*** houses shouldn't throw stones?" Come down off your pedestal Julie. You are no better than anyone else, yet you think you are and look down your nose at non-members and truth be known, your own members. Don't forget, I was born and raised in Mormonism, James and I married in one of your temples. We held many church positions as well i.e. Sunday School teacher, Primary Teacher, Beehive Teacher, Primary Secretary, Visiting Teacher of course and MIA 1st Councilor, (that was James) as well of course, Home Teacher. Both of us have studied Mormonism for years having read your Church History, comparing the Book of Mormon with the Bible, Joseph Smith's testimony, David Whitmer's, "An Address to all Believers in Christ" McConkie's book, "Mormon Doctrine" just to name a few. In all of these books, it was the Holy Spirit that spoke to us and gave us the ***urance that Mormonism was false and that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and believing in him and his so called, restored church only leads people away from the "true God and Jesus Christ". Julie, you want to believe in lies, great, that is your choice. As for me and my house, we will serve the true and living God, not some man made god who at one time was a flesh and blood man, but a God who has always been God from everlasting to everlasting.
Julie, one question for you. Do you want to be a brood mare for eternity? Do you want to share your husband with other wives for eternity? Give it some serious thought and just maybe be honest with yourself for I know what my answer was to that idea......NO WAY!!! This is a man made idea that has no scriptural base to it. So, when you have become perfect, then and only then will you have the right to judge my husband or anyone else. I find it pathetic that when a Mormon doesn't have anything to say they resort to bashing and name calling....your Bishop would be so proud.

nrajeffreturns
09-29-2013, 08:14 PM
Your own church states that Matthew did not make a mistake.
I don't think it has ever stated that everything any prophet or apostle ever wrote, including Matthew, has been error-free. Don't we believe that Joseph Smith was a greater prophet than even Matthew was, yet we don't claim Smith was inerrant, so what does that do to your claim about what we think of Matthew?


So why on earth did you throw that out as a possibility?
I allow for the possibility of lots of stuff. For example, I believe it POSSIBLE that y'all Trinitarian Calvinists have the most correct theology and soteriology--even if your beliefs comprise just a tiny fraction of Christianity. I just don't ***ign a high probability to your beliefs being the most correct. But I think it's possible.


OK let's expand on this theory of yours that you have a single person who made a copy of Matthew made the so called error that you brought up. Can you tell me how this single error made it into all of the existing copies that were around at that time?
Well, Matthew writes his synoptic gospel in about 60 AD, and when he did, he "plagiarized" Mark's gospel to a high degree, allegedly:

"The most widely accepted hypothesis is that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for various reasons. Matthew even reproduced about ninety percent of Mark, while Luke reproduced about sixty percent."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/matthew.cfm

So if Mark's gospel doesn't contain this discrepancy, then the version of Matthew's gospel that we have introduces an apparent error. It's not that hard to admit. Anyway, Matthew puts his name to his version of the events of Jesus' life, and fairly soon, someone makes a copy of it so it can be spread to all the world. If that copy had this error, then the next guy who decided to copy THAT COPY, would have included the error in HIS copy, and it just continued that way.

Another possibility that could explain the error:

"Some scholars believe that "Matthew wrote two Gospels-one in a Palestinian language and the other in Greek."
(ibid.)

Maybe the other copy didn't have the error, but Matthew or the guy who copied the one we have, goofed up and wrote "Jeremiah" when the correct word was "Zechariah." I have written a paper by hand, and then re-written it, and it was really hard for me to make sure the rewrite was identical to the original. Imagine if your original was in one language, and your rewrite was an attempt to write the same account in a different language. That would be hard even to today's translators. Minor mistakes such as these are not a big deal to most people, though, IMO.

Other than these scenarios, what's the alternative explanation? What other reasonable explanation IS there for this discrepancy?

Mac provided one. IMO, it's less likely to be the answer than the ones I suggested, but anything is possible. The theory that there were zero mistakes of any kind in any of the original m****cripts is one of the LEAST-likely to be correct, IMO.

Billyray
09-30-2013, 01:37 AM
I don't think it has ever stated that everything any prophet or apostle ever wrote, including Matthew, has been error-free. Don't we believe that Joseph Smith was a greater prophet than even Matthew was, yet we don't claim Smith was inerrant, so what does that do to your claim about what we think of Matthew?



1 Nephi 13
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

The Book of Mormon teaches that the Bible was pure while in the hands of the Apostles. Do you disagree with this statement from the Book of Mormon?

Billyray
09-30-2013, 01:46 AM
Anyway, Matthew puts his name to his version of the events of Jesus' life, and fairly soon, someone makes a copy of it so it can be spread to all the world. If that copy had this error, then the next guy who decided to copy THAT COPY, would have included the error in HIS copy, and it just continued that way.
So in your theory a person makes a single copy which includes an error, and the copy that has an error in it is the only copy that was ever made from the original document. Is that your position?

Billyray
09-30-2013, 01:52 AM
I have written a paper by hand, and then re-written it, and it was really hard for me to make sure the rewrite was identical to the original.
Now take the original document and copy it hundreds of times. Each copy will have many mistakes in it but each copy will have a mistakes in a different places in the text. Now hide the original document and just use the copies that you made from the original and I guarantee that you can reconstruct what was in the original document by just using the copies. This is exactly what we have with textual variants and this is what is done when textual critics try and reconstruct the text. The original words are present in the various documents but we also have variants.

MacG
09-30-2013, 08:23 AM
I want my 72 virgins, unless they are 72 year old virgins!

This is a commonly held reward in Islam however it has been discovered the English translation is actually 'version'. There are awaiting the martyr 72 versions of their beloved text. :D

nrajeffreturns
09-30-2013, 10:36 AM
The Book of Mormon teaches that the Bible was pure while in the hands of the Apostles.
Doctrinally pure, yeah.



Do you disagree with this statement from the Book of Mormon?
As you can see, I don't disagree with it.

nrajeffreturns
09-30-2013, 10:40 AM
So in your theory a person makes a single copy which includes an error, and the copy that has an error in it is the only copy that was ever made from the original document. Is that your position?
I am open to lots of possibilities, and that seems to be a possibility, just like the others I mentioned are. Such as "the ORIGINAL m****cript contained the error, and it got reproduced when it got copied."

In the end, "What does it matter" HOW the mistake ended up in your Bible? It doesn't matter. What matters is that you stop believing that humans are as error-free as God is.

Billyray
09-30-2013, 10:52 AM
Doctrinally pure, yeah.

1 Nephi 13
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

If corruption was already present in the Bible during the time of the Apostles then it was not pure.

Billyray
09-30-2013, 10:55 AM
I am open to lots of possibilities, and that seems to be a possibility, just like the others I mentioned are. Such as "the ORIGINAL m****cript contained the error, and it got reproduced when it got copied."

In the end, "What does it matter" HOW the mistake ended up in your Bible? It doesn't matter. What matters is that you stop believing that humans are as error-free as God is.
The problem with your theory is that an error made it into a single copy from the original and that was the only copy made from the original AND that all subsequent copies were made from this single copy that had an error in it. Plus this ***umes that this copy was made early during the lives of the living apostles and that not a single apostle noticed this so called error.

Billyray
09-30-2013, 10:58 AM
In the end, "What does it matter" HOW the mistake ended up in your Bible? It doesn't matter. What matters is that you stop believing that humans are as error-free as God is.
Because I don't think it was a error that was changed from the original.

RealFakeHair
09-30-2013, 11:22 AM
Julie,
It has been ages since I last was here on this forum. After reading your latest post and pointing fingers at James and accusing him of adultery, I had to come and let you know that you are such a hateful person!! It is because of LDS members such as yourself that I left Mormonism. Course it was long before I was treated so badly by members like you that I began questioning the doctrines but that is for another time.
You are familiar with the saying, "those who live in gl*** houses shouldn't throw stones?" Come down off your pedestal Julie. You are no better than anyone else, yet you think you are and look down your nose at non-members and truth be known, your own members. Don't forget, I was born and raised in Mormonism, James and I married in one of your temples. We held many church positions as well i.e. Sunday School teacher, Primary Teacher, Beehive Teacher, Primary Secretary, Visiting Teacher of course and MIA 1st Councilor, (that was James) as well of course, Home Teacher. Both of us have studied Mormonism for years having read your Church History, comparing the Book of Mormon with the Bible, Joseph Smith's testimony, David Whitmer's, "An Address to all Believers in Christ" McConkie's book, "Mormon Doctrine" just to name a few. In all of these books, it was the Holy Spirit that spoke to us and gave us the ***urance that Mormonism was false and that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and believing in him and his so called, restored church only leads people away from the "true God and Jesus Christ". Julie, you want to believe in lies, great, that is your choice. As for me and my house, we will serve the true and living God, not some man made god who at one time was a flesh and blood man, but a God who has always been God from everlasting to everlasting.
Julie, one question for you. Do you want to be a brood mare for eternity? Do you want to share your husband with other wives for eternity? Give it some serious thought and just maybe be honest with yourself for I know what my answer was to that idea......NO WAY!!! This is a man made idea that has no scriptural base to it. So, when you have become perfect, then and only then will you have the right to judge my husband or anyone else. I find it pathetic that when a Mormon doesn't have anything to say they resort to bashing and name calling....your Bishop would be so proud.

Amen! And Amen!

RealFakeHair
09-30-2013, 11:24 AM
I am open to lots of possibilities, and that seems to be a possibility, just like the others I mentioned are. Such as "the ORIGINAL m****cript contained the error, and it got reproduced when it got copied."

In the end, "What does it matter" HOW the mistake ended up in your Bible? It doesn't matter. What matters is that you stop believing that humans are as error-free as God is.

We do know of one non-possibility, it was impossible that the mormon god wrote the Holy Bible, there are just not enough,(and it came to p***) to p*** as coming from the mormon god.

nrajeffreturns
09-30-2013, 02:59 PM
1 Nephi 13
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.

If corruption was already present in the Bible during the time of the Apostles then it was not pure.

Accidentally attributing something to Jeremiah instead of to Zechariah doesn't equal corruption. Deliberately altering a text so it supports Trinitarianism is an example of a corrupted text.

nrajeffreturns
09-30-2013, 03:02 PM
Because I don't think it was a error that was changed from the original.

So your theory is that the error existed in the original m****cript that Matthew wrote, and that over the centuries, as copies were made, and copies of those copies, this error was never caught and fixed. Or it was caught, it was noticed, but no one dared fix it because the consequences of doing so were too dire.

jdjhere
09-30-2013, 08:28 PM
nrajeffreturns stated in post #155 “Jesus was once mortal, but is now immortal, & glorified...”

Jesus was glorified BEFORE He became a man, Jeff. Read John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." That's because He has ALWAYS been God. Jesus took on flesh... and was fully man the WHOLE time still being fully God. There was never a time when Jesus was a "mere mortal." He revealed His Glory to His disciples who stated (Matthew 17:2) "And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light."

Billyray
09-30-2013, 11:33 PM
So your theory is that the error existed in the original m****cript that Matthew wrote, and that over the centuries, as copies were made, and copies of those copies, this error was never caught and fixed. Or it was caught, it was noticed, but no one dared fix it because the consequences of doing so were too dire.
My position is that what we have is exactly what Matthew wrote down and it is not an error from Matthew's perspective.

nrajeffreturns
10-01-2013, 03:42 AM
Jesus was glorified BEFORE He became a man, Jeff.
I know.


Read John 17:5
I have read it many times in the past.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."


That's because He has ALWAYS been God.
Your proof text doesn't say that, but it does say that Jesus had glory before the world existed. And it implies that He was re-given that glory at some point after He made the request you quoted.


Jesus took on flesh... and was fully man the WHOLE time still being fully God.
The verse you quoted make it clear that there was a time when Jesus lacked glory. It spanned at least about 33 years. Otherwise, His request to be given the glory that He had before the world existed wouldn't make any sense.


There was never a time when Jesus was a "mere mortal."
There was a time when Jesus lacked glory. It spanned at least about 33 years.

Anyway, none of this refutes or invalidates my statement that

“Jesus was once mortal, but is now immortal, & glorified...”

My statement remains as true as ever.

James Banta
10-01-2013, 07:28 AM
I know.


I have read it many times in the past.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."


Your proof text doesn't say that, but it does say that Jesus had glory before the world existed. And it implies that He was re-given that glory at some point after He made the request you quoted.


The verse you quoted make it clear that there was a time when Jesus lacked glory. It spanned at least about 33 years. Otherwise, His request to be given the glory that He had before the world existed wouldn't make any sense.


There was a time when Jesus lacked glory. It spanned at least about 33 years.

Anyway, none of this refutes or invalidates my statement that

“Jesus was once mortal, but is now immortal, & glorified...”

My statement remains as true as ever.

You are missing an important point here Jeff.. It doesn't matter if you believe that Isaiah 43:10 is only for this world or not.. The God that says that before Him no God was formed and none will be formed after Him is still a tripping point to you.. See if this is Jesus saying this then since the Father was a God before Him, Jesus can't be God.. If it is the Father saying this Then Jesus still can't be a God because He is taught within mormonism as becoming a God after the Father. No matter how mormonism teaches that Jesus became a God it is flat unbiblical UNLESS you will admit that the Father and Jesus are both eternally God, coequal in their Godhood.. That is the only way to have Both the Father and the Son be God without denying the scripture.. After all the Father and the Son are both the God of this world.. I happen to believe the scripture that says they are the God of all things visible and invisible but that doesn't matter as to whether they are the God of this world or not. Your LDS beliefs that Jesus became a God sometime after the Father was already a God forces you to hold a belief contrary to the Bible.. Jesus CAN NOT BE A GOD IF HE BECAME A GOD LATER THEN THE FATHER.. That is Biblical teaching.. If you deny that you deny the Bible as being the word of God.. That is what I expect you will do.. IHS jim

MacG
10-01-2013, 07:56 AM
My statement remains as true as ever.

As I understand it, if the spirit babies of Elohim don't die if they don't take on human flesh. Therefore immortal. Is that true?

Rabbit trail: All of creation reproduces after its own kind, why doesn't Elohim? He has a Spiritual body as tangible as a man's while the children are spirit and do not.

RealFakeHair
10-01-2013, 08:11 AM
As I understand it, if the spirit babies of Elohim don't die if they don't take on human flesh. Therefore immortal. Is that true?

Rabbit trail: All of creation reproduces after its own kind, why doesn't Elohim? He has a Spiritual body as tangible as a man's while the children are spirit and do not.

I think nrajeffnoretruns lives on a rabbit farm.

nrajeffreturns
10-01-2013, 09:44 AM
As I understand it, if the spirit babies of Elohim don't die if they don't take on human flesh.
You need to clarify what you mean because I am having trouble understanding it.


Therefore immortal. Is that true?
We can talk about spiritual death, if that's where you're trying to take your question, after you clarify your first statement, and after we define "immortal."

And your rabbit trail question can be answered fairly easily after we settle the trail outlined above.

MacG
10-01-2013, 05:35 PM
You need to clarify what you mean because I am having trouble understanding it.


We can talk about spiritual death, if that's where you're trying to take your question, after you clarify your first statement, and after we define "immortal."

And your rabbit trail question can be answered fairly easily after we settle the trail outlined above.

What is the chain of life for Elohim's spirit children?

nrajeffreturns
10-01-2013, 06:23 PM
What is the chain of life for Elohim's spirit children?

Spirits can't really be killed so they are not mortal.

"Mortal" means "able to die."

Right now you are considered mortal because your body can die. You are not immortal. Yet. (Your spirit is immortal, but you, as a flesh-and-blood being, are mortal.)

But once you're resurrected, you will be immortal because your body will never grow old, sick, or be able to be killed, and therefore will never be separated from your spirit again. Just like happened to Jesus about 1980 years ago.

MacG
10-01-2013, 06:51 PM
Spirits can't really be killed so they are not mortal.

"Mortal" means "able to die."

Right now you are considered mortal because your body can die. You are not immortal. Yet. (Your spirit is immortal, but you, as a flesh-and-blood being, are mortal.)

But once you're resurrected, you will be immortal because your body will never grow old, sick, or be able to be killed, and therefore will never be separated from your spirit again. Just like happened to Jesus about 1980 years ago.

Should you previous statement (“Jesus was once mortal, but is now immortal, & glorified...”

My statement remains as true as ever.) then read: Jesus was immortal then mortal, but is now immortal, & glorified...”

nrajeffreturns
10-01-2013, 07:25 PM
Your post was once again a bit incoherent. Jesus was once mortal. You can read, in the New Testament, about the period of His existence when He was a mortal being. The evidence that Jesus was mortal is the Bible's claim that He died.

But now, Jesus is immortal. All resurrected beings are immortal. The evidence that Jesus is now immortal is the Bible's claim that He was resurrected.

Is there anything that you need me to clear up about any of that?

MacG
10-01-2013, 08:33 PM
Your post was once again a bit incoherent. Jesus was once mortal. You can read, in the New Testament, about the period of His existence when He was a mortal being. The evidence that Jesus was mortal is the Bible's claim that He died.

But now, Jesus is immortal. All resurrected beings are immortal. The evidence that Jesus is now immortal is the Bible's claim that He was resurrected.

Is there anything that you need me to clear up about any of that?

Sorry about being unclear. Upon further reflection I see what I was picking up on and whare I was going.

You comment to whomever it was, Jim I think, was that Jesus was immortal and now immortal having glory with God that he had before the world began. For us there is no preexistance as with the Spirit babies of Elohim. That's why it is a big deal for Jesus to have God's glory prior to birth and I see now for you it is no big deal except that prior to his birth Jesus was not exalted and therefore could not have equality with God.

I think I was seeing your statement as being incomplete. For the TCJCLDS idea is that Jesus was immortal (as a procreated spirit) prior to his mortality. So for you it is he was immortal then mortal then immortal.

That too is probably obtuse. Sorry. Probably best to drop this line as I cannot articulate what is in my grey matter any better.

nrajeffreturns
10-02-2013, 05:03 AM
I think I understand you now. Thanks for clarifying.

James Banta
10-02-2013, 10:32 AM
So you're saying that you don't know which apocryphal book because it was destroyed. Not a very good apologetic, below par for you Jim - you might as well claim it was written on gold plates too...


It can't be said that this quote was misattributed to Zechariah, since Zechariah, said no such thing. Yes his writtings had a few similar aspects, but that is as far as it should go. So, if Matthew, speaking with the Holy Spirit, quotes this and attributes it to Jeremiah, then it was indeed something Jeremiah said, and it was merely not recorded in his writings.

So, the answer could be as simple as this quote by Matthew is not by Zechariah but is merely an unrecorded quote by Jeremiah. Note also that Matthew does not say that the quotation was written by Jeremiah, but rather spoken (rheo) by Jeremiah. It is possible, therefore, that the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to report a spoken prophecy of Jeremiah, just as Jude was inspired to include previously unwritten information about Michael in his book (Jude 9). After the spoken prophecy given to Jeremiah, the Holy Spirit could later have inspired a similar prophecy to Zechariah as part of his written account.

I take this as authoritative to all that trust God (Jesus), He promised to keep His word pure for us.. We can trust Him and look for truth in seeing His word as the truth or go along with the doubters of Jesus and see this as reason to attack the promises of God..

You can say that finding reason to believe the Bible as we now have it is below my standard but believing Jesus is the foundational point of my faith.. I give any theory that supports the text of the Bible more credence than a man coming along saying "See, See the Bible has error in it".. See answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/04/27/contradictions-mixed-prophets for the complete text I have used as a reference for my words..

Having reason for faith is important.. This gives me reasonable foundation for my faith.. This is not akin to Golden plates at all, the message from God the Holy Spirit tell us that this was said by the prophet Jeremiah. You can believe it was and trust God, or go along with the cultist that require that the Bible is corrupted and cling to such p***ages as this clinging to an idea that new revelation is needed to "correct" God message to us.. As for me I will cling to explanations that support God's word as the truth.. IHS jim

MacG
10-02-2013, 11:03 AM
You can say that finding reason to believe the Bible as we now have it is below my standard

What I intended to convey was that positing a lost apocryphal book as an apologetic is below your standard. As Jeff knows I am not always clear...


As for me I will cling to explanations that support God's word as the truth.. IHS jim

So we agree that referring to an absent apocryphal book is now a weak apologetic. Your preference being that Jeremiah spoke it in the past and the Holy Spirit gave a word of knowledge to Matthew about it rather than Jeremiah wrote it down. Got it. It's a faith statement.

nrajeffreturns
10-02-2013, 12:38 PM
So God can and does give people knowledge of sayings of ancient prophets--sayings that were never previously recorded.

It's good to see support for that idea.

You are now ready to start reading the Book of Mormon. :)

RealFakeHair
10-02-2013, 12:47 PM
So God can and does give people knowledge of sayings of ancient prophets--sayings that were never previously recorded.

It's good to see support for that idea.

You are now ready to start reading the Book of Mormon. :)

How did I know that was coming? lol

nrajeffreturns
10-02-2013, 08:03 PM
How did I know that was coming? lol

Maybe you're a prophet!

James Banta
10-04-2013, 08:08 AM
What I intended to convey was that positing a lost apocryphal book as an apologetic is below your standard. As Jeff knows I am not always clear...



So we agree that referring to an absent apocryphal book is now a weak apologetic. Your preference being that Jeremiah spoke it in the past and the Holy Spirit gave a word of knowledge to Matthew about it rather than Jeremiah wrote it down. Got it. It's a faith statement.

The scripture is clear that these are the words of Isaiah. I believe what the Bible teaches.. Ok they are written down to match what Matthew quoted in Zechariah. But remember the p***age never said that written but Isaiah only spoken of by Him.. Such oral tradition is apocryphal. Seems I did misspeak is saying that it was ever written.. This is a confirmation of an this part of the oral tradition as truth.. What we as Christian must stand for is the truth of the scripture as we have it.. This confirms Jesus as God in holding that His promise that His words would never die is fulfilled..

If the Bible is corrupt then Jesus is powerless to protect His words. He would be no more powerful than the false gods of mormonism.. That is something I can not accept.. I don't believe you can either.. IHS jim

James Banta
10-04-2013, 08:33 AM
So God can and does give people knowledge of sayings of ancient prophets--sayings that were never previously recorded.

It's good to see support for that idea.

You are now ready to start reading the Book of Mormon. :)

Tell me just where is there any recording of an oral tradition that was confirmed in the Bible as being a witness of the BofM? There is NONE! There is not one word of support for the BofM anywhere in the Bible.. All you can find in your interpretation of a p***age that prophecies that the Gospel will be taken to the gentiles.. IHS jim

nrajeffreturns
10-04-2013, 10:30 PM
Jim, if you want an LDS example of a reference like you believe Matthew is making referring to Isaiah's lost words, here is one:

In the BOM, writings of some prophets are referred to, but aren't currently known to exist.

"These writings are of Zenock, Zenos, and Neum (1 Ne. 19:10; Alma 33:3–17). An extensive prophecy by Joseph in Egypt (which is not in the Bible) is also apparent from 2 Ne. 3:4–22, and a prophecy of Jacob (not found in the Bible) is given in Alma 46:24–26. These writings were evidently contained on the plates of br*** spoken of in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 5:10–13)."

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/lost-books

James Banta
10-05-2013, 03:23 PM
Jim, if you want an LDS example of a reference like you believe Matthew is making referring to Isaiah's lost words, here is one:

In the BOM, writings of some prophets are referred to, but aren't currently known to exist.

"These writings are of Zenock, Zenos, and Neum (1 Ne. 19:10; Alma 33:3–17). An extensive prophecy by Joseph in Egypt (which is not in the Bible) is also apparent from 2 Ne. 3:4–22, and a prophecy of Jacob (not found in the Bible) is given in Alma 46:24–26. These writings were evidently contained on the plates of br*** spoken of in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 5:10–13)."

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/lost-books


These are not the words of Isaiah these are the words of Joseph Smith.. No where, on any m****cript, are these words found. They were made up and added to the Bible in direct disobedience to God who commanded that nothing be taken from His word nor added to it (Proverbs 30:6).. You want to show the word of God as it was given though the prophet Isaiah, don't use Joseph Smith as the lens to view that word.. He has been shown as a liar as The Proverb says he would.. The BofM has been shown through anthropogenic study to be totally false.. Even the LDS church has wobbled in who the Americas were reserved for.. After all the Land was filled with a people that had no idea who YHWH is.. Instead of the demand of the BofM that the Americas were reserved for a righteous nation.. How is it that there were others in the Land that didn't know God before Lehi and His family arrive here? No, keep your false added doctrines of men and conform first to the that which is found in the Bible.. That is what they are just the words of a man..

There is a huge difference between what is quoted in the Bible and what is added as scripture outside it and not mentioned within it.. The Bible is the word of God, nothing else is.. IHS jim

Pa Pa
10-11-2013, 05:49 PM
When I compare this forum with the anti-LDS forum at C@$m, I see similarities and differences.

A Similarity: Both sites have pro-LDS and anti-LDS trying to shoot holes in the other side's claims.

One big difference I see is that here, both sides can make their case without getting handicapped by the double-standard-ridden Infraction Nazis, aka Carm's "Moderator 18" and "4Him."

Apparently at Carm, they are afraid of a fair fight between the pro- and anti- LDS.

Here, both sides can freely make their arguments, and may the best argument win, regardless which side made it. I like that a lot.

At Carm, one has to put up with being banned by the terrible moderating for doing nothing wrong, while seeing the other side get off with no such punishment, such as this: (Note that Martureo's asking me whether I sin isn't slammed for being off topic, and his insults are condoned)
When they (Matt Slick) who lost his daughter to such tactics, to allow his posters for foster 95%!of his lies! and then give his mods instructions on his bidding???what is to be expected?

James Banta
10-11-2013, 08:24 PM
When they (Matt Slick) who lost his daughter to such tactics, to allow his posters for foster 95%!of his lies! and then give his mods instructions on his bidding???what is to be expected?

Please if you insist on calling someone a liar please identify the lies.. All you have done here is name call.. When I call Smith a liar, I showed that he denied having more than one wife saying "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." (History of the Church Vol 6, boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_VI) IHS jim

James Banta
10-11-2013, 09:06 PM
and the merry go round starts.

Are you again denying the Bible.. Sure seems like it to me.. In James 2 it does say that if our faith doesn't work it is a dead faith.. Mormons seem to like tht p***age they prop up their whole works salvation with it.. But James says more than Faith without works.. If you believe that part why is it you deny verse 10.

James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Have you ever lied to anyone? That is bearing a false witness.. That is breaking the ninth commandment.. Telling a small white lie doesn't seem to serious but telling such a lie is prohibited in the Law just as not committing adultery. James tells us here that the lie you told is a serious before a Holy God as what you call a BIG sin.. Small sins like telling a ugly person how good they look is as serious before a Holy God as murder or adultery. It may be kind to lie to some ugly person but it is a false witness.. In breaking that command James tell you that you are guilty of all.. Why should you be forgiven of be guilty of the whole Law like adultery when I can't be forgiven? I trust my Lord who tells me that He took My sin and gave me His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). That even though my sin is as scarlet He will make me white as wool (Isaiah 1:18). Again it seems that I uphold His word and you deny it..

My wife reminded me that this terrible sin I committed was 12 yeas 2 months ago. Isn't there a time period that even LDS can complete where repentance is fulfilled? You are acting like Satan in your accusations. I look to my Lord Jesus who says "Yes he is guilty, but those sin have been covered in my blood" (1 John 1:9).. In all this do you see that a confession was made? IHS jim

Sir
10-11-2013, 10:39 PM
Are you again denying the Bible.. Sure seems like it to me.. In James 2 it does say that if our faith doesn't work it is a dead faith.. Mormons seem to like tht p***age they prop up their whole works salvation with it.. But James says more than Faith without works.. If you believe that part why is it you deny verse 10.

James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Have you ever lied to anyone? That is bearing a false witness.. That is breaking the ninth commandment.. Telling a small white lie doesn't seem to serious but telling such a lie is prohibited in the Law just as not committing adultery. James tells us here that the lie you told is a serious before a Holy God as what you call a BIG sin.. Small sins like telling a ugly person how good they look is as serious before a Holy God as murder or adultery. It may be kind to lie to some ugly person but it is a false witness.. In breaking that command James tell you that you are guilty of all.. Why should you be forgiven of be guilty of the whole Law like adultery when I can't be forgiven? I trust my Lord who tells me that He took My sin and gave me His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). That even though my sin is as scarlet He will make me white as wool (Isaiah 1:18). Again it seems that I uphold His word and you deny it..

My wife reminded me that this terrible sin I committed was 12 yeas 2 months ago. Isn't there a time period that even LDS can complete where repentance is fulfilled? You are acting like Satan in your accusations. I look to my Lord Jesus who says "Yes he is guilty, but those sin have been covered in my blood" (1 John 1:9).. In all this do you see that a confession was made? IHS jim

1) Why are you responding to me about a post I made a month ago to billyray?

2) It's funny that you start by saying your wife "reminded" you of your adultery and even gave the timeframe. Yet you then claim the LDS are the ones acting like Satan for, I guess, bringing it up, or something.

LOL

Must be bored tonight.

Billyray
10-12-2013, 01:40 AM
1) Why are you responding to me about a post I made a month ago to billyray?

Here was our exchange since you brought it up



That's how I feel about you guys.

So I have fun with your posts and point out the problems with your logic.

People like billyray simply chant that they are truth-tellers and anyone who doesn't listen to them are Hell-bound.

Simply funny since everything that he says can be simply switched around and refer to himself.

It's a silly cycle so the fun comes in pointing out the [il]logical positions of the posters.

The only problem with your position is that you can't seem to back it up with the Bible.

and the merry go round starts.
Perhaps you can expound on what you were really trying to say since from the Christian point of view our position makes perfect sense and is certain logical.