Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b
1. Not the point. Even though we are taught to emulate the Lord in every way possible, He never expected us to do every last thing He did...He only expected us to obey his commandments..


Isn't that what I just said? Different times, different era?

Geez jaye, you'd argue with your dogs butt if it farted at you.

Now THERE'S an apt comparison for you. Even though I don't have a dog...that's PRECISELY what I've thought about your remarks as I've read them.

You being the dogs butt I'm arguing with ?

So now you're changing your comment, eh? Flip-flop...flip-flop...flip-flop...flippety-flop.

You've just changed the semantics of your own comment.

Analyze your comment and think about it.

I once had a dog who delighted in slurping down slugs, snails, and dog and cat turds whenever he could find them.

Being in the same room when he farted rates along the same level of disgust as attempting to engage in discussion with Dubss.

Betzz wrote:
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?

Why? Here's a possibility:

MEGALOMANIA:

This article is about the personality trait.
Megalomania (from the Greek word μεγαλομανία is a historical term for behavior characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, genius, or omnipotence - often generally termed as delusions of grandeur. The word is a collaboration of the word "mania" meaning madness and the Greek "megalo" meaning "very large", "great", or "exaggerated", thus combining to denote an obsession with, either in the form of irrational perceived need for or preoccupation with in one's own estimation having and/or obtaining, grandiosity and extravagance (especially in the form of great fame and popularity, material wealth, social influence or political power, or more than one or even all of the aforesaid) and accompanying complete desirous and bombastic abandon; a common symptom if not the key diagnostic feature of megalomania.

It may be a symptom of manic or paranoid disorders.[citation needed] However it is not considered a distinct mental disorder of itself according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders."

Pay particular attention to:

"An obsession with, either in the form of irrational perceived need for or preoccupation with in one's own estimation"

Think about it.

Jaye wrote:
[b]
This is precisely why so many people diss 'Mormon doctrine'. Because Mormons like YOU like to claim that all LDS doctrine is found within scripture...yet when it is pointed out to you that the Church has gone directly against it's own doctrine...you wave it off by saying...different era.

Your not listening to what I'm saying, this scripture you are quoting is from the era when the church was in the "Law of consecration" this is how the Bishops were paid, this is not longer the case because we are no longer in the law of consecration.

I notice also you ignore the fact that your scripture you gave directly contradicts your claim that the church hid that it's leaders were paid, as this was written in 1831. DoH!

What I care about is that all this time, the LDS leadership continued to deride other faiths who financially supported their clergy.


It seems you've changed your argument, you were saying the LDS church hid the fact that the church paid upper level leaders, now you've changed it to derided other churches for paying theirs.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
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.

When a certain rich young ruler approached Jesus with a question pertaining to what he lacked in order to achieve eternal life, he addressed Jesus as 'Good Master'.

And Jesus said...'Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.'

Now Kent...I have never said that any of these men were not good, or decent men.

I simply questioned your personal knowledge of them when you claimed that they were humble men, simple men, and servants of God.

The facts remain, and I have provided the information, which comes directly from their own mouths, their own remarks, the Church History, and historical documents such as the Journal of Discourses...which indicate that a number of the hierarchy of the LDS Church have, throughout the history of the Church, used Church monies for their own personal gains.

And if they make one mistake that negates all the good they do? And that they are still humble servants trying to do Gods will?

Good thing your not their judge. But you think you are.

One mistake? Church history indicates a good many mistakes.

I have no doubt that the leaders of the Church have all accomplished good things during their terms of leadership...but they must be held accountable by the membership for those mistakes.

Is the servant greater than the Master he serves? No. And a servant must be held to account by those who serve with him, or serve under him.

No Kent...I've never claimed to be their judge.

I'm just one member who would like to see at least a modicum of respectability and accountability in those who would call themselves my leaders...both past...and present.

Jaye wrote:
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.

Not the indication you've given in the past. Change your mind again...eh?

Here is what the Church has to say.

From http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/reverence-for-the-bible

Reverence for the Bible


SALT LAKE CITY 25 January 2008 During the past several years, scholars, religious leaders, journalists and the general public have steadily shown an increased interest in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much of this attention has been focused on the question of whether it is a Christian faith. Central to this inquiry is the Church’s relationship with the Bible. Many have wondered whether Latter-day Saints believe in the Bible at all. Still others have supposed that the Church uses the Bible only when convenient, while shrugging it off as an inessential part of scriptural canon. With so many conflicting voices participating in this discussion, it may seem difficult to know where the Church stands on this issue.

The truth is that the Church reveres the Bible as a sacred volume of scripture. Latter-day Saints cherish its teachings and engage in a lifelong study of its divine wisdom. Moreover, during worship and instruction services the Bible and its teachings are pondered and discussed. To increase biblical understanding, the Church provides extensive resources and tools: lesson manuals, cross-reference materials, Bible maps, a Bible dictionary, and articles in various magazines. Thus, the Bible is much more than simply a collection of antiquated writings and revelations that have only scant relevance to the modern world. On the contrary, it stands in the center of the Latter-day Saints’ spiritual lives.

In a recent sermon, Church apostle Elder M. Russell Ballard characterized the Bible as the “bedrock of all Christianity” and one of the “pillars” of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, he described the Bible as a miracle: “It is a miracle that the Bible’s 4,000 years of sacred and secular history were recorded and preserved by the prophets, apostles, and inspired churchmen. … It is a miracle that the Bible literally contains within its pages the converting, healing Spirit of Christ, which has turned men’s hearts for centuries, leading them to pray, to choose right paths, and to search to find their Savior.” It instills real, tangible power in the lives of Latter-day Saints and offers practical solutions and spiritual guidance that inspire them to overcome challenges and trials.

There is a broad range of approaches within the vast mosaic of biblical interpretation. For example, biblical inerrancy maintains that the Bible is without error and contradiction; biblical infallibility holds that the Bible is free from errors regarding faith and practice but not necessarily science or history; biblical literalism requires a literal interpretation of events and teachings in the Bible and generally discounts allegory and metaphor; and the “Bible as literature” educational approach extols the literary qualities of the Bible but disregards its miraculous elements.

The Church does not strictly subscribe to any of these interpretive approaches. Rather, in the words of Joseph Smith, it regards the Bible to be the word of God, “as far as it is translated correctly” (8th Article of Faith). Accordingly, Church members believe that during the centuries-long process in which fallible human beings compiled, translated and transcribed the Bible, various errors entered the text. However, this does not override the overwhelming predominance of truth within the Bible. As Elder Ballard noted, “Without the Bible, we would not know of His Church then, nor would we have the fullness of His gospel now.” Part of that fullness is the Bible’s seminal instruction that God reveals Himself to those who seek Him. The Bible is a living invitation to know personally the sacred revelatory experience that fills its pages.

The scriptures, or “standard works,” of the Latter-day Saints comprise the Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. According to Elder Ballard, these scriptures constitute a “great, indivisible whole” of God’s revealed word that help humankind understand the past, present and future. The great gospel plan contained in these works does not apply to one generation or one people alone but to all of God’s children throughout all time. Thus, in the words of Elder Ballard, “those who think that one part is more important or more true than the other parts are missing some of the beauty and completeness of the canon of ancient scripture.”

During previous periods of time when God organized His church, He added new revelations to pre-existing scripture, forming a connection between believers of the present and believers of the past. For example, the Old Testament book of Isaiah gives shape and meaning to the Gospel of Matthew. The two revelations need not be viewed as rivals competing with each other: the existence of one does not negate the relevance or legitimacy of the other. This ongoing revelation of scripture gives uniformity and continuity to an unfolding gospel narrative and unites people under one standard of doctrine.

Of all the standard works, the Bible remains the best source for an intimate understanding of the character and personality of Jesus Christ during His mortal mission. While the Old Testament offers a prophetic foretelling of that mission, the New Testament provides an unmatched account of the events, experiences, teachings and personal interactions of Christ. The Book of Mormon strengthens and reinforces His teachings through additional witnesses and provides moving accounts of the personal experiences many individuals had with Him. According to Elder Ballard, “The Book of Mormon does not dilute nor diminish nor de-emphasize the Bible. On the contrary, it expands, extends, and exalts it.”

Here it is again:

"Of all the standard works, the Bible remains the best source for an intimate understanding of the character and personality of Jesus Christ during His mortal mission. While the Old Testament offers a prophetic foretelling of that mission, the New Testament provides an unmatched account of the events, experiences, teachings and personal interactions of Christ."

Found in this talk by Jeffrey R. Holland, “‘My Words … Never Cease’,” Liahona, May 2008, 91–94

"Please do not misunderstand. We love and revere the Bible, as Elder M. Russell Ballard taught so clearly from this pulpit just one year ago. The Bible is the word of God. It is always identified first in our canon, our “standard works.” "

Ah...the Bible is the 'word of God, and it is ALWAYS identified FIRST in our canon, our standard works.'


I fail to see where it says it is anything but equal to the other scripture that I asked for, but thanks for another classic long winded copy and paste that didn't give any credibility to your claim.