No A-Z; either 100% T or 100% F

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

You are inferring that I did not serve a LDS mission. Do you really believe that I am making this up?

---I guess my actual implication is this:

If you really were a missionary, you were a fairly pathetic one, if you didn't even know that the LDS doctrine on baptism is that is is efficacious in remitting a person's sins if that person has faith in Jesus, has sincerely repented of those sins, and the person is baptized by an authorized person.

Someone that un-knowledgeable about basic LDS doctrines has no business playing critic of said doctrines. Your credibility is the least-important of the casualties in that scenario.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---I guess my actual implication is this:

If you really were a missionary, you were a fairly pathetic one, if you didn't even know that the LDS doctrine on baptism is that is is efficacious in remitting a person's sins if that person has faith in Jesus, has sincerely repented of those sins, and the person is baptized by an authorized person.

Someone that un-knowledgeable about basic LDS doctrines has no business playing critic of said doctrines. Your credibility is the least-important of the casualties in that scenario.

So you think that I was indeed a member of the church and that I did serve a mission but that I was not as good of a missionary as say someone like you?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

BTW, if you were really an RM, I would have thought you'd already know, and not need to be taught by me, the LDS doctrine that baptism is efficacious in remitting a person's sins if that person has faith in Jesus, has sincerely repented of those sins, and the person is baptized by an authorized person.

Jeff, you falsely ***ume by my questions that I do not understand LDS doctrine because of the specific questions that I ask. But my questions are not meant to show off my LDS knowledge but to try and show YOU inconsistencies and falsehoods within Mormon theology.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I don't understand your complaint here at all. Billy never said he disagreed with me about the nature of Jesus in any way. I never said I disagreed with Billy. I see a 100% agreement on the divine nature of Jesus. IHS Jim

Maybe it is because from your responses you show that you have no clue as to the position being put forth let alone any of the arguments used to support it.

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I guess I don't understand why you say that very little has been revealed when it is printed in Gospel Principles, which contain the principles of the gospel.

Really, you don't understand the sources where revelations are recorded in the Church? I thought you said you were a returned missionary. Oh well.

Revelations are recorded in the Church in four books. We refer to them as the Standard Works: The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Within the pages of those books you will find very little regarding the topics you raised. You will find more commentary and ****ysis of those revelations in books such as Gospel Principles, but Gospel Principles is not a book of revelations. That is why I say that very little has been revealed. Hope that helps.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mark Beesley

Really, you don't understand the sources where revelations are recorded in the Church? I thought you said you were a returned missionary. Oh well.

Revelations are recorded in the Church in four books. We refer to them as the Standard Works: The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Within the pages of those books you will find very little regarding the topics you raised. You will find more commentary and ****ysis of those revelations in books such as Gospel Principles, but Gospel Principles is not a book of revelations. That is why I say that very little has been revealed. Hope that helps.

So you don't trust LDS books such as Gospel Principles?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So you don't trust LDS books such as Gospel Principles?

It's strange that modern LDS apostles bother to write books since none of them holds any value for the church or it's members.. They need to do by the SW only.. Why is it that the LDS church teaches that there are many Gods when the BofM teaches that there is one God (2Nephi 31:21). Oh but that's right the BofA teaches that there is more than one God.. How is it again that the SW can contradict and both remain the truth? If your SW can't even agree on something as important as the nature of God, how can we trust them for anything else? It is clear that ONLY JSmith had a hand into the preparation of all these writings. No one else could read through the stone Smith used to get the BofM or the BofA "translated".. It is all the work of one man.. Even the style of the writing in the 1830 betrays Smith as the author of the Book.. IHS jim

[Mark Beesley]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So you don't trust LDS books such as Gospel Principles?

[sarcasm] Sure, that's what I said. Uh huh. Don't trust anything unless it is in the Standard Works. Yep, that is what this discussion was about. Whatever. [/sarcasm]

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So you think that I was indeed a member of the church and that I did serve a mission but that I was not as good of a missionary as say someone like you?

---You asked:
"BTW did Ted Bundy have his sins remitted by being baptized in the LDS church?"
If you misunderstood, so badly, a basic LDS doctrine such as the one on baptism--what it REALLY is that makes it efficacious--then you had no business teaching investigators about it, since that would cons***ute false teaching of LDS doctrine.

Apparently that is not the only thing you misunderstand, since you reject the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Maybe it is because from your responses you show that you have no clue as to the position being put forth let alone any of the arguments used to support it.

I thought this was your insistence that Billy and I don't agree on a matter concerning Jesus and His place in the Life of the believer and the Church.. But you can tell me I am wrong you normally do.. Billy and I do NOT vary ay all in who we say Jesus is, what Jesus did, where He is now, or ever a tiny bit of His OMNIpresent nature.. Everything about Him is in 100% agreement.. It is that way with every part of the Faith from how creation began to what we will be doing in God's Kingdom for eternity.. We are the same 100% What you believe this is all about is another matter all together. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---You asked:
"BTW did Ted Bundy have his sins remitted by being baptized in the LDS church?"
If you misunderstood, so badly, a basic LDS doctrine such as the one on baptism--what it REALLY is that makes it efficacious--then you had no business teaching investigators about it, since that would cons***ute false teaching of LDS doctrine.

Apparently that is not the only thing you misunderstand, since you reject the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins.

I am no longer LDS so it follows that I do not accept LDS teachings as truth. When I ask you questions it is not to show off LDS beliefs but to try and show you that these beliefs are false--which they are. You falsely ***ume that because of my questions that I do not understand LDS theology, which is of course false. On top of this the LDS theology changes over time, what I was taught many years ago is denied today. Different LDS have different beliefs and so I can't understand your belief unless I ask you specifically what you believe. BTW this is a common tactic among LDS to question if a person was ever LDS or ever went on a mission. I think that the LDS mind is in cognitive dissonance and can't fathom why an active LDS person would leave the "only true church", there must be something wrong with the person NOT possibly the teachings.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

What he said was that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible."

So? You have a notion about Jesus that is 100% wrong.. Billy and I have a different notion. One derived from the Scripture that says that Jesus is God. He is the only God that exists. That He is God always has been God, always will be God. That is the doctrine of the Christian Church and agree completely that the Father is the only God that exists. That He is God, always has been God, always will be God. and Holy Spirit is the only God that exists. That He is God, always has been God, always will be God. Three persons one God.. No Christian in the world will deny this doctrine of the one true and living God.. Any other concept of God makes such a man who could hold that different doctrine, an idolater.. Mormonism is polytheistic idolatry IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

What is so hard about explaining why Billy believes that "everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible" and your belief in half truths added to truth being ****ogous to "a gl*** half filled with pure water and then the other half is fill with sewer water. So it is with half truths. They are nothing more that 100% lies." Oh and James are you using the New Math?

Yes that new math that I am using is hard to understand.. Ever third grader in the world knows that 2 halves of the same pie is one full pie.. That is new math.. What you will not admit, I think for honor sake at this point, is that Billy and I don't disagree in the slightest about the nature of God.. Not just the nature of JESUS but the Father, and the Holy Spirit as well.. These person are the one true God as the Bible make clear.. That is solid Biblical theology and all Christian share faith in that One God.. How you can say we differ when you don't even come close to understanding even that much of God's nature is ridiculous.. Heck you state you believe that 1/2+1/2 = 1 is new math.. I am not suprised you can't understand something as deep as the nature of God.. IHS jim

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I am no longer LDS so it follows that I do not accept LDS teachings as truth.

---So you're saying that when you were LDS, you ACCEPTED the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins. And now that you have fallen away, you REJECT the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins?

Where is the sense in that?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---So you're saying that when you were LDS, you ACCEPTED the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins. And now that you have fallen away, you REJECT the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins?

Where is the sense in that?

His knowledge of the meaning and purpose of Baptism has been set straight. His faith in Jesus and His power to give salvation to those He wills has been ignited.. He has put away the false tales of a false teachers and turned directly to Jesus.. IHS jim

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by James Banta

His knowledge of the meaning and purpose of Baptism has been set straight.

---So to you, "being set straight" means "rejecting the Bible's teachings about baptism for the remission of sins" ??

When Billy defected from LDS and became whatever he is now, did he also get set straight about Jesus being the God of the Christ? Is Billy on board with you, on that idea?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---So you're saying that when you were LDS, you ACCEPTED the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins. And now that you have fallen away, you REJECT the Bible's teaching about baptism for the remission of sins?

Where is the sense in that?

I accepted the LDS teachings that Baptism is required along with a laundry list of other things (works) that must be done in order to live with God the Father in the Celestial Kingdom. I believed the LDS teachings but I was clearly wrong even though at the time I thought that I was right.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I accepted the LDS teachings that Baptism is required along with a laundry list of other things (works) that must be done in order to live with God the Father in the Celestial Kingdom. I believed the LDS teachings but I was clearly wrong even though at the time I thought that I was right.

Colossians 2:12 and you were buried with him in baptism in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God,who raised him from the dead.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by James Banta

So? You have a notion about Jesus that is 100% wrong. Billy and I have a different notion. One derived from the Scripture that says that Jesus is God. He is the only God that exists. That He is God always has been God,always will be God. That is the doctrine of the Christian Church and agree completely that the Father is the only God that exists. That He is God,always has been God,always will be God. and Holy Spirit is the only God that exists. That He is God,always has been God,always will be God. Three persons one God. No Christian in the world will deny this doctrine of the one true and living God. Any other concept of God makes such a man who could hold that different doctrine, an idolater. Mormonism is polytheistic idolatry. IHS Jim

You think that it's "100% agreement or it's 100% disagreement" and Billy says that it is not possible to agree on "every issue concerning Jesus."

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Colossians 2:12 and you were buried with him in baptism in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God,who raised him from the dead.

I am not sure the point you were trying to make by posting that verse.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

You think that it's "100% agreement or it's 100% disagreement" and Billy says that it is not being possible to agree on "every issue concerning Jesus."

Mesenja, I think that you underestimate how close Jim and I really are and how far you are from us.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Mesenja,I think that you underestimate how close Jim and I really are and how far you are from us.

What both of you refuse to admit is that each of you made contradictory statements.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

What both of you refuse to admit is that each of you made contradictory statements.

My statement "it may not be possible to agree on every issue" is a stipulation simply because I have dealt with LDS and they almost always dig to find an exception. Because of this twisting and digging for the exception I will usually use terms other than always, never, or 100% because then it becomes a game for LDS to find the exception rather than go with the general intention of my post.

Lets test the LDS game. Jim and I agree 100% about Jesus.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---So to you, "being set straight" means "rejecting the Bible's teachings about baptism for the remission of sins" ??

When Billy defected from LDS and became whatever he is now, did he also get set straight about Jesus being the God of the Christ? Is Billy on board with you, on that idea?

When I was a TBM I held the same belief about baptism you are putting forth now.. I can tell you because of the cost involved in paying for sin baptism doesn't come close to meetings the requirements for the payment.. Therefore the meaning of baptism for the remission of sin MUST mean "because of"..

Baptism can NOT bring remission of sin to anyone and you know it.. You know in your heart that Jesus had to die to make remission of sins a possibility.. That was the picture of the Law of Moses. The sacrifice died and it's blood was used to cleanse the tabernacle, the garments of the priests, and be offered on the mercy seat once a year of the Day of Atonement as an atonement for their sins for the year..

Jesus is the last and eternal sacrifice. He is the last and eternal High Priest.. Only by His blood as He died for our sins is forgiveness of our sins possible.. For without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb 9:22). While baptism is a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21) it is a symbol of our entry into a newness of life. But still it is just a symbol not the cleansing agent the Blood of Jesus is.

Is it a command, YES and those that wish to follow Jesus as obedient servants will humble themselves to the completion of the ordinance. But we can't be saved by symbols. We must be born again, that is not a birth of the will of man but of God (John 1:13). And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Baptism is done at the will of men.. being born of God is done by His will in His time.. I am not speaking against baptism.. I believe in following all the commandments of God.. I wish I was obedient in all other ways as I have been in this.. IHS jim

[Blueskies]

Billy: I find it mind boggling to say the least that when a Mormon is confronted by someone who has left the church and had participated in being a missionary to having been married in a temple to holding church callings but then leave it, they can't understand why. I left the church many years ago after having doubts about it and needing answers. Funny too how when you go to those in authority with your questions, all you get told is, "OH, you're losing your testimony and need to attend more meetings." Now you tell me how attending meetings with screaming babies and kids and people getting up and going in and out during sacrament meetings is going to edify anyone? Parents who's patience is running low and you can see the frustration on their faces and the distraction it causes. Not very uplifting or spiritual in anyway, shape or form. Has no member of the LDS Church given it a thought to have a nursery for the babies and young children so the adults can actually hear something?? NO! That would be to simple.
I was a member in good standing not only being married in a temple but held positions of Sunday School Teacher, Primary Teacher, MIA Teacher, Visiting Teacher and Primary Secretary oh and almost forgot, even Sports Director for the Young Women. So, let jeff try and put down your time spent as a missionary, he doesn't know a thing about you and is only grabbing at straws. God bless you for having a burden for the LDS people. I have enjoyed reading many of your posts.