Jaye wrote: The anti's aren't making anything up here. Brigham Young taught a great many things from the pulpit which were contrary and contradictory to our current beliefs.

Dubbs wrote: Didn't say they were making things up in this case clavin, I said they come here to belittle and mock, without looking for understanding.

Only a fool like Dubbs attempts to instruct his those who know better than he. Notice that Dubbs finally admitted "[I] Didn't say they were making things up . . .". However, he did identify legitimate debate as an attempt "to belittle and mock, without looking for understanding." That's a farce, because it describes him and his attitude toward all he opposes here.

I can speak for myself. I bring a legitmate and objective understanding of LDS doctrines to a larger world, and I am absolutely fair about it.

And I never hesitate to metaphorically kick Dubbs' ass around when he cheats. That's what hecan't stand.

You mock those you disagree with, Dubbs.

You belittle other denominations, faiths, and people, Dubbs.

So screw you and the nag you came riding in on, Dubbs. I will always kick your ass when you cheat, and you know it.

Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
You did not explain how Jeremiah or the Lord made the Prophecy conditional. It was not conditional.

I have explained it at length...and I even provided the Chapter and verses in which the conditions were stated.

But I am a patient man...and I will repeat the information.

Jeremiah Chapter 38: verses 14-24.

In these verses, Zedekiah asked Jeremiah what would happen. Jeremiah explained that God wanted Zedekiah to lead his armies against the princes of Chaldea.

If Zedekiah obeyed this direction, and marched out against the Chaldeans, God would preserve his life AND his soul.

And his wives and children would not be led into captivity, and the entire city would not be burned and utterly destroyed.

In Chapter 39, we read that even though Zedekiah had promised to obey God's instructions he received from Jeremiah...when Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon besieged Jeruslalem, and all the princes of the king of Babylon came in, and sat in the middle gate, with all the nobles of the king of Bablyon...king Zedekiah beheld the might and sheer numbers of the enemy besieging the city, he panicked and he fled, with his nobles. They escaped through his garden gate between the two walls, and fled across the plains.

But the king of Babylon had his spies, and they saw Zedekiah's attempt to escape. They pursued him, captured him, blinded him, took him captive, executed all of his nobles, took his wives and children captive, and all the citizens captive, and burned down the city...just as Jeremiah had prophesied would happen, should Zedekiah fail to obey the Lord and march out against Babylon and the Chaldeans.

This all happens between verse 1-9.

Please read it this time.

Sometimes I wonder if you really understand what you read Jaye. Wow.

Jeremiah 34:4-5 says Zedikiah would die in peace. Which is what I said, you went into somthing else above.

Zedikiah did not die in peace, unless you consider being blinded by your enemies and dieing in their prison peaceful.


Try this Jaye

http://www.jesusandkidz.com/

And yet again...Jeremiah told Zedekiah that he would die in peace...IF...he obeyed God's direction, and marched out against the king of Babylon and the Chaldean princes.

Jeremiah also warned Zedekiah that if he should fail to obey God's word in this...he would be taken prisoner, and he would die, and his nobles would die, and his wives and children and his nobles wives and children would be taken into captivity, and the city would be burned to the ground.

Now. This constituted a prophecy which contained a promise if the individual obeyed God's instructions, coupled with a warning of what would occur if the individual did not obey God's instructions.

Much like the promise, AND the warning God gave to Joseph Smith in Section 3 of the D&C.

There are none so blind, Kent, as those who cannot see.

You cannot take a couple of verses out of a Book of the Bible and base your conclusions upon those verses, without reading the ENTIRE CHAPTER.

The prophecies of the Bible...just like the prophecies of the Book of Mormon, AND the D&C usually contained promise of blessing if God were obeyed...and warning of swift punishment and/or death should God's commandments NOT be obeyed.

Can you really not see this?

Dubbs, in this case, fulfills scripture, for he has eyes that refuse to see and ears that refuse to hear.

Jaye wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BLogan wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
[
Dubbs did exactly what I figured he would. He posted the excuse that holds no water. The journals were screened for accuracy of the commentary before they were printed.

Yes, the Journals are an accurate account of what was being preached, and the FAIR/FARM rebuttal is wrong to suggest that the sermons were not accurate in intent and content.

You obviously didn't read what I posted, here's a cliff notes version for the mentally challenged.

"Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication."


This is the churches website giving their official version, they did not "proof read" as you are inaccuratly claiming. Your research skills are nill.

Hey gumball, please show us some complaint from any of the leadership of that time, lets say within 15 years should we?

Of course the current leadership of the Mormon Church is going to issue some statement like this, it's called damage control and it's very deceptive and dishonest.


If you read the history of the Journal of discourses, it is clear the church never meant for them to be the last word and perfect sermons that have no mistakes. LDS people know this, and your little copy and pastes from anti sites are not only something we've seen here hundreds of times, it's funny to see you think your posting something new.

When the sermons of the JD were given, they were indeed the last word at that time for the LDS. That is why they are upsetting to LDS today and why the GAs advise folks to stay away from God's prophets' words more than a century ago.

Really? The General Authorities advise folks to stay away from the words of God's prophets more than a century ago?

Gee. I wonder why, then, that so much time is spent in the LDS Church pouring over the words and teachings of Joseph Smith?

Why Church history (the officially sanitized version) is taught to children in Primary, Sunday School, Seminary, Young Adults, and in Institute Classes?

If the current G.A.'s are really advising folks to stay away from the words of past prophets...why have so many books based upon the lives and the words of these prophets been touted by the Church?

And why should anyone heed the words of the founder of the faith...and his successors?

Jaye, you are being disingenuous. You know clearly that I meant the sermons in the Journal of Discourses are what the modern LDS authorities try to keep their members from reading.

Wren wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BLogan wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
[
Dubbs did exactly what I figured he would. He posted the excuse that holds no water. The journals were screened for accuracy of the commentary before they were printed.

Yes, the Journals are an accurate account of what was being preached, and the FAIR/FARM rebuttal is wrong to suggest that the sermons were not accurate in intent and content.

You obviously didn't read what I posted, here's a cliff notes version for the mentally challenged.

"Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication."


This is the churches website giving their official version, they did not "proof read" as you are inaccuratly claiming. Your research skills are nill.

Hey gumball, please show us some complaint from any of the leadership of that time, lets say within 15 years should we?

Of course the current leadership of the Mormon Church is going to issue some statement like this, it's called damage control and it's very deceptive and dishonest.


If you read the history of the Journal of discourses, it is clear the church never meant for them to be the last word and perfect sermons that have no mistakes. LDS people know this, and your little copy and pastes from anti sites are not only something we've seen here hundreds of times, it's funny to see you think your posting something new.

When the sermons of the JD were given, they were indeed the last word at that time for the LDS. That is why they are upsetting to LDS today and why the GAs advise folks to stay away from God's prophets' words more than a century ago.

Really? The General Authorities advise folks to stay away from the words of God's prophets more than a century ago?

Gee. I wonder why, then, that so much time is spent in the LDS Church pouring over the words and teachings of Joseph Smith?

Why Church history (the officially sanitized version) is taught to children in Primary, Sunday School, Seminary, Young Adults, and in Institute Classes?

If the current G.A.'s are really advising folks to stay away from the words of past prophets...why have so many books based upon the lives and the words of these prophets been touted by the Church?

And why should anyone heed the words of the founder of the faith...and his successors?

Jaye, you are being disingenuous. You know clearly that I meant the sermons in the Journal of Discourses are what the modern LDS authorities try to keep their members from reading.

My bad Wren...I thought I had quoted Kent's remark where he said that the G.A.'s advised folks to stay away from the words of the prophets 100 years ago.

Don't know how I ended up on your quote.

Wren wrote:
Jaye wrote: The anti's aren't making anything up here. Brigham Young taught a great many things from the pulpit which were contrary and contradictory to our current beliefs.

Dubbs wrote: Didn't say they were making things up in this case clavin, I said they come here to belittle and mock, without looking for understanding.

Only a fool like Dubbs attempts to instruct his those who know better than he. Notice that Dubbs finally admitted "[I] Didn't say they were making things up . . .". However, he did identify legitimate debate as an attempt "to belittle and mock, without looking for understanding." That's a farce, because it describes him and his attitude toward all he opposes here.

I can speak for myself. I bring a legitmate and objective understanding of LDS doctrines to a larger world, and I am absolutely fair about it.

And I never hesitate to metaphorically kick Dubbs' ass around when he cheats. That's what hecan't stand.

You mock those you disagree with, Dubbs.

You belittle other denominations, faiths, and people, Dubbs.

So screw you and the nag you came riding in on, Dubbs. I will always kick your ass when you cheat, and you know it.

Wow, Wren is blowing a major fuse, Careful tough talking internet nerd, this doesn't really show how much of a coward and wussy you are in real life.

Wren wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BLogan wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
[
Dubbs did exactly what I figured he would. He posted the excuse that holds no water. The journals were screened for accuracy of the commentary before they were printed.

Yes, the Journals are an accurate account of what was being preached, and the FAIR/FARM rebuttal is wrong to suggest that the sermons were not accurate in intent and content.

You obviously didn't read what I posted, here's a cliff notes version for the mentally challenged.

"Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. There were occasions when the accuracy was questionable. The accounts were not always cleared by the speakers because of problems of time and distance. This was especially true during the persecution of the 1880s which finally forced the cessation of publication."


This is the churches website giving their official version, they did not "proof read" as you are inaccuratly claiming. Your research skills are nill.

Hey gumball, please show us some complaint from any of the leadership of that time, lets say within 15 years should we?

Of course the current leadership of the Mormon Church is going to issue some statement like this, it's called damage control and it's very deceptive and dishonest.


If you read the history of the Journal of discourses, it is clear the church never meant for them to be the last word and perfect sermons that have no mistakes. LDS people know this, and your little copy and pastes from anti sites are not only something we've seen here hundreds of times, it's funny to see you think your posting something new.

When the sermons of the JD were given, they were indeed the last word at that time for the LDS. That is why they are upsetting to LDS today and why the GAs advise folks to stay away from God's prophets' words more than a century ago.

Really? The General Authorities advise folks to stay away from the words of God's prophets more than a century ago?

Gee. I wonder why, then, that so much time is spent in the LDS Church pouring over the words and teachings of Joseph Smith?

Why Church history (the officially sanitized version) is taught to children in Primary, Sunday School, Seminary, Young Adults, and in Institute Classes?

If the current G.A.'s are really advising folks to stay away from the words of past prophets...why have so many books based upon the lives and the words of these prophets been touted by the Church?

And why should anyone heed the words of the founder of the faith...and his successors?

Jaye, you are being disingenuous. You know clearly that I meant the sermons in the Journal of Discourses are what the modern LDS authorities try to keep their members from reading.

Mmmm, interesting claim, because you can buy them online and at any Deseret Book bookstore. Done any research dar dar? Again, it's obvious you haven't.