Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BLogan wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:

Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Don't beleive me then on Baptism for the dead, believe the references to non LDS scholars.

as far as the Priesthood, as I said, no other Christian faith I know of even claims to have the Priesthood, much less understand what it is and what they do with it. Christ gave the priesthood to his 12 apostles. As he always wanted it to be.

Really? Thats as He always wanted it to be? Only 12 to hold the priesthood at any given time?

Then that would tend to put the lie to the LDS practice of ordaining LDS males to the priesthood when they reach 12 years of age.

If this was as Jesus always wanted it to be...then every last worthy member of the LDS Church might as well kiss their priesthood authority nighty-night...except of course for the Quorum of the Twelve.

Don't play the idiot Jaye, although you do it well. Christ instituted the 12 apostles, and gave them the Preisthood. You know this, (at least I think you do ) He never said it would change, it hasn't.

I beg to differ Kent. The fact that you stated that Christ gave the priesthood to 12 men...12 Apostles, as He always wanted it to be...and the fact that the LDS Church ordains EVERY worthy LDS boy to the priesthood when he reaches 12 years of age...puts the lie to your comment.

And since you claim that Jesus never said that this would never change...and it hasn't...you are either a downright liar, and prevaricator...or you are simply uninformed.

Play the idiot all you want, I think it was clear by my designation of "12" apostles, I was speaking of them having the priesthood. For the non senile, I think it was clear.

What has been crystal clear, for nigh on every participant of this forum...is that your opinion bears less weight than a toad's fart.

Within the 4 gospels...Jesus gave priesthood authority to His chosen 12 Apostles.

Nothing is mentioned regarding the Lord teaching that this priesthood should be given to worthy males from the age of 12 and up.

He only gave this gift to 12 individuals. When did this change?

Jaye, answer this, do you believe we have every thing or word Jesus ever said and did in the Bible?

No Kent...I don't. I believe that what we have is every word and deed that a number of His followers heard him say, or saw him do, or heard about him saying or doing... and remembered to relate.

The gospel of Luke and Mark are based upon hearsay evidence which these two men heard about Jesus from other men.

And in the case of Luke...his account contains rather important stories that were not included in the accounts of the two who actually walked and talked with Jesus during His life and ministry.

But there were other disciples who's words regarding the life and ministry of Jesus Christ were disregarded and left out of the Holy Bible.


There in lies the rub you don't get cliffy, We dont' have the whole organization nor list of all who recieved the priesthood, how, where, or why. So for you to question where this happened, then admit we don't have all that happened, shows your logically not thinking.

Your grammar sucks...figuratively speaking. Until you address your errors, and work on the manner in which you think, and communicate...you have no room to accuse anyone else of 'logically not thinking'...or did you mean to say...'lack of logical thinking'?

Let me re-phrase. You admit we don't have all of Christ's nor the apostles deeds and words in scripture.

But then ask the question

"Nothing is mentioned regarding the Lord teaching that this priesthood should be given to worthy males from the age of 12 and up."


See the contradiction cliffy? You admit on one hand we don't know all Christ did, on the other you question that "nothing is mentioned"


Is it possible it was and was taken out as part of the "plain and precious parts" that were removed from the Bible? Or do you not believe this scripture either?

That is an unacceptable argument, period. It allows anyone anytime to decide what is acceptable or not with the remark, "well, it must have been one of the 'plain and precious parts' removed long ago from the Bible." Simply unacceptable.

Yet, that is what has caused the confusion to begin with, the Bible.


You can't even be logical enough to agree that we don't have all that Jesus and the apostles said and did in their life in the Bible?

Hey gumball, if we don't have it, how do you know it was necessary?


If we don't have it? Huh, WE do have it, that's the point dar dar.

If you have it...it should be relatively easy to PROVE it.


Huh? Do you claim to have it? Can you prove it?

No...and that's why I do not profess that the LDS Church is the one true Church, nor the only path to salvation.


So now you don't profess to have the priesthood anymore?

Never said that Kent.

As far as I'm concerned...the LDS Church is true enough for me. I don't concern myself with whether or not it is the only truth for everyone.

That is between everyone...and everyone's Creator.

I asked if you claim to have it, you said "NO"


So do you or don't you claim to have the priesthood? If so, what is it for you to you?

I have never stated that I didn't have the priesthood. I've never NOT had the priesthood since the year I turned 12.


You said this cliffy in answer to my question...

dubs said...Huh? Do you claim to have it?...

Jaye said...."No"...and went on to explain that this is why he believes the LDS church is not the one true church.

What am I missing Jaye?

So if you now claim to have it, but don't believe it is what the church claims it is, that is the "authority to act in Gods name" What is it to you?

What you are missing is the fact that my resounding 'NO' was in answer to your question as to whether I could prove the Church's claim to having priesthood authority.

Not entirely surprising...as you miss just about everything else.

There was two questions was there not? So if you meant one and didn't specify which one you were answering, that's your poor communication via written word.

So what about the other question, going to answer or pull a Wren/Blogan/Uncle/etc?

I have answered both questions.

But I'll repeat my answers...just for your edification.

1. I have held the priesthood since I was 12 years old.

2. I cannot prove the Church's claim of being the sole holder of the restored Priesthood Authority.

Do you understand my answers NOW?


You missed two.


If you claim to have the priesthood, and the LDS churches belief is that it is..."the authority to act in Gods name" and we believe we are the only church on the earth that has the priesthood, but you don't believe it is necessary, so then what is the priesthood to you? Do you give blessings? Do you say "by the power of the Melchezidek priesthood" So again, what is the priesthood if not for the churches claim it is the power to act in Gods name and do ordinace such as Baptism?


Also, do you say Joseph added the parts in the Book of Mormon about Christ preaching the necessity of the priesthood and it's authority?

So...I see that your math skills are as lacking as your grammatical skills.

That wasn't two questions...it was FOUR questions.
I'll delve into them though, after I return from Eastern Washington a week after tomorrow.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BLogan wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:

Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Don't beleive me then on Baptism for the dead, believe the references to non LDS scholars.

as far as the Priesthood, as I said, no other Christian faith I know of even claims to have the Priesthood, much less understand what it is and what they do with it. Christ gave the priesthood to his 12 apostles. As he always wanted it to be.

Really? Thats as He always wanted it to be? Only 12 to hold the priesthood at any given time?

Then that would tend to put the lie to the LDS practice of ordaining LDS males to the priesthood when they reach 12 years of age.

If this was as Jesus always wanted it to be...then every last worthy member of the LDS Church might as well kiss their priesthood authority nighty-night...except of course for the Quorum of the Twelve.

Don't play the idiot Jaye, although you do it well. Christ instituted the 12 apostles, and gave them the Preisthood. You know this, (at least I think you do ) He never said it would change, it hasn't.

I beg to differ Kent. The fact that you stated that Christ gave the priesthood to 12 men...12 Apostles, as He always wanted it to be...and the fact that the LDS Church ordains EVERY worthy LDS boy to the priesthood when he reaches 12 years of age...puts the lie to your comment.

And since you claim that Jesus never said that this would never change...and it hasn't...you are either a downright liar, and prevaricator...or you are simply uninformed.

Play the idiot all you want, I think it was clear by my designation of "12" apostles, I was speaking of them having the priesthood. For the non senile, I think it was clear.

What has been crystal clear, for nigh on every participant of this forum...is that your opinion bears less weight than a toad's fart.

Within the 4 gospels...Jesus gave priesthood authority to His chosen 12 Apostles.

Nothing is mentioned regarding the Lord teaching that this priesthood should be given to worthy males from the age of 12 and up.

He only gave this gift to 12 individuals. When did this change?

Jaye, answer this, do you believe we have every thing or word Jesus ever said and did in the Bible?

No Kent...I don't. I believe that what we have is every word and deed that a number of His followers heard him say, or saw him do, or heard about him saying or doing... and remembered to relate.

The gospel of Luke and Mark are based upon hearsay evidence which these two men heard about Jesus from other men.

And in the case of Luke...his account contains rather important stories that were not included in the accounts of the two who actually walked and talked with Jesus during His life and ministry.

But there were other disciples who's words regarding the life and ministry of Jesus Christ were disregarded and left out of the Holy Bible.


There in lies the rub you don't get cliffy, We dont' have the whole organization nor list of all who recieved the priesthood, how, where, or why. So for you to question where this happened, then admit we don't have all that happened, shows your logically not thinking.

Your grammar sucks...figuratively speaking. Until you address your errors, and work on the manner in which you think, and communicate...you have no room to accuse anyone else of 'logically not thinking'...or did you mean to say...'lack of logical thinking'?

Let me re-phrase. You admit we don't have all of Christ's nor the apostles deeds and words in scripture.

But then ask the question

"Nothing is mentioned regarding the Lord teaching that this priesthood should be given to worthy males from the age of 12 and up."


See the contradiction cliffy? You admit on one hand we don't know all Christ did, on the other you question that "nothing is mentioned"


Is it possible it was and was taken out as part of the "plain and precious parts" that were removed from the Bible? Or do you not believe this scripture either?

That is an unacceptable argument, period. It allows anyone anytime to decide what is acceptable or not with the remark, "well, it must have been one of the 'plain and precious parts' removed long ago from the Bible." Simply unacceptable.

Yet, that is what has caused the confusion to begin with, the Bible.


You can't even be logical enough to agree that we don't have all that Jesus and the apostles said and did in their life in the Bible?

Hey gumball, if we don't have it, how do you know it was necessary?


If we don't have it? Huh, WE do have it, that's the point dar dar.

If you have it...it should be relatively easy to PROVE it.


Huh? Do you claim to have it? Can you prove it?

No...and that's why I do not profess that the LDS Church is the one true Church, nor the only path to salvation.


So now you don't profess to have the priesthood anymore?

Never said that Kent.

As far as I'm concerned...the LDS Church is true enough for me. I don't concern myself with whether or not it is the only truth for everyone.

That is between everyone...and everyone's Creator.

I asked if you claim to have it, you said "NO"


So do you or don't you claim to have the priesthood? If so, what is it for you to you?

I have never stated that I didn't have the priesthood. I've never NOT had the priesthood since the year I turned 12.


You said this cliffy in answer to my question...

dubs said...Huh? Do you claim to have it?...

Jaye said...."No"...and went on to explain that this is why he believes the LDS church is not the one true church.

What am I missing Jaye?

So if you now claim to have it, but don't believe it is what the church claims it is, that is the "authority to act in Gods name" What is it to you?

What you are missing is the fact that my resounding 'NO' was in answer to your question as to whether I could prove the Church's claim to having priesthood authority.

Not entirely surprising...as you miss just about everything else.

There was two questions was there not? So if you meant one and didn't specify which one you were answering, that's your poor communication via written word.

So what about the other question, going to answer or pull a Wren/Blogan/Uncle/etc?

I have answered both questions.

But I'll repeat my answers...just for your edification.

1. I have held the priesthood since I was 12 years old.

2. I cannot prove the Church's claim of being the sole holder of the restored Priesthood Authority.

Do you understand my answers NOW?


You missed two.


If you claim to have the priesthood, and the LDS churches belief is that it is..."the authority to act in Gods name" and we believe we are the only church on the earth that has the priesthood, but you don't believe it is necessary, so then what is the priesthood to you? Do you give blessings? Do you say "by the power of the Melchezidek priesthood" So again, what is the priesthood if not for the churches claim it is the power to act in Gods name and do ordinace such as Baptism?


Also, do you say Joseph added the parts in the Book of Mormon about Christ preaching the necessity of the priesthood and it's authority?

You sure can talk up a blue streak Kent.

I know there tough cliffy, and are just more contradictions to your beliefs, so I understand not wanting to answer them.


And congrats, your getting away for a week, maybe my words are helping you realizse you need to vacation more. Or maybe you are working up there?

Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
The youngest, Emily, is afraid when her turn to be born comes around, their parents will be tired of having kids, and she won't be born into their family. .

Well, it doesn't really say that she will be stuck without being able to get a body which you claimed it said earlier, just that she would go to a different family.


Who knows how we were chosen to come to a certain family or situation. I've always wondered about that, how was I so lucky to be born into a wonderful family with wonderful parents in a great area, while others are born into such abusive and awful situations. Nobody knows, could it have had to do with what we needed to learn in this life? Or what we did in the pre earth life? Could be, who knows.

Oh for the love of Pete Kent...when I mentioned the concept of having'fear of being stuck without a body if parents didn't continue reproducing...that was because that was what quite a few people had taken the play to mean.

That those children alloted to them would not have their opportunity on earth.

It was THEIR misconception...and one of many common misconceptions...and precisely why Spencer Kimball said what he did about the play.

As for why some children were born into horrible abuse...or famine...or plague...or a third world country torn by war...or born with AIDS...I sincerely DOUBT that this occurred because of what they 'needed to learn on earth'.

It is what it is.

Jesus said...'Woe unto the world because of offenses...for it must needs be that offenses come...but woe unto that man by whom the offense cometh!'

The reason some are subjected into the life they are subjected into is because of Free Will. If God interfered in world affairs...then Free Will is naught.

The reason some are born into chaos and abuse...is solely the blame of mankind. It is what it is. We are the authors of our own miseries.

But isn't it wonderful that some were fortunate enough to be blessed with wonderful parents. How lucky for them...and how unlucky for those who suffer abuse and/or death at the hands of their parents...eh?


We don't know, I don't know, you don't know why people are born into situations. But your comments that God wouldn't put people in situations is a false premise. God has always tested and tried his people, See Job, Jonah, Moses, etc etc etc, Is it not possible people were born into situations for similar reasons? To be tested and tried? It will be interesting to hear the reasons on the other side, some maybe as you say, the doing of Mankind, but I don't think that's always the case.

BLogan wrote:
dubbs, in regard to your always claiming that Christian pastors bash Mormons, are you claiming that this goes on during Sunday services?

Where do you get this idea? Have you ever attended any other Christian denominations services where this went on while you were there?

Or are you just guilty of strictly parroting some hateful rumor that you possibly heard during Sunday services or possibly General conference of the LDS church?

Can you provide any evidence of Christian ministers preaching these hateful statements against Mormons from the pulpit?

Now I can produce evidence of Mormon prophets and general authorities bashing Christians from the pulpit,should we look at this evidence?


Well Dubbs you going to show him or does he need to show you? BTW, Dubbs I love the name "GUMBALL" that BLogan has blessed you with.

Read on Uncle Buck, you'll find where I showed him. LOL