Satan and the Mormon Temple "Secret" Rites! Don't Get Involved!

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I have said that my sin hurt many.. But I still maintain as David did that I have sinned against God and only against God.

David said his sin was ONLY against God? Even after killing a man (well, he actually had many killed in order to kill that one.) Please, give me the scripture you are referring to. I think Ur and others might say--nah, your sin hurt me too, destroyed my life even. I understand that because Christ atoned for our sins, it is his forgiveness we must seek---but I see that Jesus Christ puts stipulations on that repentance that one needs to make amends (for example, if you stole something, you need to return it, etc.) to the others we have hurt---I mean, loving others is a pretty big part of loving him and so I don't think one could claim to love him and ignore the hurt they have caused to another. You would agree, right?

Remember David had a man killed because of his sin and still he said that his sin was only against God.. I pulled that directly from scripture (Psalm 51:4) as I often to in my posts.. Sad you didn't recognize it..

You are right, I pulled up Psalms 54:1 and still do not know what you are talking about.

You want to get back to temples.. Have you shown where the Church was ever recorded as building a temple? Have you shown anything about a washing, anointing, a endowment ceremony.. Since the keys, signs, and penalties are held in sacred oaths of secrecy, I can excuse their absence in the Biblical text, BUT I can excuse total absence of the mention that a temple building ever existed or that temple ceremonies was ever conducted.. Seems the LDS don't mind saying that there is a ceremony as long as the discussion stops at that.. Need I show you all the published evidence that that LDS church has published in books and magazines and will as on the internet testifies of that fact? And yet there is nothing in all the writings of the Lords true apostles that suggests that a temple was ever built, or any ceremony was ever conducted anywhere in the Church that is said had more truth than what they had taught in the Bible, ever existed.. You are on unsupportable ground to make that ***ertion. Before the temple at Nauvoo was built was there any such ceremony conducted in any LDS temple as is conducted today. It is a strange coincidence that the temple ceremony was revealed just after Smith gained the sublime 33rd degree in the Scottish rite of the Masonic order.. And it is just a coincidence that all the names, keys, signs, and tokens, used in the temple ceremony, including the five points of fellowship are identical to the Masonic order's ceremony.. And you condemn us for our disbelief about the temple having anything to do with God's plans.. IHS jim

I am not worried about the Masonic order (yes, I am aware of it). If you want to see other strange coincidences, look at our graduation ceremonies--but then one has to ask the question, where did these ceremonies begin? Look at how they inaugurate a king. And why on earth do we shake hands as a way of greeting someone? Where did that strange tradition begin---why not just bow or something?

What I also understand through going through the temple is that I know more about who I am. I have the spirit stronger. Going to the temple helps me live a better life. I am more connected to my children and my parents and my grandparents (and so on). The fruit of the temple is peace.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

James, I agree that all sin is serious in the eyes of God. I also understand that you recognize that this sin was more serious for you because to overcome it took more faith and more work on your part. But, I have told your wife that I will not discuss this anymore. It seems still a very tender spot for her (something I did not understand...in fact, I thought Apologette was your wife, as I remember your wife was a member here...just didn't remember who.)

I think the way asked some good questions then..that I guess you also see Joseph Smith on the exact same plain as yourself as you would not see his sins any different than yours in the eyes of God. As to you, one sinner is like the next and we all need Christ to save us. I completely agree, we all need Christ to save us. The problem is--Joseph Smith revealed this to us many times as well, so clearly, he understood and looked to Christ for salvation. He also understood that some sins take more work than others to overcome (through faith) just as you demonstrated and have taught in this thread.

For not being willing to rub salt in my wife's wounds you seem very willing to keep the subject going.. I told you that I have no power to take her pain away.. Only God can do that and it will most likely take the rest of her life.. She didn't cause this, I DID.. She doesn't deserve to have mormons torment her for my sin. So after we have agreed that "all sin is serious in the eyes of God" and that I have confessed this and proven that I see it as very serious and that it hurt her and others why is it that it has to remain the subject of your posts.. That is unless you deny that a person can repent and I have to live with a scarlet letter all my life? Isn't that a denial that a person can be forgiven of this sin? Wouldn't that cause a lot of damage even in your church.. I am not alone in ever having committed adultery. I seem to hear that a leaders of the LDS church has become involved in what all but a Christian would see as even a more serious crimes.. One of which is child porn.. Should we use that to brand all of mormonism as being false? Shall we drag up the marriages of Joseph Smith to married women again? Once it is established there is no reason to beat it to death.. Either he repented of such sin or he didn't.. I can tell you with ***urity that I have repented confessing my sin even to the world. But Smith? It isn't recorded anywhere that he saw any of his marriages as being sin.. Not to virgins and not to married women, not even to little girls less than 18. Fanny Algier was 14 years old, Smith was in his 30's.. Did he confess that as sin? Not that I ever heard.. After all his adultery was commanded by God.. Yeah right.. It was commanded by his own lust.. IHS jim

[Sir]

Originally Posted by James Banta

For not being willing to rub salt in my wife's wounds you seem very willing to keep the subject going.. I told you that I have no power to take her pain away.. Only God can do that and it will most likely take the rest of her life.. She didn't cause this, I DID.. She doesn't deserve to have mormons torment her for my sin. So after we have agreed that "all sin is serious in the eyes of God" and that I have confessed this and proven that I see it as very serious and that it hurt her and others why is it that it has to remain the subject of your posts.. That is unless you deny that a person can repent and I have to live with a scarlet letter all my life? Isn't that a denial that a person can be forgiven of this sin? Wouldn't that cause a lot of damage even in your church.. I am not alone in ever having committed adultery. I seem to hear that a leaders of the LDS church has become involved in what all but a Christian would see as even a more serious crimes.. One of which is child porn.. Should we use that to brand all of mormonism as being false? Shall we drag up the marriages of Joseph Smith to married women again? Once it is established there is no reason to beat it to death.. Either he repented of such sin or he didn't.. I can tell you with ***urity that I have repented confessing my sin even to the world. But Smith? It isn't recorded anywhere that he saw any of his marriages as being sin.. Not to virgins and not to married women, not even to little girls less than 18. Fanny Algier was 14 years old, Smith was in his 30's.. Did he confess that as sin? Not that I ever heard.. After all his adultery was commanded by God.. Yeah right.. It was commanded by his own lust.. IHS jim

Here's the problem.

It isn't about us forgiving you of your sins, Jim. Not our ***. We bring up your past when you guys bring up the past sins of others.

You are only trying to justify talking about other peoples' past sins by claiming you don't know if they repented or not.

You and your wife are constantly talking about how terrible the Mormons have all been in your life, especially from 33+ years ago. You seem okay with pointing out the foibles of others but get mad when people talk about your past.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

For not being willing to rub salt in my wife's wounds you seem very willing to keep the subject going.. I told you that I have no power to take her pain away.. Only God can do that and it will most likely take the rest of her life.. She didn't cause this, I DID.. She doesn't deserve to have mormons torment her for my sin. So after we have agreed that "all sin is serious in the eyes of God" and that I have confessed this and proven that I see it as very serious and that it hurt her and others why is it that it has to remain the subject of your posts.. That is unless you deny that a person can repent and I have to live with a scarlet letter all my life? Isn't that a denial that a person can be forgiven of this sin? Wouldn't that cause a lot of damage even in your church.. I am not alone in ever having committed adultery. I seem to hear that a leaders of the LDS church has become involved in what all but a Christian would see as even a more serious crimes.. One of which is child porn.. Should we use that to brand all of mormonism as being false? Shall we drag up the marriages of Joseph Smith to married women again? Once it is established there is no reason to beat it to death.. Either he repented of such sin or he didn't.. I can tell you with ***urity that I have repented confessing my sin even to the world. But Smith? It isn't recorded anywhere that he saw any of his marriages as being sin.. Not to virgins and not to married women.. IHS jim

I've only responded to your continued posts about it. And if you notice, I only refer in vague terms as to what we are speaking about.

James, you seem to be able to remove any of your own responsibility pretty well. Mormons are only discussing it because you brought it up and continue to bring it up. In fact, I hadn't been on here in ages and came back to see you mention my name in conjunction with it and I had never condemned you for it---you were make false accusations against me.

I do not think you are living with a scarlet letter. I have said I think you have shown you have repented. You only brought up your repentance process as I was noting that YOU were the one claiming that all sins are the same in the eyes of God and I stated, boy--that sure would bother me if I was your wife and you acted like my sin of a white lie was the same as others (which will not be mentioned).

James, really-what I see is how damaging and hurtful some sins can be. I think that, while all sins remove us from God, there are definitely ones that cause more damage and more hurt. (And just to give you another possible opinion, when I shared with my husband our posts back and forth, he said--"whew, he shared that with his congregation--was that a p***ive aggressive behavior against his wife? Was that to get back at her for something she had done?"....so you may want to realize that not everyone looks at such confessions as a measure of faith, but possibly a measure of selfishness.)

There is no denial that a person can be forgiven of their sins including this one. I think one thing interesting I have witnessed regarding "Christians' is that they tend to get up and do a "look how bad I was" approach to their sins. I have been to multiple gatherings where a convert gets up and does the "lets walk through how really bad I was before I converted" story. To me, it almost comes across like a brag session--the drugs I did, the sleeping around I did, etc. I know for me, when I repent--the sin is gone. I don't discuss it anymore. I am forgiven, it is forgotten. Why would I bring it up? So, this is a part of "Christianity" that I do not really understand.

Yes, leaders in the LDS faith have committed adultery. It does happen--yes, and some even with more serious crimes. And guess what, we do see these as more serious and the consequences are more serious as a result. Umm, not sure where you are getting the sins of one makes us brand all else false. We were only discussing how we view sin--not that we view religions based on the sinners themselves.

I am not trying to beat this dead horse. If you will note, you are the one who keeps bringing it up over and over. I am not sure why you want to do that. But if you do, I will respond, but never mention any particular sin.

Here is something you and others may find interesting though. My husband is a therapist and as such--is trained to understand what people's issues are. When I was on another site, the moderator kept harping on Joseph Smith's "adultery". My husband read one of his posts and said, there is a man who has struggled with adultery in his life. He can't let it go because it is his issue. Well, I asked, and sure enough, it was.

So, ask yourself--what can't you let go of. When you complain about Mormons, what makes up your threads? I really believe it when Christ states "out of thine own mouth, I will judge thee"---because we really can see what a persons problems are by what they complain about in others.

[James Banta]

[BigJulie;150691]David said his sin was ONLY against God? Even after killing a man (well, he actually had many killed in order to kill that one.) Please, give me the scripture you are referring to. I think Ur and others might say--nah, your sin hurt me too, destroyed my life even. I understand that because Christ atoned for our sins, it is his forgiveness we must seek---but I see that Jesus Christ puts stipulations on that repentance that one needs to make amends (for example, if you stole something, you need to return it, etc.) to the others we have hurt---I mean, loving others is a pretty big part of loving him and so I don't think one could claim to love him and ignore the hurt they have caused to another. You would agree, right?

Yes I understood that from the beginning and as I came to my senses I confessed and apologized for my sin against all involved.. It was confessed to far ,ore people than I though necessary but still it was confessed.. Since I can't return the trust I took I could only confess and apologize.. It is not right for you to claim that I didn't do all I could.. But I still see it a not enough to deserve their forgiveness.. That I could never manage.. God will have to do it.. So tell me how can I ever restore the trust I stole? It isn't like giving them money or property I took from them.. All I could do was apologize..

You are right, I pulled up Psalms 54:1 and still do not know what you are talking about.

If you looked at Psalm 54:1 then you didn't look at the verse I suggested.. I told you that I got my authority from Psalm 51:4.. You twisted the numbers.. I didn't change my post. Look at where you quoted my post in your posting and see for yourself.. I could change what I first posted yes, but there is no way I can change your copy of what I said.. It was Psalm 51:4 the whole time.. Here is what it says since you are having trouble finding it. I will use the NASB to make it's mean more able to be understood being in modern English:

Psalm 51:4
Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge.

Maybe now you can understand what I was saying.. Maybe not sometimes the LDS deny the scripture such as you do with James 2:10..

I am not worried about the Masonic order (yes, I am aware of it). If you want to see other strange coincidences, look at our graduation ceremonies--but then one has to ask the question, where did these ceremonies begin? Look at how they inaugurate a king. And why on earth do we shake hands as a way of greeting someone? Where did that strange tradition begin---why not just bow or something?

What is this you are comparing casual tradition with the sacred that can only be found inside a temple? You missed one.. The salute.. That had a beginning in the days of armored knights, lifting their face shields to be identified by another knight as they p***ed, SO WHAT! It had nothings to do with keys, signs , names , and penalties that would allow people to advance to God in an exalted state does it? There is nothings sacred or secret in any of these traditions now is there.. You are comparing firecrackers with atom bombs AGAIN..

What I also understand through going through the temple is that I know more about who I am. I have the spirit stronger. Going to the temple helps me live a better life. I am more connected to my children and my parents and my grandparents (and so on). The fruit of the temple is peace.

JESUS is the Prince of PEACE. In Him we find Peace not is a ceremony or a building.. Again the Bile teaches that we have PEACE with God in Jesus..

Romans 5:1-2 That is 5:1-2 not 1:5-6 ok?
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

If your peace come through anything but Jesus you have no peace at all.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by James Banta

It is not right for you to claim that I didn't do all I could..

Never once have I claimed that--but by now, I am getting used to you misreading my posts. No problem.

If you looked at Psalm 54:1 then you didn't look at the verse I suggested.. I told you that I got my authority from Psalm 51:4.. You twisted the numbers..

Ahh, just got it right. Yes, I have seen that verse before---but I think you are mistaking David--I don't think he would ever say to Ur...I did not cause your problem.

I didn't change my post. Look at where you quoted my post in your posting and see for yourself.. I could change what I first posted yes, but there is no way I can change your copy of what I said.. It was Psalm 51:4 the whole time.. Here is what it says since you are having trouble finding it. I will use the NASB to make it's mean more able to be understood being in modern English:

Psalm 51:4
Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge.

Maybe now you can understand what I was saying.. Maybe not sometimes the LDS deny the scripture such as you do with James 2:10..

You read this differently than me....I read this as David saying that whatever Christ decides to do as punishment is just and recognizes that He atoned (will atone) for him. But, I also am sure that David recognizes that Christ does expect us to show love to others as a way to please Him.

What is this you are comparing casual tradition with the sacred that can only be found inside a temple? You missed one.. The salute.. That had a beginning in the days of armored knights, lifting their face shields to be identified by another knight as they p***ed, SO WHAT! It had nothings to do with keys, signs , names , and penalties that would allow people to advance to God in an exalted state does it? There is nothings sacred or secret in any of these traditions now is there.. You are comparing firecrackers with atom bombs AGAIN..

Umm, if you can't see similarities, I can't help you.

JESUS is the Prince of PEACE. In Him we find Peace not is a ceremony or a building.. Again the Bile teaches that we have PEACE with God in Jesus..

Yup, as we follow Him. Doing such things as baptism and the sacrament (both rituals)

Romans 5:1-2 That is 5:1-2 not 1:5-6 ok?
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Yup.

If your peace come through anything but Jesus you have no peace at all.. IHS jim

And in the temple, we learn of who we are to God and what Christ has done for us. We connect with Him. And that is where the peace lies. Not unlike taking the Sacrament---the peace comes with Christ, but the ritual helps connect our physical bodies to our spiritual desire to love Him.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Sir

Here's the problem.

It isn't about us forgiving you of your sins, Jim. Not our ***. We bring up your past when you guys bring up the past sins of others.

You are only trying to justify talking about other peoples' past sins by claiming you don't know if they repented or not.

You and your wife are constantly talking about how terrible the Mormons have all been in your life, especially from 33+ years ago. You seem okay with pointing out the foibles of others but get mad when people talk about your past.

You do that it's a great way for me to show that Smith was unrepentant, compared to me who is repentant.. By doing that you keep dragging the name of Joseph Smith through the mud.. Everyone knows the difference between someone who repented of their sins and one who has not, so go ahead.. I will continue to shown by Smith's own words that he both lied and committed adultery yet never repented.. This is not a problem for me.. One thing it does is hurt my wife and since there is no repentance of that from you I hold that against you as sin..

Smith sin wasn't even confessed. Because there is record of the sin but no record of confession it is clear that such a confession never existed.. Can you come up with one.. I surely can't present that which doesn't exist.. If you say such a thing does exist show us.. I know you can't..

I am not mad about you talking about me.. Just what more can you say? Even you know that I have confessed the sin.. So blast away. Be a Satan in accusing me. I have Jesus who will say that He died and paid the price of my sin and though my repentance He has taken that sin on Himself and given me His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). Just what reference do you have that shows that confessed sin, Sin that is repented of can't be forgiven? None? Thought so.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

BigJulie (quote) And in the temple, we learn of who we are to God and what Christ has done for us. We connect with Him. And that is where the peace lies. Not unlike taking the Sacrament---the peace comes with Christ, but the ritual helps connect our physical bodies to our spiritual desire to love Him


(RFH) I have no doubt you connect with your mormon god and one of his son's. However your mormon god is not the Christian God of the Holy Bible, so this is apples and oranges to us.

[James Banta]

[QUOTE][BigJulie;150705]

Never once have I claimed that--but by now, I am getting used to you misreading my posts. No problem.

Excuse me but wasn't it you that was talking about making rest itution for sin? You never answered telling me what else I can do to make that resti tution. Now you claim that I am not understanding.. Which is it I needed to make resti tution or I misread your post?

Ahh, just got it right. Yes, I have seen that verse before---but I think you are mistaking David--I don't think he would ever say to Ur...I did not cause your problem.

Ok How could David make a resti tution for his sin? He had a man killed.. And took his wife.. And still he said that he sinned against God and only against God.. So by that example who can I say I sinned against, you maybe. You act like I did this to you.

You read this differently than me....I read this as David saying that whatever Christ decides to do as punishment is just and recognizes that He atoned (will atone) for him. But, I also am sure that David recognizes that Christ does expect us to show love to others as a way to please Him.

You really deny that David was a believe and looked to God to follow Him in all of his ways? Why did God call David a man after His own heart? Didn't God in His foreknowledge know that David would sin? Why then say that He was man after His own heart? You aren't making sense here.. You are ignoring the first part of the reference completely.. I will agree that David was saying that he was open to any judgment God ordained for him, but that doesn't change the beginning of the p***age that clearly says that against God and God alone did he sin..

Umm, if you can't see similarities, I can't help you.

No I can't see that these similarities have anything to do with Smith taking what he learned from the Masons and making it part of a new temple ceremony that didn't exist until that time.. There was no such ordinances being done in Kirkland, and yet that temple was said to be accepted by God in the appearance Elijah turning the hearts of the fathers to the son and the sons to the fathers.. Yet not one ordinance for the dead was preformed in that building.. There was no ceremony. It was nothing more than what today you would call a Tabernacle.. Just a large what I would call a sanctuary, or a chapel.. There wasn't even a baptismal faunt..

Yup, as we follow Him. Doing such things as baptism and the sacrament (both rituals)

And that is all you do in your temples.. Be careful there.. I have been in the temple doing my own endowment work and that of others that had died.. Never once was there a baptism done in that ceremony, It was all done by some LDS children weeks if not months before.. Baptisms in the LDS church are conducted in any body of water large enough for emerging to take place.. A temple in NOT the exclusive place for that ordinance. The Sacrament is NEVER offered in the temple. Not before the endowment and not after.. All the endowment offers are the rituals stolen from what Smith learned from his Masonic experience..

Yup.

If you agree so easily then you should be able to have the peace that surp***ed all understanding just knowing that JESUS HAS MADE YOU HIS.. No building, no ceremony should be able to give you what He died to give to you.. If you can't have His peace without that building around you is it really Jesus you trust or is it the building and the ritual that you trust?

And in the temple, we learn of who we are to God and what Christ has done for us. We connect with Him. And that is where the peace lies. Not unlike taking the Sacrament---the peace comes with Christ, but the ritual helps connect our physical bodies to our spiritual desire to love Him.

In His word Christian learn who we are before a Holy God. We see what God did for us in Jesus. We understand how we can be His children, and know for sure that we have His complete forgiveness.. That we have eternal life.. He is our peace and we don't need buildings or ritual to support that. We trust HIM and we trust the word He preserved for us.. The Bible tells us not to look in the inner rooms for Him. You can't find him there He tells us:

Matthew 24:23-26
Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Behold, I have told you before.
Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

You tell me you meet Jesus in your temples, your secret chambers .. I say I don't believe you.. I say that by the authority of my Lord.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

[QUOTE=James Banta;150726]

[BigJulie;150705]

Excuse me but wasn't it you that was talking about making rest itution for sin? You never answered telling me what else I can do to make that resti tution. Now you claim that I am not understanding.. Which is it you never said I needed to make resti tution or I misread your post?



Ok How could David make a resti tution for his sin? He had a man killed.. And took his wife.. And still he said that he sinned against God and only against God.. So by that example who can I say I sinned against, you maybe. You act like I did this to you.



You really deny that David was a believe and looked to God to follow Him in all of his ways? Why did God call David a man after His own heart? Didn't God in His
foreknowledge know that David would sin? Why then say that He was man after His own heart? You aren't making sense here.. You are ignoring the first part of the reference completely.. I will agree that David was saying that he was open to any judgment God ordained for him, but that doesn't change the beginning of the p***age that clearly says that against God and God alone did he sin..



No I can't see that these similarities have anything to do with Smith taking what he learned from the Masons and making it part of a new temple ceremony that didn't exist until that time.. There was no such ordinances being done in Kirkland, and yet that temple was said to be accepted by God in the appearance Elijah turning the hearts of the fathers to the son and the sons to the fathers.. Yet not one ordinance for the dead was preformed in that building.. There was no ceremony. It was nothing more than what today you would call a Tabernacle.. Just a large what I would call a sanctuary, or a chapel.. There wasn't even a baptismal faunt..



And that is all you do in your temples.. Be careful there.. I have been in the temple doing my own endowment work and that of others that had died.. Never once was there a baptism done in that ceremony, It was all done by some LDS children weeks if not months before.. Baptisms in the LDS church are conducted in any body of water large enough for emerging to take place.. A temple in NOT the exclusive place for that ordinance. The Sacrament is NEVER offered in the temple. Not before the endowment and not after.. All the endowment offers are the rituals stolen from what Smith learned from his Masonic experience..

Yup.

If you agree so easily then you should be able to have the peace that surp***ed all understanding just knowing that JESUS HAS MADE YOU HIS.. No building, no ceremony should be able to give you what He died to give to you.. If you can't have His peace without that building around you is it really Jesus you trust or is it the building and the ritual that you trust?



In His word Christian learn who we are before a Holy God. We see what God did for us in Jesus. We understand how we can be His children, and know for sure that we have His complete forgiveness.. That we have eternal life.. He is our peace and we don't need buildings or ritual to support that. We trust HIM and we trust the word He preserved for us.. The Bible tells us not to look in the inner rooms for Him. You can't find him there He tells us:

Matthew 24:23-26
Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Behold, I have told you before.
Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

You tell me you meet Jesus in your temples, your secret chambers .. I say I don't believe you.. I say that by the authority of my Lord.. IHS jim

Absolutely true Jim!

[Apologette]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;150705]

Never once have I claimed that--but by now, I am getting used to you misreading my posts. No problem.

Ahh, just got it right. Yes, I have seen that verse before---but I think you are mistaking David--I don't think he would ever say to Ur...I did not cause your problem.



You read this differently than me....I read this as David saying that whatever Christ decides to do as punishment is just and recognizes that He atoned (will atone) for him. But, I also am sure that David recognizes that Christ does expect us to show love to others as a way to please Him.




Umm, if you can't see similarities, I can't help you.



Yup, as we follow Him. Doing such things as baptism and the sacrament (both rituals)

Yup.

And in the temple, we learn of who we are to God and what Christ has done for us. We connect with Him. And that is where the peace lies. Not unlike taking the Sacrament---the peace comes with Christ, but the ritual helps connect our physical bodies to our spiritual desire to love Him.

In the "temple" you commune with demons.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Apologette

In the "temple" you commune with demons.

No, I don't.

Your turn.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

No, I don't.

Your turn.

You think that the similarity between Mormon and Masonic rites is a coincidence? Are you serious. Joe and Hyrum were both Masons, and Joey became a Master Mason just a few weeks before creating his "endowment" rite. Are you that naive, really?

[James Banta]

[BigJulie;150694]I've only responded to your continued posts about it. And if you notice, I only refer in vague terms as to what we are speaking about.

James, you seem to be able to remove any of your own responsibility pretty well. Mormons are only discussing it because you brought it up and continue to bring it up. In fact, I hadn't been on here in ages and came back to see you mention my name in conjunction with it and I had never condemned you for it---you were make false accusations against me.

If leaving the forum is an evil thing to do then I was making a false accusation about you.. You left right as sir pointed my sin out
to you.. What else could be thought other that you to too discussed to go on.. It didn't matter but you still left without a word why.. So it was up to us to guess of what was the most plausible reason..

You say I brought it up.. NO, I didn't that again was sir.. So was he just gossiping or was he attempting character ******ination. I guess it turned out to be gossip since all he could do is whisper about sin that had been dealt with over a decade ago.. I accuse sir as being a gossip spreading juicy little peaces of dirt on anyone he can find especially if they aren't LDS.. To spread old old news that has been dealt with in repentance years ago as though it happened yesterday is contemptible. You shouldn't be shocked at my behavior but at his..

I do not think you are living with a scarlet letter. I have said I think you have shown you have repented. You only brought up your repentance process as I was noting that YOU were the one claiming that all sins are the same in the eyes of God and I stated, boy--that sure would bother me if I was your wife and you acted like my sin of a white lie was the same as others (which will not be mentioned).

I make no claim for that authorship about how terrible any crime against God is.. That came from the Holy Spirit to the Apostle James.. You must know that by now.. If you believe the p***ages in that same context that teaches that faith without works is dead, why would you deny the doctrine that teaches us that if we keep the whole law but offend in one point we are guilty of it all? Fine, pick and choose the parts of the Bible you will believe and call those that believe all God's word wrong. To teach that people that believe all the Bible make lite of the truth because you disagree with a p***age of scripture to me sounds like something an atheist would say.. I can't understand how you can deny any of God's word, but that is me, Trust God, trust His promises.. I'm funny that way.. I don't believe the Bible is corrupt like mormonism teaches it is.. I believe that even James 2 is God's word..

James, really-what I see is how damaging and hurtful some sins can be. I think that, while all sins remove us from God, there are definitely ones that cause more damage and more hurt. (And just to give you another possible opinion, when I shared with my husband our posts back and forth, he said--"whew, he shared that with his congregation--was that a p***ive aggressive behavior against his wife? Was that to get back at her for something she had done?"....so you may want to realize that not everyone looks at such confessions as a measure of faith, but possibly a measure of selfishness.)

Here is the difference.. You keep telling me how people see sin.. I keep telling you how God says He sees sin.. There is a wide difference.. His standard is very high.. He teaches us that we must be perfect as He is perfect.. Anything short of that is serious sin since it will eternally separate us from Him.. I refuse to see any sin is less serious than that.. I have showed you where murderers, adulterer, sorcerers, and ALL LIARS will find their place in the Lake of Fire.. That pretty well spells it out.. To God all sin deserves the same punishment, eternal separation from Him in the Lake of Fire.. There isn't one place that is worse than another it is all the Lake of Fire.. Last point on this.. DON'T TELL ME THAT YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN AND THEN DENY GOD'S WORD..

There is no denial that a person can be forgiven of their sins including this one. I think one thing interesting I have witnessed regarding "Christians' is that they tend to get up and do a "look how bad I was" approach to their sins. I have been to multiple gatherings where a convert gets up and does the "lets walk through how really bad I was before I converted" story. To me, it almost comes across like a brag session--the drugs I did, the sleeping around I did, etc. I know for me, when I repent--the sin is gone. I don't discuss it anymore. I am forgiven, it is forgotten. Why would I bring it up? So, this is a part of "Christianity" that I do not really understand.

One more time I didn't bring it up sir did.. I just defended myself.. If people know about the sin they need to be told if there was repentance.. Trying to get the LDS here to understand that I have repented was not easy.. I even had to show that I have touched all the bases followed all the rules.. I even showed that I went beyond what mormonism teaches about repentance in confessing to people that didn't need to know..

Yes, leaders in the LDS faith have committed adultery. It does happen--yes, and some even with more serious crimes. And guess what, we do see these as more serious and the consequences are more serious as a result. Umm, not sure where you are getting the sins of one makes us brand all else false. We were only discussing how we view sin--not that we view religions based on the sinners themselves.

Another charge that came from sir.. How could Christian speak the truth if we still sin, even the sin of adultery.. Well Julie, I couldn't speak about anything for a long time.. But when I knew that I had been forgiven I didn't see anything different about me or any other Christian calling people to repentance though faith in Jesus.. But some of you believe that the extrabiblical teaching that mormonism teaches puts them in a superior position with God.. I see that as a reason to question their religion not to see it as better.. Something to be avoided not something to aspire to..

I am not trying to beat this dead horse. If you will note, you are the one who keeps bringing it up over and over. I am not sure why you want to do that. But if you do, I will respond, but never mention any particular sin.

That is all I have been doing since sir started in on me and you added to his chorus..

Here is something you and others may find interesting though. My husband is a therapist and as such--is trained to understand what people's issues are. When I was on another site, the moderator kept harping on Joseph Smith's "adultery". My husband read one of his posts and said, there is a man who has struggled with adultery in his life. He can't let it go because it is his issue. Well, I asked, and sure enough, it was.

And I do it to draw a line of differentiation between a honest sinner who had confessed his sin to one that hasn't.. Sounds like you see Smith's sin as well as I do. Too bad he could identify it as sin and have God deal with it..

So, ask yourself--what can't you let go of. When you complain about Mormons, what makes up your threads? I really believe it when Christ states "out of thine own mouth, I will judge thee"---because we really can see what a persons problems are by what they complain about in others.

Do you see God as judging me for teaching the biblical doctrine of believing that the Lord our God is one Lord? Is there some terrible judgment because I point to Smith for teaching that we have three separate Gods? Will I be judged harshly by believing that God the Father has been God from everlasting to everlasting instead of believing that He was once a man that became God as Smith taught.. Tell me was Paul wrong to put down all the gods the Greeks worshiped? Was it wrong when Elijah scoffed at the priests of Baal? Should he had followed your teaching and respected their beliefs? I say that it is wrong to allow someone to believe in false prophets, in false teachings allowing them to march down the wide road directly into the Lake of Fire.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by James Banta

If leaven the forum is an evil thing to do then I was making a false accusation about you.. You left right as sir pointed my sin our to you.. What else could be thought other that you to too discussed to go on.. It didn't matter but you still left without a word why.. So it was up to the mot plausible reason.. You say I brought it up.. NO, I didn't that again was sir.. So was he just gossiping or was he attempting character ******ination. I guess it turned out to be gossip since all he could do is whisper about sin that had been dealt with over a decade ago.. I accuse sir as being a gossip spreading juicy little peaces of dirt on anyone he can find especially if they aren't LDS.. To spread old old news that has been dealt with in repentance years ago as though it happened yesterday is contemptible. You should be shocked at my behavior but at his..

Hmm, I see your point, but I did not leave at all for the reason you ***umed. I left because of the site being hacked--that is all. This is the problem with making ***umptions, I guess.

I make no claim for that authorship about how terrible any crime against God is.. That came from the Holy Spirit to the Apostle James.. You must know that by now.. If you believe the p***ages in that same context that tech that faith without works is dead, why would you deny the doctrine that teaches us that if we keep the whole law but offend in one point we are guilty of it all. Fine pick and choose the parts of the Bible you will believe and call those that believe all God's word wrong. To teach that people that believe all the Bible make lite of the truth because you disagree with a p***age of scripture to me sounds like something an atheist would say.. I can't understand how you can deny any of God's word, but that is me, Trust God, trust His promises.. I'm funny that way.. I don't believe the Bible is corrupt like mormonism teaches it is.. I believe that even James 2 is God's word

I don't pick and choose the scriptures I believe in, I just see how they play out life. I do not deny that no sin is okay to God, but you and I read it differently that if we offend one point, we are guilty of all. I read this more to understand that all of us are of a fallen state and all of us need God's grace. That said, life teaches me that some sins are more hurtful and damaging to others. Do I take this to mean that God thinks that any sin is okay? No. But just like a parent would not think any amount of fighting among their children is okay, certainly, one can discern when one creates the bigger problem for all involved.

I do not believe the Bible is "corrupt" as you say, but that there are parts that are not interpreted correctly. That is another part that is obvious from the reading or we would not see contradictions within the writings.

here is the difference.. You keep telling me how people see sin.. I keep telling you how God says He sees sin.. There is a wide difference.. His standard is very high.. He teaches us that we must be perfect as He is perfect.. Anything short of that is serious sin since it will eternally separate us from Him.. I refuse to see any sin is less serious than that.. I have showed you where murderers, adulterer, sorcerers, and ALL LIARS will find their place in the Lake of Fire.. That pretty well spells it out.. To God all sin deserves the sames punishment, eternal separation from God in the Lake of Fire.. There isn't one place that is worse than another it is all the Lake of Fire.. Last point on this.. DON'T TELL ME THAT YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN AND THEN DENY GOD'S WORD..

I agree, we must be perfect as He is perfect. That said; he also speaks of a greater ****ation--so certainly, he recognizes a difference in sin. Do you deny God's words about that?


Mar 12:40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater ****ation.

Why do you think Christ speaks of a greater ****ation? You never addressed this.

One more time I didn't bring it up sir did.. I just defended myself.. If people know about the sin they need to be told if there was repentance.. Trying to get the LDS here to understand that I have repented was not easy.. I even had to show that I have touched all the bases followed all the rules.. I even showed that I went beyond what mormonism teaches about repentance in confessing to people that didn't need to know..

You obviously were the first to bring is up as no one would know if you hadn't.

And I do it to draw a line of differentiation between a honest sinner who had confessed his sin to one that hasn't.. Sounds like you see Smith's sin as well as I do. Too bad he could identify it as sin and have God deal with it..

The problem is, people are not static, they are dynamic...and as such, you can never be their judge.

Do you see God as judging me for teaching the biblical doctrine of believing that the Lord our God is one Lord? Is there some terrible judgment because I point to Smith for teaching that we have three separate Gods? Will I be judged harshly by believing that God the Father has been God from everlasting to everlasting instead of believing that He was once a man that became God as Smith taught.. Tell me was Paul wrong to put down all the gods the Greeks worshiped? Was it wrong when Elijah to scoffed at the priests of Baal? Should he had followed your teaching and respected their beliefs? I say that it is wrong to allow someone to believe in false prophets, in false teachings allowing them to march down the wide road directly into the Lake of Fire.. IHS jim

You and I have a different idea of how you teach people truth. You think it is to point out their faulty beliefs. I believe it is to point out truth.

[James Banta]

[QUOTE][BigJulie;150795]

Hmm, I see your point, but I did not leave at all for the reason you ***umed. I left because of the site being hacked--that is all. This is the problem with making ***umptions, I guess.

Seeing it like I did was not an attack on you..

I don't pick and choose the scriptures I believe in, I just see how they play out life. I do not deny that no sin is okay to God, but you and I read it differently that if we offend one point, we are guilty of all. I read this more to understand that all of us are of a fallen state and all of us need God's grace. That said, life teaches me that some sins are more hurtful and damaging to others. Do I take this to mean that God thinks that any sin is okay? No. But just like a parent would not think any amount of fighting among their children is okay, certainly, one can discern when one creates the bigger problem for all involved.

Since all the major translation teach it just as it is stated in the KJV I would say you are bending the scripture to say what you want it to say instead of just believing God..

James 2:10
NIV
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

NASB
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

Wycliffe Bible
And whoever keepeth all the law, but offendeth in one [Forsooth whoever shall keep all the law, soothly offend in one], he is made guilty of all.

Common English Bible
Anyone who tries to keep all of the Law but fails at one point is guilty of failing to keep all of it.

Geneva Bible
For whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet faileth in one point, he is guilty of all.

The problem isn't with the interpretation, it is with having or not having faith in God..

I do not believe the Bible is "corrupt" as you say, but that there are parts that are not interpreted correctly. That is another part that is obvious from the reading or we would not see contradictions within the writings.

Some people do see contradictions.. I am not one of them.. That is also a matter of believing or disbelieving God..

I agree, we must be perfect as He is perfect. That said; he also speaks of a greater ****ation--so certainly, he recognizes a difference in sin. Do you deny God's words about that?

I agree completely But that is a p***age that has a meaning that can mean most sever punishment as seen in the in the NIV while the NASB speaks of it as a greater condemnation. Can you tell me what is the harshest punishment of God? Is it not the Lake of Fire.. Then is it the most sever punishment, and the greater condemnation? What could be more harsh than that? Or should we deny one part of the Bible to support another? Are you telling me that such sins can't be forgiven.. These that deserve the greater ****ation? No? Then they are the greater ****ation only is there is no repentance and by not allowing the Holy Spirit to lead such to the cross to the blood of Jesus the commit the unpardonable sin.. Remember Rev 21:8 the unbelieving are included in that greater ****ation with ALL LIARS.. The greater ****ation is God's final judgment that sees such as they cast into the Lake of Fire.. All sin is deserving of the greater ****ation.. That is the only way it works..

Mar 12:40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater ****ation.

Why do you think Christ speaks of a greater ****ation? You never addressed this.


You obviously were the first to bring is up as no one would know if you hadn't.

I just did above.. I also said that I don't believe in Biblical contradiction so it must be that the greater ****ation is the harshest judgment God would judge a sinner an unconfessed sinner.. Either that or we are in conflict and that in not possible with God..

The problem is, people are not static, they are dynamic...and as such, you can never be their judge.

Looks like we are going to disagree on everything.. Again I turn to the Bible:

Ecclesiastes 1:9
The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

This can't mean learning, or technology. How is it that there is nothing new? Men's hearts and their corruptions are the same now as in former times; their desires, and pursuits, and complaints, still the same. The natural man does nothing new. He has been evil, He will be evil, He is evil..

You and I have a different idea of how you teach people truth. You think it is to point out their faulty beliefs. I believe it is to point out truth.

You tell me in my posts that I don't present truth? I present the truth and compare it to the teachings of mormonism.. Sorry to say that mormonism usually compares poorly.. Smith taught that a man may have more than one wife.. He took many wives.. But the Bible says that a leader of God's Church must be the husband of one wife.. How do you make both those statements true? Teach me.. I believe only the Bible.. I teach others what God reveals to us in the Bible.. Smith said Jesus told him that the teaches of the other churches are all corrupt.. Not partly corrupt, not even mostly corrupt, but all corrupt.. Today I hear LDS teach that there is a lot of truth in what Christian teachers teach.. They just don't have the full truth to teach.. Sorry but being corrupt means they either changed or deny the teaching of Jesus as they were given to Smith.. Is that a contradiction? Sure sound like it to me.. So how can you make both be true. That we are uninformed not corrupt and that Jesus told Smith that we are corrupt? Teach me.. I am glad I am not called to explain such problems with Biblical doctrine.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=James Banta;150799]

Seeing it like I did was not an attack on you..

Or maybe you should be careful with your ***umptions as you did not know the exact reason I stopped posting. As far you knew, I was in a car accident or something.

Since all the major translation teach it just as it is stated in the KJV I would say you are bending the scripture to say what you want it to say instead of just believing God..

No, I just don't look at it so narrowly and also think of this scripture in light of others such as when Christ speaks of "greater ****ation"---to me, one scripture does not exclude the other.
[B]James 2:10
NIV
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

The problem isn't with the interpretation, it is with having or not having faith in God..

I have faith. Please, once again--don't make ***umptions you know my faith because you think you read something correctly and believe I do not.

Some people do see contradictions.. I am not one of them.. That is also a matter of believing or disbelieving God..

Well, then you are not open to the reality of what happens when scriptures are translated. I do not have problems with the contradictions, and they do not decrease my faith--I just understand that there are humans involved.

I agree completely But that is a p***age that has a meaning that can mean most sever punishment

But this leads back to the question, why would one punishment be more severe than another if ...."For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."??

as Is it not the Lake of Fire.. Then is it the most sever punishment, and the greater condemnation? What could be more harsh than that? Or should we deny one part of the Bible to support another?

So, then, if this is the "greater punishment" what is the lesser punishment?

Are you telling me that such sins can't be forgiven..

Nope, not at all.

These that deserve the greater ****ation? No? Then they are the greater ****ation only is there is no repentance and by not allowing the Holy Spirit to lead such to the cross to the blood of Jesus the commit the unpardonable sin..

Then why speak of a "greater" ****ation---shouldn't the word "****ation" do the trick?

Remember Rev 21:8 the unbelieving are included in that greater ****ation with ALL LIARS.. The greater ****ation is God's final judgment that sees such as they cast into the Lake of Fire.. All sin is deserving of the greater ****ation.. That is the only way it works..

How exactly is the greater ****ation? What ****ation is it being compared to?

I just did above.. I also said that I don't believe in Biblical contradiction so it must be that the greater ****ation is the harshest judgment God would judge a sinner an unconfessed sinner.. Either that or we are in conflict and that in not possible with God..

So, what is a less harsh judgment that God would judge a sinner? Do you see this "less harsh judgment" as NOT ****ation? Then how could there by a greater ****ation? Your two choices are ****ed or saved.

Ecclesiastes 1:9
The thing that has been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Yes, so...???

This can't mean learning, or technology. How is it that there is nothing new? Men's hearts and their corruptions are the same now as in former times; their desires, and pursuits, and complaints, still the same. The natural man does nothing new. He has been evil, He will be evil, He is evil..

And this explains what a greater ****ation is how???

You tell me in my posts that I don't present truth? I present the truth and compare it to the teachings of mormonism..

Not the way I see it. You beat-around-the-bush to explain "greater ****ation"---but then all you state is there is one really bad ****ation (hell fire, etc), but do not explain then what the lesser ****ation is. You explain we are evil---okay, but then you don't explain why Christ would single out the Pharisees as ones who will suffer a greater ****ation. Your explanation makes no sense.

[Apologette]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;150800]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Or maybe you should be careful with your ***umptions as you did not know the exact reason I stopped posting. As far you knew, I was in a car accident or something.



No, I just don't look at it so narrowly and also think of this scripture in light of others such as when Christ speaks of "greater ****ation"---to me, one scripture does not exclude the other.
[B]James 2:10
NIV
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

I have faith. Please, once again--don't make ***umptions you know my faith because you think you read something correctly and believe I do not.


Well, then you are not open to the reality of what happens when scriptures are translated. I do not have problems with the contradictions, and they do not decrease my faith--I just understand that there are humans involved.



But this leads back to the question, why would one punishment be more severe than another if ...."For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."??




So, then, if this is the "greater punishment" what is the lesser punishment?

Nope, not at all.

Then why speak of a "greater" ****ation---shouldn't the word "****ation" do the trick?

How exactly is the greater ****ation? What ****ation is it being compared to?


So, what is a less harsh judgment that God would judge a sinner? Do you see this "less harsh judgment" as NOT ****ation? Then how could there by a greater ****ation? Your two choices are ****ed or saved.


Yes, so...???

And this explains what a greater ****ation is how???


Not the way I see it. You beat-around-the-bush to explain "greater ****ation"---but then all you state is there is one really bad ****ation (hell fire, etc), but do not explain then what the lesser ****ation is. You explain we are evil---okay, but then you don't explain why Christ would single out the Pharisees as ones who will suffer a greater ****ation. Your explanation makes no sense.

Big Julie, you are condemned to ****ation, hell fire, because you have rejected the True and Living Christ and exchanged Him for the brother of Satan.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Big Julie, you are condemned to ****ation, hell fire, because you have rejected the True and Living Christ and exchanged Him for the brother of Satan.

And still no explanation of what it means to have "greater ****ation" and why Christ would tell the Pharisees this (who by the way were a chosen people who studied the scriptures daily.) These Pharisees THOUGHT they knew who the God of the scriptures was, but they missed him because, for all of their reading, they had no love in their heart. The criticized and condemned that which was good and right and put themselves above others because they thought their understanding of the scriptures was the only correct way to read it.

So, here we are celebrating the birth of our dear Savior, and here you are condemning me to hell. As James scripturally shared "there is nothing new under the sun." And thus we see, it is true.

[James Banta]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=BigJulie;150800]

Originally Posted by James Banta

No, I just don't look at it so narrowly and also think of this scripture in light of others such as when Christ speaks of "greater ****ation"---to me, one scripture does not exclude the other.

So narrowly means what it says, the open minded meaning is what you want it to say. I believe God but I doubt you.. There is no secret meaning in James 2:10 just like there isn't a secret meaning in James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." You like that p***age so it means what it says.. But the same Apostle that recorded verse 17 recorded verse 10. It was just 7 verses earlier and it clearly teaches that if we keep the whole Law but sin in only one point we ARE GUILTY OF ALL.. If I can believe verse 17 how is it that yiu can continue to hold verse 10 in doubt?

I have faith. Please, once again--don't make ***umptions you know my faith because you think you read something correctly and believe I do not.

Come now Julie the verse isn't written in invisible ink, it isn't in Chinese.. It is in easily read English.. It just isn't in you to believe it as the Holy Spirit gave it to James.. You have to find a different meaning, because you don't like and don't agree with the clear statement made there.. Now is it said something like "As is known sin is evil and evil is sin, don't commit evil or you will be filled with evil" I would say that your interpretation would have merit. But this verse is so clear. "if you sin in only one point you are guilty of all". That leaves no room for interpretation at all, only to believe it or not.. I choose to believe it, you are choosing NOT..

Well, then you are not open to the reality of what happens when scriptures are translated. I do not have problems with the contradictions, and they do not decrease my faith--I just understand that there are humans involved.

I don't have trouble with them either.. I deny that contradictions exist in the scripture at all.. You seem to believe that God can and does contradict Himself.. Again I see a shocking lack of faith in that statement.. It is nothing less that saying that "sometimes God lies".. I deny that 100%

But this leads back to the question, why would one punishment be more severe than another if ...."For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."??

It wouldn't.. For breaking God's commandment there is only the greater ****ation.. There is no lesser ****ation.. Since there is one way God used to explain the final estate of the wicked that is the greater ****ation.. That is explain to us as the Lake of Fire.. No other ****ation is explained in the Bible.. Yes it says that that the Scribes and Pharisees that devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater ****ation.. Does this mean that their ****ation is greater than the Son's of Perdition? Are you starting yet to see that the greater ****ation is God's last great ****ation, the Lake of Fire? So who gets a lessor ****ation? Are there sinners that only have to dangle they feet into the Lake of Fire? No, The Bible is clear it says "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and *****mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

In Matthew 25:41 Jesus teaches us that the Lake of Fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. If all the sinners listed in Rev 21:8 are also ***igned to that greater ****ation can there be any other.. After all would you call being fearful, unbelieving or lying as terrible of a sin as murderers, adultery, or idolatry? it only follows that there is one ****ation and that is the GREATER ****ATION.. That is unless you can show me that being fearful, unbelieving or lying leads to some other ****ation other than the Lake of fire with the murderers, adulterers, or idolaters and now those that devour widows' houses, and pretend holiness by making long prayers.. Tell me just how stealing and GIVING LONG PRETENDED Prayers is worse than murder? Do all these deserve the ****ation of God, Yes and that ****ation is the GREATER ****ATION..

So, then, if this is the "greater punishment" what is the lesser punishment?

Just where is this "Lessor ****ation" ever referred to? I have never seen it in the scripture..

Nope, not at all.

You are right there there is no such thing..

Then why speak of a "greater" ****ation---shouldn't the word "****ation" do the trick?

You are right again but for emphisis the Holy Spirit made it clear that they would get the greatest ****ation.

How exactly is the greater ****ation? What ****ation is it being compared to?

There is no comparison.. It is the only ****ation that is spoken of by God.. Remember the fearful, unbelieving and lying gain the same punishment as the murderers, adulterer, and the idolater. The Lake of Fire is therefore the GREATER ****ation!

So, what is a less harsh judgment that God would judge a sinner? Do you see this "less harsh judgment" as NOT ****ation? Then how could there by a greater ****ation? Your two choices are ****ed or saved.

That is why all these sinners even what you call the non serious sins of being fearful, unbelieving and lying are still said to be cast in the Lake of Fire.. I don't believe you are ready to discuss the unforgivable sin you are having to much trouble with the word greater.. There is no less harsh punishment can't you see that? All there is is the greater punishment.. I can't wait to see your answer why the Scribes and Pharisees have a greater ****ation over murderers and adulterers. Can't both suffer the greater ****ation?

And this explains what a greater ****ation is how???

The only explanation is that the greater ****ation are the words used by the Holy Spirit to describe His judgments..

Not the way I see it. You beat-around-the-bush to explain "greater ****ation"---but then all you state is there is one really bad ****ation (hell fire, etc), but do not explain then what the lesser ****ation is. You explain we are evil---okay, but then you don't explain why Christ would single out the Pharisees as ones who will suffer a greater ****ation. Your explanation makes no sense.

There is no lesser ****ation discussed in the scripture.. It is all the greater ****ation.. I can't and will not try to explain was isn't taught in the Bible.. I believe that this post makes iy more clear.. Stop worrying about what the scripture doesn't teach and believe what it does teach.. The ****ation God condemns sinners to is the GREATER ****ATION.. It doesn't matter if that ****ation is come by cheating the old and helpless or murdering an innocent. All who are guilty before God receive His GREATER ****ATION.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

He, of course knows. The point is, we don't know. Would you prefer God judge you prior to you doing anything because he knows what you would do?

He would be justified in doing so.

As I saw in your post you said "We don't Know" you are starting to understand the tests and trials we go though prove nothing to Him.. WE learn , we gain wisdom, we learn patience.. Our Good works are for God, our tests and trials are for us.. Always backward from what you think isn't.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=James Banta;150815]

So narrowly means what it says, the open minded meaning is what you want it to say.

Yes, but you also need to look at what it says and see it in light of other scriptures and not make it say what you think you want it to say. You say this scriptures means that all sins are the same. It doesn't say that. It says that when you commit one sin, you are guilty of breaking the whole law. To me, this speaks to the fact that we are all in a fallen state and God sees that any sin will keep us from him. He doesn't state that all are the same, not even in this verse.

There is no secret meaning in James 2:10 just like there isn't a secret meaning in James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." You like that p***age so it means what it says.. But the same Apostle that recorded verse 17 recorded verse 10. It was just 7 verses earlier and it clearly teaches that if we keep the whole Law but sin in only one point we ARE GUILTY OF ALL.. If I can believe verse 17 how is it that yiu can continue to hold verse 10 in doubt?

Yes, and in context, they fit perfectly together.

In these verses, Paul is asking us to not judge the poor and recognize that we are all in a fallen state. He wants us to love each other. He notes that if we do not act righteously, we are not righteous (faith without works is dead.)

But, that does not mean that the sinner is to go around stating that their sin is no different than the next guys. These verses are not there to give excuse to the murderer that he is just like the next guy when it comes to sin.

Come now Julie the verse isn't written in invisible ink, it isn't in Chinese.. It is in easily read English.. It just isn't in you to believe it as the Holy Spirit gave it to James.. You have to find a different meaning, because you don't like and don't agree with the clear statement made there.. Now is it said something like "As is known sin is evil and evil is sin, don't commit evil or you will be filled with evil" I would say that your interpretation would have merit. But this verse is so clear. "if you sin in only one point you are guilty of all". That leaves no room for interpretation at all, only to believe it or not.. I choose to believe it, you are choosing NOT..

It is clear, and in no way does it undo what Christ said when he spoke to the Pharisees of their greater ****ation because of what they were doing.

I don't have trouble with them either.. I deny that contradictions exist in the scripture at all.. You seem to believe that God can and does contradict Himself.. Again I see a shocking lack of faith in that statement.. It is nothing less that saying that "sometimes God lies".. I deny that 100%

Oh, that's almost funny. Okay---I look at the scriptures and I see that there are definitely human flaws going on or we would not get two different versions of the same story with different facts presented. I don't think this is a problem because the truth can come through regardless, but I definitely do not disqualify the human element in God bringing forth truth.

It wouldn't.. For breaking God's commandment there is only the greater ****ation.. There is no lesser ****ation..

How can there be a greater with no lesser? There would be no reason to use the word "greater" then. This is why you don't make any sense as to how you read this scripture. Billyray said there are different punishments. Do you disagree with him on this?

Since there is one way God used to explain the final estate of the wicked that is the greater ****ation.. That is explain to us as the Lake of Fire.. No other ****ation is explained in the Bible.. Yes it says that that the Scribes and Pharisees that devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater ****ation.. Does this mean that their ****ation is greater than the Son's of Perdition? Are you starting yet to see that the greater ****ation is God's last great ****ation, the Lake of Fire?

Nope....what was BEFORE the hell fire?

So who gets a lessor ****ation? Are there sinners that only have to dangle they feet into the Lake of Fire? No, The Bible is clear it says "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and *****mongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Wait a minute---wait a minute---you just gave a list of sins as if these sins are greater than, lets say, not clothing the needy. Are you now going against what you said earlier?

In Matthew 25:41 Jesus teaches us that the Lake of Fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. If all the sinners listed in Rev 21:8 are also ***igned to that greater ****ation can there be any other..

So, to you then, Christ misspoke when he used the word "greater" because there is no lesser and greater. According to you, he goofed on this.

Just where is this "Lessor ****ation" ever referred to? I have never seen it in the scripture..

It is referred to when you say "greater ****ation"....unless you think Christ misspoke and didn't need to say greater.

You are right again but for emphisis the Holy Spirit made it clear that they would get the greatest ****ation.

Now we have "greatest ****ation" as if there is something greater again?

There is no comparison.. It is the only ****ation that is spoken of by God.. Remember the fearful, unbelieving and lying gain the same punishment as the murderers, adulterer, and the idolater. The Lake of Fire is therefore the GREATER ****ation!

So Christ misspoke by implying there was a "greater" ****ation. ****ation was enough.

That is why all these sinners even what you call the non serious sins of being fearful, unbelieving and lying are still said to be cast in the Lake of Fire.. I don't believe you are ready to discuss the unforgivable sin you are having to much trouble with the word greater.. There is no less harsh punishment can't you see that? All there is is the greater punishment.. I can't wait to see your answer why the Scribes and Pharisees have a greater ****ation over murderers and adulterers. Can't both suffer the greater ****ation?

Well, lets see, he told the Pharisees that they would suffer a greater ****ation for pretending to be righteous when they were not and using this "pretense" to destroy the well-being of those in need. So, yeah, he puts this as a bigger sin. But you don't recognize that. I do.

The only explanation is that the greater ****ation are the words used by the Holy Spirit to describe His judgments..

I still don't see this the same way you do.

There is no lesser ****ation discussed in the scripture.. It is all the greater ****ation.. I can't and will not try to explain was isn't taught in the Bible.. I believe that this post makes iy more clear.. Stop worrying about what the scripture doesn't teach and believe what it does teach.. The ****ation God condemns sinners to is the GREATER ****ATION.. It doesn't matter if that ****ation is come by cheating the old and helpless or murdering an innocent. All who are guilty before God receive His GREATER ****ATION.. IHS jim

Once again---you make the words of Christ either unneeded or believe he misspoke. You want me to believe what the scriptures teach, but then you go about say---"stop worrying about what the scripture doesn't teach..."---well, there is nothing you have said that is congruent with what I know of the Savior. He doesn't goof when he speaks. He doesn't say things he doesn't mean.

Your way of understanding this is to say, in short, greater doesn't mean greater. That doesn't work for me.

And then I can apply this to real life. I can see that all sin keeps us away from God. I can see that he doesn't want us to judge one another as better or worse based on our sins. But he also doesn't provide an excuse for the sinner to say--well, my murdering is the same as your white lying. He does make a list of what are really terrible offenses to him. He does tell those that should know better that they will be held more accountable and suffer a "greater ****ation."

This makes total sense to me.

Your explanation, doesn't.

It doesn't fit what I read and it certainly doesn't fit real life. Once again...if someone committed a sin against me that hurt me terribly and then tried to brush it off as if my telling a white lie was the same as their (lets say) murder, I would be like--no way. Then if they were "believers" and then lets say, stole my house, I would be glad to know that God takes this seriously. If they were repentant---then yes, the sin is the same to God and we should not judge. But I certainly wouldn't want the repentant murderer excusing himself by saying--oh, my sin is the same as any other. No way. James 2 should not be used a way for sinners to excuse their behavior as if their sin is no different than others. Christ recognized that the sins of the Pharisees were greater than others because they knew better. Don't say he goofed or misspoke.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

And still no explanation of what it means to have "greater ****ation" and why Christ would tell the Pharisees this (who by the way were a chosen people who studied the scriptures daily.) These Pharisees THOUGHT they knew who the God of the scriptures was, but they missed him because, for all of their reading, they had no love in their heart. The criticized and condemned that which was good and right and put themselves above others because they thought their understanding of the scriptures was the only correct way to read it.

So, here we are celebrating the birth of our dear Savior, and here you are condemning me to hell. As James scripturally shared "there is nothing new under the sun." And thus we see, it is true.

".....but they missed him because, for all of their reading, they had no love in their heart. The criticized and condemned that which was good and right and put themselves above others because they thought their understanding of the scriptures was the only correct way to read it." Julie, stop for a moment and think about what you just said here. Does this not sound like the LDS? They go about thinking they are the "only true Church" condemn those who aren't members thinking highly of themselves and of course the LDS are the only ones who can understand scriptures and their interpretation is the only correct one. There is one verse where it mentions, "greater ****ation." Are you going to throw the baby out with the bath water over one scripture? To me it means that there are some when judged will suffer a greater ****ation and suffer more then others. Then one has to consider that being judged by God and receiving his condemnation which is the Lake of Fire, that would be the greatest ****ation ever and to be separated spiritually from God for eternity. Could there be anything worse?

[Snow Patrol]

Julie, stop for a moment and think about what you just said here. Does this not sound like the LDS? They go about thinking they are the "only true Church" condemn those who aren't members thinking highly of themselves and of course the LDS are the only ones who can understand scriptures and their interpretation is the only correct one.

Oh my goodness. You could say the same things about Christians. Remember, Christians believe the Church is the body of believers. So, don't you believe the body of believers/Church is the only true Church? Hasn't every single "Christian" here condemned the LDS for not being believers? I've been told so many times that I can't understand the scriptures because my eyes have not been opened that I can't count them all.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by neverending

".....but they missed him because, for all of their reading, they had no love in their heart. The criticized and condemned that which was good and right and put themselves above others because they thought their understanding of the scriptures was the only correct way to read it." Julie, stop for a moment and think about what you just said here. Does this not sound like the LDS? They go about thinking they are the "only true Church" condemn those who aren't members thinking highly of themselves and of course the LDS are the only ones who can understand scriptures and their interpretation is the only correct one. There is one verse where it mentions, "greater ****ation." Are you going to throw the baby out with the bath water over one scripture? To me it means that there are some when judged will suffer a greater ****ation and suffer more then others. Then one has to consider that being judged by God and receiving his condemnation which is the Lake of Fire, that would be the greatest ****ation ever and to be separated spiritually from God for eternity. Could there be anything worse?

Interesting that you captured my quote in your quote:

but they missed him because, for all of their reading, they had no love in their heart. The criticized and condemned that which was good and right and put themselves above others because they thought their understanding of the scriptures was the only correct way to read it."

This (above) was the last part of my quote.

All you have to do is hit "reply with quote" and it will capture my quote. It break of the quote of another and insert what you want, highlight what you want to refer to and then hit the icon above that is like the little quote bubble.

We don't go around condemning others as you do. We believing other churches have parts of the truth, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches the fullness of the truth. If you want to refer to what God said to Joseph Smith-well, that is what God said.

Do I want to throw out the baby with the bath water for one scripture? No, I see that these verses all fit together into one great truth--there is no need to throw it out.

Oh, so you do believe that some sins are different than others to God when you state: .

To me it means that there are some when judged will suffer a greater ****ation and suffer more then others.

James argues against that. Do you disagree with him?