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

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Blueskies

So, let jeff try and put down your time spent as a missionary, he doesn't know a thing about you and is only grabbing at straws. God bless you for having a burden for the LDS people. I have enjoyed reading many of your posts.

Thanks for the note Blueskies. This seems to be a very common tactic used by the LDS, but I don't think it is really a tactic because I truely believe that they do it subconsciously. Why they do this? I am not entirely sure. But if a person can't defend their position on the facts the next best thing is to try to win their position by discrediting the person bringing them the facts. If they can show faults with the messenger this somehow translates into a win for their position. Even though the facts of their case have remained unchanged, i.e. they still have a false god, a false Jesus, and a false gospel.

Just to show you that it is not just Jeff that disbelieves me but rather this is a programmed response by LDS in general, you can look at this thread on the MADB. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/top...-down-to-this/ . BTW my own LDS brother tried this tactic on me recently, so I know that this is a deep seated mind control program rearing its ugly head.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Blueskies

Billy: I find it mind boggling to say the least

--That is not very surprising, if you are typical of the attackers I have encountered. Their minds seem easily boggled.

that when a Mormon is confronted by someone who has left the church and had participated in being a missionary to having been married in a temple to holding church callings but then leave it, they can't understand why.

---Oh, I am quite able to understand the reasons people give as to WHY they defect. It's the HOW that Billy is providing no answers on--HOW he could have made it through the hours of cl***es during those years before his mission---and then the long days of cl***es, for weeks at the MTC--and then serve for 2 years teaching people LDS doctrines---and be so wrong about LDS doctrines as basic and easily learned as the doctrine on the baptism for the remission of sins. Maybe you can answer that. No?

I left the church many years ago after having doubts about it and needing answers.

---Too bad for you. Other people had doubts and needed answers, and got answers and had their doubts resolved and didn't quit. I can't help it that you weren't one of those people. For me personally, LDS doctrines answer far more of the important theological and soteriological questions than any other church answers. But, just like the idea of staying married to the one you love forever, it's not for everyone, so if it wasn't your cup of tea, you were free to go in peace and never come back, if that's what makes you happy. But if you appoint yourself to the *** of attacking the LDS church, its leaders, members, or doctrines in a forum, you have to accept the fact that someone is gonna point out any flaws, fallacies, or idiocies in your attacks. If that DOESN'T make you happy, then maybe you shouldn't be attacking.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

--That is not very surprising, if you are typical of the attackers I have encountered. Their minds seem easily boggled.


---Oh, I am quite able to understand the reasons people give as to WHY they defect. It's the HOW that Billy is providing no answers on--HOW he could have made it through the hours of cl***es during thosee years before his mission---and then the long days of cl***es, for weeks at the MTC--and then serve for 2 years teaching people LDS doctrines---and be so wrong about LDS doctrines as basic and easily learned as the doctrine on the baptism for the remission of sins. Maybe you can answer that. No?


---Too bad for you. Other people had doubts and needed answers, and got answers and had their doubts resolved. I can't help it that you weren't one of those people. For me personally, LDS doctrines answer far more of the important theological and soteriological quesitons than any other church answers. But, just like the idea of staying married to the one you love forever, it's not for everyone, so if it wasn't your cup of tea, you were free to go in peace and never come back, if that's what makes you happy. But if you appoint yourself to the *** of attacking the LDS church, its leaders, members, or doctrines in a forum, you have to accept the fact that someone is gonna point out any flaws, fallacies, or idiocies in your attacks. If that DOESN'T make you happy, then maybe you shouldn't be attacking.

Funny thing marriage forever wasn't for Jesus of the Holy Bible either!

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Oh, I am quite able to understand the reasons people give as to WHY they defect. It's the HOW that Billy is providing no answers on--HOW he could have made it through the hours of cl***es during thosee years before his mission---and then the long days of cl***es, for weeks at the MTC--and then serve for 2 years teaching people LDS doctrines---and be so wrong about LDS doctrines as basic and easily learned as the doctrine on the baptism for the remission of sins. Maybe you can answer that. No?

Please provide evidence for your bogus claim "(Billy could be) so wrong about LDS doctrines as basic and easily learned as the doctrine"

Here is your post to refresh your memory. BTW note the fact that I am asking a question NOT making a statement about LDS theology.

Originally Posted by nrajeff

Quote:
Billy asks,
BTW did Ted Bundy have his sins remitted by being baptized in the LDS church?

Jeff replies,
---What sins? How should I know? Only the Godhead and the person in question knows, much of the time, whether a person has sincerely repented of a sin, and whether a person's baptism was efficacious. That's why only the Godhead gets to decide who goes where in the afterlife. At least that is what I think is taught in the Bible. I think it would be very arrogant and presumptuous and tacky for someone to go around asking other people "Have Billy Ray's sins been remitted?" As if any of us would actually know the answer. Tell ya what: You feel free to ask God or Ted in the afterlife about the status of Ted's sins, if you run into either God or Ted.

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

[nrajeff]

So you're saying that you actually already knew that LDS DON'T believe that Ted Bundy had his sins remitted merely by being baptized, sans the other conditions that LDS claim must be present? So you're admitting that you were mischaracterizing what LDS believe? Why would you do that?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

So you're saying that you actually already knew that LDS DON'T believe that Ted Bundy had his sins remitted merely by being baptized, sans the other conditions that LDS claim must be present? So you're admitting that you were mischaracterizing what LDS believe? Why would you do that?

You have made a big stink about how I don't know basic LDS doctrine. Prove your false accusation or retract it.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

You have made a big stink about how I don't know basic LDS doctrine. Prove your false accusation or retract it.

---It's fairly simple: If you had an accurate understanding of LDS doctrines, you'd quit acting like you have such a dismal understanding of them. Unless you're just trying to deceive people.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---It's fairly simple: If you had an accurate understanding of LDS doctrines, you'd quit acting like you have such a dismal understanding of them. Unless you're just trying to deceive people.

Proof your false claim or retract it.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Blueskies

Billy:I find it mind boggling to say the least that when a Mormon is confronted by someone who has left the church and had participated in being a missionary to having been married in a temple to holding church callings but then leave it,they can't understand why. So,let jeff try and put down your time spent as a missionary,he doesn't know a thing about you and is only grabbing at straws. God bless you for having a burden for the LDS people. I have enjoyed reading many of your posts.

Your statement for me carries with it the implication that if we only knew what you knew that we would leave the church as well. Yes I believe that Latter-day Saints could learn to react better to people who for their own reasons have decided to leave the church. However you are in my opinion making a big ***umption that there is some sort of deal breaker for me that I have yet to find out about. No Blue_Skies I have heard it all and despite this fact still remain a member.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Proof your false claim or retract it.

---Show me what part of it is false:

"If you had an accurate understanding of LDS doctrines, you'd quit acting like you have such a dismal understanding of them. Unless you're just trying to deceive people."

Are you saying that it's NOT TRUE that if you had an accurate understanding of LDS doctrines, you'd quit acting like you have such a dismal understanding of them? So your claim is that you would NOT quit acting like you had a dismal understanding of them? Then you're admitting that you intend deception?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Show me what part of it is false:

You are the one who made the false claim, prove it or retract it.

Here is my QUESTION
BTW did Ted Bundy have his sins remitted by being baptized in the LDS church?

Is this your bombshell evidence that I am unaware of basic LDS doctrine? How do I know YOUR belief if I don't ask you what you believe? If I try and tell you what believe then you complain about that as well.


Addendum
Also note this exchange WE had on 12-09-2009, 11:04 AM-

Originally Posted by nrajeff

But the Christians of past centuries who KILLED EACH OTHER over the differences in their Bible interpretations, didn't consider it a trivial, minor deal. Otherwise, they wouldn't have KILLED EACH OTHER over those differences.

Do you really believe that anyone who professes to be Christian is truly Christian?

Do you really believe that Ted Bundy was a converted Mormon and really believed in Mormonism despite his baptism into the Mormon faith?

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Here is my QUESTION:By the way did Ted Bundy have his sins remitted by being baptized in the LDS church?

Is this your bombshell evidence that I am unaware of basic Latter-day Saint doctrine? How do I know YOUR belief if I don't ask you what you believe? If I try and tell you what believe then you complain about that as well.

Why then do you need to ask a Later-day Saint what his belief is?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Why then do you need to ask a Later-day Saint what his belief is?

1. First off I ask questions to direct the flow of conversation NOT to show my understanding of LDS theology. It is a way to get you to think about what you really believe.

2. Different LDS have different beliefs.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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

Now you say to me “Mesenja,I think that you underestimate how close Jim and I really are and how far you are from us” Being close in agreement is not being 100% in agreement. This newest revelation by you that “Jim and I agree 100% about Jesus.” is worthless to me. The reason why is that previously you said that “everyone would like to think that they are right about every issue concerning Jesus but this may not be possible".

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Now you say to me “Mesenja,I think that you underestimate how close Jim and I really are and how far you are from us” Being close in agreement is not being 100% in agreement. This newest revelation by you that “Jim and I agree 100% about Jesus. . .

You obviously did not read my post very clearly OR you missed my main point which you would of caught when I stated clearly "Lets test the LDS game". (Below is my full statement). Do I think that I am 100% agreement with every Protestant? No. I think that we may have minor disagreements. But these are MINOR not MAJOR disagreements that you and I have. Do you have a point that you are trying to make or are you going to continue going in circles?

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

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

...Do I think that I am 100% agreement with every Protestant? No. I think that we may have minor disagreements. But these are MINOR not MAJOR disagreements...

---Every AOL would like to think that his theological ("Jesus is the Father incarnate...Jesus is the God of the Christ") or soteriological ("You must believe TULIP in order to be saved...no, belief that Jesus is your Savior is the only requirement") disagreements with other AOLs are minor....but sometimes that's just not possible.....

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---Every AOL would like to think that his theological ("Jesus is the Father incarnate...Jesus is the God of the Christ") or soteriological ("You must believe TULIP in order to be saved...no, belief that Jesus is your Savior is the only requirement") disagreements with other AOLs are minor....but sometimes that's just not possible.....

What do you see as the major disagreements between Protestants?

[nrajeff]

Are you saying that your answer to my actual question:

Doesn't the Bible say that remission of sins comes through a process that baptism is part of? I.e., doesn't the Bible say that there is a connection between baptism and the remission of sins?

is "NO, the Bible states NO such connection"
???? Really ????

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

Are you saying that your answer to my actual question:

Doesn't the Bible say that remission of sins comes through a process that baptism is part of? I.e., doesn't the Bible say that there is a connection between baptism and the remission of sins?

is "NO, the Bible states NO such connection"
???? Really ????

What do you see as the major disagreements between Protestants?

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Baptism can NOT bring remission of sin to anyone and you know it..

---Another quote for the hard drive....

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Billyray

What do you see as the major disagreements between Protestants?

He can't see it... The Bible teaches us that we are baptized because (For) our sins have been remitted.. IHS jim

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by James Banta

He can't see it... The Bible teaches us that we are baptized because (For) our sins have been remitted.. IHS jim

---What verse says that?

a) Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

b) 1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

c) Jim Banta 1:1
We are baptized because our sins have been remitted.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by James Banta

He can't see it... The Bible teaches us that we are baptized because (For) our sins have been remitted.. IHS jim

That is why Jeff is avoiding answering that question. LDS are brain washed into thinking that there are all of these major divisions and disagreements in the Protestant world, but this is simply not the case.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---What verse says that?

a) Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

b) 1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

c) Jim Banta 1:1
We are baptized because our sins have been remitted.

Jeff--like all LDS--you cherry pick verses to try and match your theology. The NT is clear that we are saved by faith and not by works. If baptism is required for salvation then all of the verses that speak of salvation by faith are wrong. Some LDS will then say Paul was wrong. Salvation is by repentance and placing our faith in Christ (conversion), in fact we would agree on these as noted in my previous post. Our sins are cleansed by the blood of Christ, not some water that is drawn up in the LDS baptismal font, which even you have admitted does nothing on its own.

Matt 3
11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Is this speaking of water baptism?

1 John 1
7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Notice it does not say that the blood of Christ cleans us from some sins but ALL sins. If baptism cleanses a person from sin then this is not via the blood of Christ which cleanses ALL sin.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---What verse says that?

a) Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

b) 1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

c) Jim Banta 1:1
We are baptized because our sins have been remitted.

You don't see that.. It says it right there on Mark 1:4 "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". Tell me why it can't be that we are baptized because our sins have been remitted.. If the Blood of Jesus is required to have sin remitted:

1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Not the waters of baptism, the blood of Jesus is the agent that cleanses us.. Baptism isn't a way to have sin forgiven it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but it is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21). A symbol of coming for to a newness of life. From our lives of sin into the perfection of God's righteousness, His work of creation in our heart.

If you were blind you would see what I am saying but you are so I know it's hard for you..

James (banta) 1:1
Is about the star that lead the wise men to Herod.. If you don't know what the book says don't try to quote it..

The Bible teaches that the Baptism of John was NOT Christian baptism..

Acts 19:1-6
And it came to p***, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having p***ed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

These men had only John's baptism and Paul taught them that such is not the baptism of Jesus.. And they all submitted to re-baptism.. Why did they do that if John's baptism was good enough? Isn't that the same baptism the Smith said he and Cowdrey had? Why was it when they received the priesthood of their Jesus they didn't re-preform the rite and give each other the gift of the Holy Spirit? Smith never received true Christian baptism but instead only the baptism of John.. IHS jim