Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
This was told to me by a son of one the original investors. The local church leaders in North San Diego County took a good portion of the ward clerk's estate, which was supposed to go to the LDS church. Instead that money was used to invest in properties in San Luis Rey Valley. They all made a killing, they paid the money back into the church funds (without interest), and the church nor the law did nothing about it.

The integrity of the teller is beyond question, one of the most honorable people that I have ever met. He paid his father's debt out of his own funds after he father died when he had no legal reason to do so.

Heresay.

Dubss said..."Doesn't bother me, there human, they make mistakes, course I'm not relying on your anti sites information as fact as you are either.

The ones I have known are humble men, simple men, servants of God. I don't bash them for their possible short comings. Only one man was perfect.

I would say overall and mostly, they are humble men, and live within their means."

To which I will reply, using your own sentiment...HEARSAY.


I have recieved a spiritual confirmation that they are good men, have you? Doubt it, you don't know what a testimony of the restored gospel is.
That kind of smart aleck remark right there is why I refuse to share my beliefs with you. Get it now?

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
The BoM is equal only in your mind, Dubbs. You are not going to find any church publication that says otherwise.



If it is the keystone to our religion, I'd say it's pretty equal.


Even the Book of Mormon itself says it "shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace" (2 Nephi 3:12)

Pretty equal in my mind if it clears up contentions the Bible has caused.
But it's NOT the cornerstone of our religion. Christ is!

Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Percy you still haven't answered the question. What kind of accomodations did Jesus live in?



He can't answer the question because he knows if he answers truthfully, you'll have won the argument. And, by God, he can't let THAT happen!

Really eh Betzy? Let's see, you are now an apostate mormon that now goes to a "Christian" church correct?

So does your pastor work for free? Live in a Shack out back?


Don't be a hypocrite, your pastor works for filthy lucre, and priestcrafts his work. But hey, he got a degree from a university to preach, he must be right

That makes no more sense than for me to write your GAs work for fithy lucre and priestcraft is their work.

Go grow up, Dubbs.


There's a difference between making your living at preaching, and working for the Lord in your latter years as an apostle of the Lord, you've already worked your whole life in another career.

Filthy lucre is getting paid to preach incorrect doctrine also. Which they do.

Oh, so now you're saying the Bible is incorrect doctrine?

You're such an arrogant little SOB.

No, not what I'm saying.

what I'm saying is there "interpretation" of the bible is incorrect.
Interesting. That isn't what you've told me in the past. You've told me, quite bluntly, that you believe some of the Bible to be "incorrect". And you slammed me because I didn't agree with that.

Yes, some of the Bible is incorrect, and if you read Joseph Smith's edited footnotes in the LDS version of the KJ bible, you would know this.

Course you admitted you don't own one, so how would you know this?
Never admitted any such thing. You assume quite a bit, don't you?

Personally, I put the Bible above the Book of Mormon.


Fact remains, whether you put the Bible above the BofM (why a LDS person would do that is illogical, but that's you) The bible has many mistakes, and needed correcting, and that was done, that's the point, I have said it has many mistakes, but those mistakes if you study the Prophets have been corrected is the point.

KitKat is correct in putting the Bible above the Book of Mormon.

This is why the Book of Mormon is known as a SECOND witness of Jesus Christ...not the ONLY testament of Jesus Christ...or the REPLACEMENT to the Holy Bible.


Actually you are wrong here also, (surprise surprise) Get in bed Jaye.


The Book of Mormon is ANOTHER witness of Jesus Christ and the Most correct book of scripture on earth.

I wouldn't say either are ahead of the other, but the Bible is the one that is in need of interpretation because of the many errors, omissions, removal of doctrine, and mistakes. This has been done by the Prophets, they have replaced the plain and precious parts that were removed.

That is the LDS view on it.

Not a "second" witness, and nobody said it's the "only" testement, and it's not a "replacement"

Your views are so far off at times Jaye it's comical to see.

Joseph Smith's mother educated her sons using the Holy Bible as a primer. It was a great part of his emotional and psychological upbringing, contained most of his spiritual education, and the Book of Mormon borrows heavily at times from verses from the Holy Bible.

Don't forget...the Nephites originated in the Holy land. The knowledge, laws, and teachings of the Old Testament was their basic ancestry, and the core of their heritage.

The Bible comes first. Not only does it contain a record and genealogy of the people of the covenant,the House of Israel, it contains record of God's will and His laws for these people.

The very will, and the very laws that Lehi and his family carried with them from the Holy land.

The Old Testament also contains numerous prophesies regarding the coming of a promised Messiah, who would free Israel from the bonds of slavery, and oppression.

The New Testament contains record, within the Four Gospels, of Christ's birth, ministry, death, and resurrection.

The Bible is the primary testament to Jesus Christ.

And the Book of Mormon, is the secondary testament to Jesus Christ.

Or...as it is stated on the first page of the Book of Mormon...'ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST'.

It does not say, nor is it meant to be considered to be a replacement for the Bible, nor to draw attention from the Bible, nor to gainsay the Bible.

Once again...you have GROSSLY misinterpreted and misrepresented my words and my beliefs.

But that is only par for the course with you.

From my understanding and readings, they are equal, one is not above the other.

Although the Book of Mormon is the cornerstone of our religion. And, the Book of Mormon is "Another" testement, that does not interpret to "secondary" in anyone's mind but yours.
You need to stop trying to speak for everyone else. As far as I am concerned, the Book of Mormon is secondary to the Bible. If I were to be stranded on an island, and could only take one Scripture with me, it would be the Holy Bible. I know you'll disagree, that's ok. But this is how I feel.

Another thing, dubs. When I took Seminary, it was a three year program. The courses were 1) Old Testament, 2) New Testament and 3) Church History. Now, if we wanted to, we could take an extra credit class after school. I did. That class was the Book of Mormon. And that's one more reason I hold the Bible higher.


If you can show me the church believes the Bible is more important, I'd like to see it, never seen that, I've always been taught their equal.
Then why was my Seminary set up the way it was? To study the Book of Mormon, we had to take an after school/extra credit class. Don't believe it was that way? Too bad. It was.

Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
[b

Now your getting it, if you don't get in bed deep enough, you'll fall out. Good Job sister, your starting to grasp it.


As far as which order in the triple combination and which one comes first, the church has never said which one is more important, the order they come in really means nothing. They have said the scriptures are equal, so that's what I percieve them as, not one above another.

Of course that doesen't negate the teachings on the Bible and the evil hands it's passed through, and things that are plain and precious that have been taken out, and the need for proper translation.
No, I'm not getting it as far as your "get in bed" crappy goes. Read my comment again carefully. I mean CAREFULLY. And try to comprehend what I said. Especially the part I just bolded.


And what about my comment about the bible, you understand what I'm saying? Agree? Disagree?

You do understand what I mean about plain and precious parts? believe that?
Not debating with you. Told you that already. I know what you're saying, never said I didn't. As for the rest of what I think, go ahead and speculate. You'll do that anyway.



I don't think you do.
That's fine.

Just a question. To you, this forum is not real life. It's all make believe. So why do you make such an issue of it when someone disagrees with you?

Oh come on Kitkat, all we ALL do here is argue, and disagree, if you didn't like it in some way, you wouldn't be here, so answer that yourself.
You're crazy. Other's debate, you argue. Why do you think I won't share my beliefs with you? BECAUSE I DO NOT WISH TO ARGUE. That's why. If I wanted to argue, I'd share them in a heartbeat. But I won't. Besides, you think you already know what I believe and nothing I say will change your mind. So why bother?

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Kent...you have not yet addressed the FACT that the phrase...'getting into bed with' is usually a derogatory phrase.

'Getting into bed with the mob'...'getting into bed with the Syndicate'...'getting into bed with terrorists'...or in a political meaning...'getting into bed with special interest groups'.

It is NOT a complimentary terminology.


So if your say to your kids, time for Bed, go get in bed kids, it's derogatory?

Always? No excpetions?


you are delusional.
Do you comprehend anything at all you read?

Dubbs wrote:
Was it worth 1.2 when it was built? How much was it worth?

Is it a penthouse luxury extravagent condo?


Fact is, they are not given the condo, so the worth is not relavent,

Fact is, the condo is not extravagent, it has just appriciated in value, because of it's location and it is really one of a kind in that area. Big whoop.

Have you ever been to this condo? Think about it, dude . . . if the value of a FREAKING CONDO IN DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY is $1.2 mil that says a hell of a lot more than saying a 50 year old house in California is worth $800,000. My nephews house in Huntington Beach sold for $800,000 last year and it's a 3 bed, 2 bath bungalow. The same house in SLC would sell for maybe $150,000. Big difference in the markets, so don't try to compare it to your parents house. Doesn't work.

No one is arguing whether or not the condo is "given" to them. Everyone knows that it doesn't become personal property - why do you even keep bringing that up?

Like I said before, I think about it from the perspective of the average family who is struggling to pay for food, clothing, shelter, and tithing (willingly, I know) and I see it as a bit extravagant.

Why do you have such a hard time with anyone disagreeing with you even on minor little issues?