10 facts

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So English words written in sentence form means many different things. Do you really believe that BigJ? How is it possible for anyone to communicate if this were the case. In fact how could I possibly understand what you have even written because it could mean anything depending depending on the person reading it.

Billyray, I believe even you in the past have asked that your posts be left in context and not cut up. Is this not true? I believe you speak of learning the scriptures in context as well. Is this not true? When is it ever okay to take one snippet and act as if that is the whole of it, especially when the writer can see that on face value, left as it, it is misleading. I am sure you would agree with that.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I believe even you in the past have asked that your posts be left in context and not cut up. Is this not true? I believe you speak of learning the scriptures in context as well. Is this not true? When is it ever okay to take one snippet and act as if that is the whole of it, especially when the writer can see that on face value, left as it, it is misleading. I am sure you would agree with that.

Out of context.. Humm.. I could only have quoted the entire Vol 18 if you wanted more.. Even then I pointed right to where I got my reference. You have a opertunity to show me what I took from the context leaving the intent behind.. But you have never said that.. Not one of your post have you questioned my quotes as to it's contexts. I guess I am doing a good *** in presenting what is really being said.. You have said that I wasn't there so I don't know what was really being said.. If words didn't have meaning I would agree but they do. And even according to Smith those who recorded his history were excellent in their ***s.. Nothing said there is misleading or twisted.. What can the meaning of "We have three Gods" mean if it wasn't meant that Smith believed that we have three Gods.. It is clear that he meant that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are those three Gods.. But still that is something the Bible never teaches. It teaches that the Lord our God is one Lord.. Unlike the LDS that do put their our private interpretation of Scripture and History I take it all for the meaning it has as I read it.. A phrase like "the Yellow cat sat on the fence" Doesn't mean that the animal was a Dog that was pretending to be a cat or that it was black and wished it was yellow.. So when Smith said that we have three Gods I didn't ***ume me meant anything other that we have three Gods..

There in of course LDS scriptural evidence to uphold the idea that Smith taught in the name of at least three Gods.. It is in Abraham 4:3-12, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-29, 31.. That is LDS doctrine direct from LDS scripture.. Was Smith really teaching something you don't believe when he said "we have three Gods"? Scream till you turn blue but as long as you sustain Smith and all the other presidents of the LDS church as prophets seers and revelators you MUST believe the doctrine stated in it's scripture. Not one of them has ever taught that the BofA is in error and there is only one God.. Not one of them has ever taught that Smith was wrong and there aren't three Gods but just one.. The modern LDS church has also coincided that Emma hated polygamy and was a trial to Joseph in trying to live in it. It was so bad that the mormon god through Smith had to admonish her for her unbelief in the doctrine, to the point where her life was threatened. I guess you won't believe section 132 of the D&C either..

You can deny all you want to, you either believe that Smith taught that the Gods (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) are his Gods or you believe that Bible that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ONE GOD.. You keep accusing me of lying to you and others that read my posts, I think maybe you are the one doing that both to us and yourself.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Billyray, I believe even you in the past have asked that your posts be left in context and not cut up. Is this not true? I believe you speak of learning the scriptures in context as well. Is this not true? When is it ever okay to take one snippet and act as if that is the whole of it, especially when the writer can see that on face value, left as it, it is misleading. I am sure you would agree with that.

Here is your entire post and my follow up post

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I do, I just understand it is in the context of the greater knowledge of the church.

Your view of my beliefs is like finding a tusk and therefore thinking you see the whole elephant and claiming you do. As you noted, you can't back up what you think Joseph Smith said with our scriptures. Until you can, you don't really see nor understand what I believe.

Originally Posted by Billyray

So English words written in sentence form means many different things. Do you really believe that BigJ? How is it possible for anyone to communicate if
this were the case. In fact how could I possibly understand what you have even written because it could mean anything depending depending on the person reading it.

Now do you have any comment on what I said?

So English words written in sentence form means many different things. Do you really believe that BigJ? How is it possible for anyone to communicate if this were the case. In fact how could I possibly understand what you have even written because it could mean anything depending depending on the person reading it.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I do, I just understand it is in the context of the greater knowledge of the church.

Your view of my beliefs is like finding a tusk and therefore thinking you see the whole elephant and claiming you do. As you noted, you can't back up what you think Joseph Smith said with our scriptures. Until you can, you don't really see nor understand what I believe.

When Brigham Young teaches about "blood atonement" can you tell us about the "whole elephant" since you claim to understand this topic "in the context of the greater knowledge of the church"?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

When Brigham Young teaches about "blood atonement" can you tell us about the "whole elephant" since you claim to understand this topic "in the context of the greater knowledge of the church"?

Those who are interested in what we believe regarding the atonement can find it in Mormon sources. We believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all mankind by the shedding of His blood. In so doing, we shall all overcome death and meet God. Those who accept Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Savior will be "crowned with glory" in the next life.

If anyone wants to see the argument regarding the term "blood atonement" they can go to such places as FAIR. While there are some who claim to mean that those who left the church would pay for it with their lives, there is no evidence for this. And as I come from pioneer stock, there is no history of it in any of my family, nor mention of it (and I have those who did what they pleased )

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Those who are interested in what we believe regarding the atonement can find it in Mormon sources. We believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all mankind by the shedding of His blood. In so doing, we shall all overcome death and meet God. Those who accept Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Savior will be "crowned with glory" in the next life.

If anyone wants to see the argument regarding the term "blood atonement" they can go to such places as FAIR. While there are some who claim to mean that those who left the church would pay for it with their lives, there is no evidence for this. And as I come from pioneer stock, there is no history of it in any of my family, nor mention of it (and I have those who did what they pleased )

You asked if we thought that the messages of your leaders were in line with your scriptures and I said "no". You then said that we didn't understand. So I gave you a single example and asked you to show us how blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young was consistent with the lds scriptures. Why direct us to FAIR when I asked you--not them. Can you show us the entire "elephant" based on your vast experience and knowledge of Mormonism how this fits in with the overall lds doctrine?

[Libby]

Is "blood atonement" a doctrine of the church? It was my understanding, as LDS, that it was not.

But, I'm not sure....just asking.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

Is "blood atonement" a doctrine of the church? It was my understanding, as LDS, that it was not.

But, I'm not sure....just asking.

No, it is not.

This is basically one line that some critic picked up and has sensationalized. (As is with most things.)

[Libby]

Thanks, Julie. I was fairly sure it wasn't.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

You asked if we thought that the messages of your leaders were in line with your scriptures and I said "no". You then said that we didn't understand. So I gave you a single example and asked you to show us how blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young was consistent with the lds scriptures. Why direct us to FAIR when I asked you--not them. Can you show us the entire "elephant" based on your vast experience and knowledge of Mormonism how this fits in with the overall lds doctrine?

The elephant is that this is not our doctrine. It hasn't been and isn't. I direct to FAIR because this has already been discussed ad nauseam. This is an old critique already addressed.

You ***ume this was "taught by Brigham Young" as you understand it. You are wrong. Here is a release by the church:

The Deseret News reported the following on June 17, 2010, reporting the Church's recent statement on the subject of Blood Atonement:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this statement Wednesday: In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making res***ution for their sins by giving up their own lives. However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encomp***ing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.

This is pretty straight forward. In other words, you think there is a contradiction, when there is none because you misunderstood the original. As noted, there is no evidence that your understanding was ever correct.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Christian

Your colors are showing. . .

and yet it is you who respond it bolded green.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

The elephant is that this is not our doctrine. It hasn't been and isn't. I direct to FAIR because this has already been discussed ad nauseam. This is an old critique already addressed.

You ***ume this was "taught by Brigham Young" as you understand it. You are wrong. Here is a release by the church:

I don't ***ume that this was taught by Brigham Young--I KNOW that it was taught by Brigham Young. Blood atonement as taught by BY is a completely false doctrine and the lds church can in no way defend this doctrine by one of it's own prophets, so they must distance themselves from it by any means possibly which is evident by your quote. So how is it possible that a living prophet of god could be so wrong? Doesn't this at least bring up some red flags for you and ponder if it is even remotely possibly that he was not a true prophet of god but rather one of the many anticipated false prophets that would rear their ugly head before the second coming of Christ?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I don't ***ume that this was taught by Brigham Young--I KNOW that it was taught by Brigham Young. Blood atonement as taught by BY is a completely false doctrine and the lds church can in no way defend this doctrine by one of it's own prophets, so they must distance themselves from it by any means possibly which is evident by your quote. So how is it possible that a living prophet of god could be so wrong? Doesn't this at least bring up some red flags for you and ponder if it is even remotely possibly that he was not a true prophet of god but rather one of the many anticipated false prophets that would rear their ugly head before the second coming of Christ?

Okay, you know more than us Mormons and our leaders and our historians. I give. I didn't realize--you are as God and know all.

(btw, I love how you state you know what is and what is not and our church does not and therefore, I must some how answer your conclusions about it. Oh brother.)

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Okay, you know more than us Mormons and our leaders and our historians. I give. I didn't realize--you are God and know all.

I know exactly what you know but you are attempting to downplay and disregard it OR you are simply ignorant of what one of your own prophets has taught--I suspect the former. If you would like we can delve into this more and look at some of the quotes. We could hash it out on this thread and show you all of the quotes but the bottom line is that you and I both know that this was a false doctrine promoted by one of your so-called prophets of god--if you know what is best for you and your family you should ponder long and hard about this because if he was a false prophet then you will be in bad shape when it comes time for judgement day.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I know exactly what you know but you are attempting to downplay and disregard it OR you are simply ignorant of what one of your own prophets has taught--I suspect the former.

Yes, you see yourself as God. I get that. I am beginning to see that is the problem with all of our conversations here Billyray. How can you reason with someone who already knows everything and even what others believe or think.

[neverending]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Those who are interested in what we believe regarding the atonement can find it in Mormon sources. We believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all mankind by the shedding of His blood. In so doing, we shall all overcome death and meet God. Those who accept Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Savior will be "crowned with glory" in the next life.

If anyone wants to see the argument regarding the term "blood atonement" they can go to such places as FAIR. While there are some who claim to mean that those who left the church would pay for it with their lives, there is no evidence for this. And as I come from pioneer stock, there is no history of it in any of my family, nor mention of it (and I have those who did what they pleased )

Julie, have you ever heard of the Danites?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, you see yourself as God. I get that.

No BigJ I don't see myself as God.

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I am beginning to see that is the problem with all of our conversations here Billyray. How can you reason with someone who already knows everything and even what others believe or think.

Until you are honest with yourself you are never going to see all of the problems with mormonism that all of the Christians posters are trying to show you. As I said above blood atonement as taught by Brigham Young is indefensible--that is why you don't want to talk about it. BigJ you should do some serious soul searching and ask yourself if a true prophet of god who speaks directly with god would teach this false doctrine.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Until you are honest with yourself you are never going to see all of the problems with mormonism that all of the Christians posters are trying to show you. .

And you will never see what is right with it. We are at an imp***e.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

And you will never see what is right with it. We are at an imp***e.

Go ahead and tell what is right with mormonism.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

No, it is not.

This is basically one line that some critic picked up and has sensationalized. (As is with most things.)

Firing squad anyone?

[John T]

Originally Posted by John T [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]

You seem to be quite the comedian, BJ!

In light of your ignoring what I gave you to find objective truth, and your statement that "You will see the discussion regarding the addition and subsequent removal of the books." I find that you are unable to deal with the truth, and therefore you fabricate sulfurous falseness in order to obscure the rotten underbelly of your religion.

Is it pathological, or you simply unable to state truthful things, even on the simplest subjects, such as objective church history? I practically spoon fed the facts to you. All you needed to do was cut and paste "Council of Trent" into any search engine and get the truth.

The picture I have of you in my mind is someone sitting in darkness throwing the biggest stones at the light, you can find, preferring to remain in darkness instead of seeing things truthfully. That is such a pity!

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Are you claiming that there was not an additional and subsequent removal of books from the Bible you have today?

What about these: Tobias, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Maccabees, First Esdras, Second Esdras, Epistle of Jeremiah, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Man***eh, Prayer of Azariah, and Laodiceans.

Please share your objective church history. I want to know why you think the Council of Trent did what they did. Do you think what they did was correct? Why or why not?

PS (By the way, anyone who understands history or how we come to understand knowledge would consider the term "objective history" an oxymoron.)

Quite a piece of garbage!

You still HAVE NOT LOOKED UP the Council of Trent. why should I do that for you?

BTW church history IS OBJECTIVE, especially if three (or more) independent sources state that X, Y and Z happened at Trent.

Your statement above indicates that you prefer to bloviate lies instead of dealing with the truth. That is quite the testimony. Therefore in my opinion, it is not wrong to call you a habitual liar, who prefers to remain in darkness than to see the truth and light.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

yes, this is how mixed up you guys are.....you stand against a teaching on one topic and support the same teaching on a different topic.

Go check out this
http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/s...critics/page21

topic...post number #523

I am not confused and you know it.. Alan have you now abandoned the faith and gone over to the dark side of believing that there are three Gods and that the doctrine that the Lord our God is one Lord is a lie? You are sounding a bit like you have started to pander to the LDS... IHS jim

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by Libby

Thanks, Julie. I was fairly sure it wasn't.

You know very well that Brigham Young taught that there were some sins for which the Blood of Christ will not atone and a person had to shed their own blood for that sin; when Mark Hofmann admitted to ****ing up two Mormons in his quest to cover up his forgeries, his own father said he should be willing to have his blood shed in atonement. It might not be "officially" taught, but it is believed nevertheless.

So, have you left Yoganandaism yet?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Yes, you see yourself as God. I get that. I am beginning to see that is the problem with all of our conversations here Billyray. How can you reason with someone who already knows everything and even what others believe or think.

Isn't seeing one's self as at least a God in embryo a LDS teaching? No Christian would teach such blasphemy.. To believe that one must believe that becoming a God is a goal to be sought after.. So I guess you were bearing false witness.. AGAIN..

You now attack Billy with the same argument that you have tried unsuccessfully to use on me.. Yes I say unsuccessfully because you were never willing to confirm that following the prophet means you sustain him in all he teaches.. But you have disavowed the teaching of Young, and Smith.. To you they have to be false.. But we have been all through that, you just never were willing to comment on your beliefs as they run contrary to those that the prophets have taught.. Billy has said it again in his own way and this time you have tried to turn your own ANTI Bible beliefs on to a solid Christian.. They have fallen as flat as your non-answers to me.. IHS jim

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Apologette

You know very well that Brigham Young taught that there were some sins for which the Blood of Christ will not atone and a person had to shed their own blood for that sin; when Mark Hofmann admitted to ****ing up two Mormons in his quest to cover up his forgeries, his own father said he should be willing to have his blood shed in atonement. It might not be "officially" taught, but it is believed nevertheless.

So, have you left Yoganandaism yet?

This is the part of LDSinc. Smoke screen I detest. Every TBM who is deep into the weeds of LDSinc. doctrine and teaching, and I underline, deep, knows what is meant by blood atonement for some sins that Brigham Young taught.