10 facts

[James Banta]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;155725]

Originally Posted by James Banta

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

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

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

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

[John T]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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

Do you agree with the removal of this?

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

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

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

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by John T

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

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

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

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

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

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


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

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

So, your point again?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Attachment 211

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

Bump for BigJ

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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

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

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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

Do you agree with the removal of this?

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

Originally Posted by Billyray

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

What did Jerome have to say about these books?

Originally Posted by Billyray

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

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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

Originally Posted by Billyray

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

BigJ which position would you say is most accurate?

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

[Billyray]

A brief running summary of this discussion

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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

Originally Posted by Billyray

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

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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

Do you agree with the removal of this?

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

[RealFakeHair]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;155724]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

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

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

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

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

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

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

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Bump for BigJ

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

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

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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


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

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

So, your point again?

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

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

BigJ you have made a claim that the Protestants REMOVED inspired scripture from the Bible.

Show me once where I ever said this. You are putting words in my mouth to try to make a point.

Yet you have not substantiated this false claim.

Maybe because I never made it. I only stated that books were removed from the Bible---I made no mention of whether or not they were inspired.

The Catholic church canonized these writings as inspired scripture that many prior to that time said were were not inspired scripture. That is why I asked you about Jerome who didn't think that the Apocrypha was inspired. Along with the fact that the Jewish Bible doesn't contain the Apocrypha so they obviously do not consider it inspired scripture. So why don't you prove that the Protestants "REMOVED" inspired scripture from the Bible.

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

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

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

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

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

Somehow your post did remind me of this scripture though:

"If you love me, keep my commandments."

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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

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

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

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

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

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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

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

[TrueBlue?]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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

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

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


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



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

So an artists bakes a painting? We back computers and planes. We bake tvs and medicine. So really no body any where created anything, we are just baking.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by TrueBlue?

So an artists bakes a painting? .....

well perhaps, if it's made out of clay?

perhaps...

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

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

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

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


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

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by TrueBlue?

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

Yes, very true....

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

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

[TrueBlue?]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

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

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

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

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

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

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

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Yes, very true....

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

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

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

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

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

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

But not God...


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

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

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

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

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

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



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

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

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

But not God...


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

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

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

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

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

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

.

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

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


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

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