Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
BLogan wrote:
The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.
President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Vol.8.


Each successive Volume of these Discourses is a rich mine of wealth, containing gems of great value, and the diligent seeker will find ample reward for his labor. After the fathers and mothers of this generation have made them the study of their lives their children’s children will find that they are still unexhausted, and rejoice that this Record has been handed down from their fathers to also aid them in following the way of life.
Apostle Orson Pratt, Preface. Volume 3.


It is impossible to give monetary value to the past volumes of this publication, … Those who read the utterances of the servants of God, contained in this book, under the same influence by which the speakers were inspired, cannot fail to receive profit from the perusal.
President Joseph F. Smith, Preface, Vol.18.


We take great pleasure in presenting to the Saints and the world the … the JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, which they will find contains rich treasures of information concerning the glorious principles of Eternal Life, as revealed through God’s anointed servants in these last days. All who read the discourses contained in this Volume are earnestly recommended to adapt them to their lives by practice, and we can confidently assure them that, in doing so, they are laying up a store of knowledge that will save and exalt them in the Celestial kingdom.
Apostle Albert Carrington, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Vol. 15.

I prefer the Church's position concerning this:

"The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It includes practical advice as well as doctrinal discussion, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest. ... Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine."

BTW, you can download it free from BYU instead of paying for it from the website where you got your quotes.

What about the Book of Abraham??

If in fact Joseph Smith translated an ancient record of the patriarch Abraham through the power of God, he must be the prophet and seer he claimed to be right,

But if the Book of Abraham is a fabrication, then Joseph Smith was a fraud right??

and then the same might/could be said of the Book of Mormon right??


Course neither claim is accurate, so it's a moot point.

JS' translation has been proven a long time ago to be inaccurate. Nothing has changed that.

Dubbs, do you truly believe that your bishop, your stake president, and the regional authorities would approve of what you are doing here?

You are the perfect example of how one letter turns "reason" into "treason", and that is what you are committing against the LDS church with your antics. You lie, you cheat, you fabricate, you swear, you name call, and you say you are a good LDS person.

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
JR, let me tell you who Dubbs is.

He lives in an apartment in Phoenix. He goes to school (still?) at University of Phoenix. He works construction as a day laborer, because he can't do anything else.

He is not wealthy, he is not a contractor, he does not own three homes. I am not sure that he is married (because he talked about a girlfriend once a long time ago at the same time he was talking about a wife -- rather poorly I might add).

He has never been a Bishop, and I don't believe that he is a High Priest. His understanding of the temple and its rituals is only minimal, so I doubt that he has been there more than twice, and that is only if he went on a mission and if he got sealed. Maybe, just maybe the two times, but he can't have gone any more because he does not understand what goes on there.

His attitude outside of the forum is exactly what he portrays here because he is not smart enough to dissemble and get away with it all. Shoot, he has never gotten away with it here, has he?

Glad I could be on your mind so much.

Dubbs, do you truly believe that your bishop, your stake president, and the regional authorities would approve of what you are doing here?

You are the perfect example of how one letter turns "reason" into "treason", and that is what you are committing against the LDS church with your antics. You lie, you cheat, you fabricate, you swear, you name call, and you say you are a good LDS person.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Jaye wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
No one has ever been disciplined, excommunicated, or any other church measures for not believing or adhering to in the "Adam-God Theory".

If that's what you believe...then that's what you believe. It is unlikely that if they didn't believe, or adhere to any specific doctrine that Brigham Young taught from the pulpit...that they would openly dissent.

Because according to the history of the Danites...members who openly dissented against the orders, teachings, and/or edicts of Brigham Young, might possibly stand to be 'used up'...and the Danites acted under orders.

OK, name names of people that we excommunicated for not believing or adhering to the "Adam-God Theory". You challenged my quote, so let's here it. So what you're also saying is that people were being excommunicated for disagreeing with "theories". What other "theories" was this happening with?

I'm waiting.

And so long as you behave like Kent...you can keep waiting. Or you can discuss this like a rational adult.

It remains to be seen.

At any rate...why do you think Orson Pratt was excommunicated?


He's been respectful Jaye, just as you did with Bearyb when he was, accuse him of being evil etc. What a joke you are. Just answer the question. Is acting like me asking for proof of things you and your twin brother Wren say? If so, I'm proud to be like me.

You prove this claim and show where I have ever referred to Bearyb OR Thomas as being evil.

Up until fairly recently, Thomas has remained respectful.

Fairly recently, he's been switching to less respectful tactics and mannerisms.

When an individual says..."OK, name names of people that we excommunicated for not believing or adhering to the "Adam-God Theory". You challenged my quote, so let's here [sic]it!"...this does not indicate respect OR courteous discourse.

In this...he is beginning to act like you do. If he wishes to engage in discussion...I'm happy to do so.

But if he is going to insert little innuendos and begin to behave in a smarmy fashion...then the discussion will take a different course.


Your delustional, he merely asked a simple quesiton of proof, as would any serious researcher want proof of people who make claims. You did the same thing to Bearyb, as GFTS so quickly noticed about you, you don't like when people challenge you, she's a smart gal. I noticed it from day one.

Dubbs, do you truly believe that your bishop, your stake president, and the regional authorities would approve of what you are doing here?

You are the perfect example of how one letter turns "reason" into "treason", and that is what you are committing against the LDS church with your antics. You lie, you cheat, you fabricate, you swear, you name call, and you say you are a good LDS person.

Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Wren wrote:
KitKat wrote:
dean wrote:
Wren wrote:JR, let me tell you who Dubbs is.

He lives in an apartment in Phoenix. He goes to school (still?) at University of Phoenix. He works construction as a day laborer, because he can't do anything else.

He is not wealthy, he is not a contractor, he does not own three homes. I am not sure that he is married (because he talked about a girlfriend once a long time ago at the same time he was talking about a wife -- rather poorly I might add).

He has never been a Bishop, and I don't believe that he is a High Priest. His understanding of the temple and its rituals is only minimal, so I doubt that he has been there more than twice, and that is only if he went on a mission and if he got sealed. Maybe, just maybe the two times, but he can't have gone any more because he does not understand what goes on there.

His attitude outside of the forum is exactly what he portrays here because he is not smart enough to dissemble and get away with it all. Shoot, he has never gotten away with it here, has he?

Jaye wroteI'm going to disagree on one point here Wren.

I'll go along with your earlier assessment in which you opined that he was a telephone solicitor...but I can't buy the day laborer in construction.

For one thing...he's much too lazy to get out there and do hard physical labor. For another...he lacks the intelligence, the ability to take instructions, or the ability to think on his feet.

He wouldn't last a single shift as a construction day-laborer.

I stand all amazed.

Not only does it apply to your sharp and incisive analysis about, but we gentile boys used to quietly hum that melody that as the LDS girls fooled around with us when we were all in high school.
You aren't making any sense, and what you said has nothing to do with what Jaye said. Did you just come online to brag about your conquests?

It made sense to any who know Mormon culture. It made sense to you, but you have an agenda and didn't like it. Get over it, KitKat.

I was very impressed with Jaye's analysis, and remembered something from a long time ago in Dixie. You don't like it, cool. I could care less.

I AM LDS, born and raised. And NO, it did not make sense to me. You like to act as if you know more about the LDS than anyone out there.

In the past, you have often said things I disagreed with. Rather than be disrespectful to you, I just let it go. You've always treated me with respect up till now. What gives?

His real self slipped out, a self rightous, thinks he knows it all, clifford Clavin wanna be professor, jackass.

Describing yourself.

Dubbs, do you truly believe that your bishop, your stake president, and the regional authorities would approve of what you are doing here?

You are the perfect example of how one letter turns "reason" into "treason", and that is what you are committing against the LDS church with your antics. You lie, you cheat, you fabricate, you swear, you name call, and you say you are a good LDS person.

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
Jaye wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
No one has ever been disciplined, excommunicated, or any other church measures for not believing or adhering to in the "Adam-God Theory".

If that's what you believe...then that's what you believe. It is unlikely that if they didn't believe, or adhere to any specific doctrine that Brigham Young taught from the pulpit...that they would openly dissent.

Because according to the history of the Danites...members who openly dissented against the orders, teachings, and/or edicts of Brigham Young, might possibly stand to be 'used up'...and the Danites acted under orders.

OK, name names of people that we excommunicated for not believing or adhering to the "Adam-God Theory". You challenged my quote, so let's here it. So what you're also saying is that people were being excommunicated for disagreeing with "theories". What other "theories" was this happening with?

I'm waiting.

And so long as you behave like Kent...you can keep waiting. Or you can discuss this like a rational adult.

It remains to be seen.

At any rate...why do you think Orson Pratt was excommunicated?


He's been respectful Jaye, just as you did with Bearyb when he was, accuse him of being evil etc. What a joke you are. Just answer the question. Is acting like me asking for proof of things you and your twin brother Wren say? If so, I'm proud to be like me.

You prove this claim and show where I have ever referred to Bearyb OR Thomas as being evil.

Up until fairly recently, Thomas has remained respectful.

Fairly recently, he's been switching to less respectful tactics and mannerisms.

When an individual says..."OK, name names of people that we excommunicated for not believing or adhering to the "Adam-God Theory". You challenged my quote, so let's here [sic]it!"...this does not indicate respect OR courteous discourse.

In this...he is beginning to act like you do. If he wishes to engage in discussion...I'm happy to do so.

But if he is going to insert little innuendos and begin to behave in a smarmy fashion...then the discussion will take a different course.


Your delustional, he merely asked a simple quesiton of proof, as would any serious researcher want proof of people who make claims. You did the same thing to Bearyb, as GFTS so quickly noticed about you, you don't like when people challenge you, she's a smart gal. I noticed it from day one.

Dubbs, do you truly believe that your bishop, your stake president, and the regional authorities would approve of what you are doing here?

You are the perfect example of how one letter turns "reason" into "treason", and that is what you are committing against the LDS church with your antics. You lie, you cheat, you fabricate, you swear, you name call, and you say you are a good LDS person.
How many times do you have to say the exact same thing? As you would say... get over it.

BLogan wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
BLogan wrote:
Over twenty years after Brigham Young  first publicly proclaimed the Adam-God doctrine, He emphasized that God Himself had revealed the doctrine to him:

"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our father and God—. . . (Deseret News Weekly, June 18, 1873)

On October 8, 1861, Brigham Young said:
Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God. . . . It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, . . .
("A Few Words of Doctrine," unpublished manuscript in the Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives, as cited by David John Buerger in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1982, page 29).

The Mormon Church's own publication, Latter-Day Saints' Millennial Star, clearly stated that the Adam-God doctrine was the word of the Lord:

. . . Adam is our Father and God, . . . the prophet and Apostle Brigham Young has declared it. . . . it is the word of the Lord
(vol. 16, page 534).

Brigham Young was certainly not the only early Mormon leader who had a testimony to the doctrine. According to David John Buerger, Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, claimed that,

"[T]he Lord told me that Adam was my father and that he was the God and father of all the inhabitants of this earth"
(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1982, page 27).

George Q. Cannon, who later became a member of the First Presidency, claimed the doctrine was revealed to him. David John Buerger informs us that, In an 1870 meeting, "Elder Geo[rge] Q. Cannon fully endorsed the doctrine that Father Adam was our God and Father. . . .
" Indeed, "the above doctrine had been revealed to him, so that he knew it was true"
(Ibid., page 31).

Joseph Fielding Smith, who later became the sixth President of the Church, also endorsed the doctrine. Mr. Buerger points out that many Church leaders continued to believe the Adam-God doctrine after Brigham Young's death. Even Lorenzo Snow, who became the fifth President of the Church, still maintained a belief in the doctrine a number of years after Brigham Young's death: Contrary to many later perceptions, Brigham Young's death in late August 1877 did not mark the end of the Adam-God doctrine. . . . many of the Church's leading authorities unquestionably retained a belief in Brigham's teachings . . .
in the 1890s one also finds brief but supportive references to the doctrine by Apostles Brigham Young, Jr., Franklin D, Richards and Lorenzo Snow. Amidst discussions treated below, for example, Snow is reported as leading "out on Adam being our Father and God. How beautiful the thought it brot. God nearer to us." To this Richards added that "it made him thrill through his whole body it was new & it was inspiring" (Ibid., pages 33-34).

As time went on, of course, the Mormon leaders said less and less about Brigham Young's teachings on Adam. In 1897, the Apostle Franklin D. Richards wrote a letter in which he remarked:
This, like many other points of more advanced doctrine, is too precious a pearl to be cast before swine. But when the swine get hold of them, let us rescue them by the help of the Spirit as best we can. Thinking it may be convenient to you to have President Youngs sayings on that subject, I enclose a copy from his sermon in the first Volume of the Journal of Discourses (Letter from Apostle Franklin D. Richards to Ephraim H. Nye, dated Dec. 18, 1897, as cited in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1982, page 37).

The above information was taken from Utah Lighthouse Ministry's Web page.
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech8.htm

Sorry Charlie, the Mormon Apologists have just a lot more powerful rebuttals to your anti-Mormon Apologists. This cut and paste is getting old. Just google it and read it for yourself. Your lighthouse bulbs are burned out.

OK ThomasK, I took your advice but let me first assure you that I don't take anything for granted unless I first research it on my own.

See I don't have anybody threatening me with a temple recommend or membership within the Mormon church so I'm free as Jesus commands us to test all things.

Sorry my little friend but your Mormon apologist sadly and dishonestly only promote faith promoting B.S. and the damaging evidence is far more massive and well documented from your own leaders than I realized. yours and the Mormon churches lying for the Lord is not fooling anybody but yourselves.

Blogan, why do you NEVER answer my questions? I know I've given you enough time to run back and ask your preacher, which is typical of a bible thumper that doesn't know anything except the simplistic, saved by grace doctrine, which is all their preachers can gather from the bible, cherry picking just this concept.

Do you believe the Bible is perfect?

What does one have to do to become saved as you seem to think you are?

If someone is saved, can they fall from their salvation? What if they murder, become a pedophile afterwards?

Does works have anything to do with being saved?