Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[.

You always throw out your 'continued revelation' excuse.

It's always funny to see a "supposed" LDS person say that continuting revelation is an "excuse"

Classic. One of the basic tenants of the church, and you don't believe it.



And the leadership claimed that God withdrew the commandment.
.


Correct, it is currently not in practice, and you say you understand this, yet still ask the question why they are not paying bishops as they did when we WERE in united order.

I believe in continued revelation. Never said I didn't. I personally see no good reason why God would suddenly decide that people in the modern world had no need of a liason.

But you, and others, are constantly and consistently explaining away the contradictions and sudden changes of 'eternal or everlasting doctrines, or principles' to continued revelation.

You are using an excuse that is not valid.

Do yourself a favor Kent. Google the definitions of the words, eternal...and everlasting.

Their definitions do not coincide with the fact that the LDS Church has claimed revelation of eternal and everlasting principles which are commanded to be obeyed until the end of days, until Christ returns...only to turn around a claim a scant few years ago that God has suddenly changed His mind.

Continued revelation? Or convenient excuse?

Yes, we see you mock and deride the scriptures as usual, and the brethern, par for the course.


The law of consecration is an eternal concept, it will be practiced in the hereafter, so it is correct to say an eternal principle, as is temple blessings, but they have not always been on the earth either, and not always practiced.

Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
As history proves, the LDS Church has ALWAYS bowed under external pressure to revise or abandon certain doctrines and activities...either for personal gain, or to relieve the external pressures.

Opinion, conjecture of the anti mind.

No Kent...historical and verifiable facts.


I call it continual revelation, you call it bogus, typical anti mind.

Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b
1. I never said it was a hard fast rule. I said that it was what Jesus said...and it WAS what Jesus said.


I asked....

"Jaye, is it a hard fast rule or are their exceptions"

You said...

"That's what Jesus said"

In other words, you are agreeing that he said it's a hard fast rule.


Word play all you want, that's what you said.

Jesus said what Jesus said on this matter...at least according to the accountings of three of the gospels.

Open your Bible and read what He said. He did not say that it was a hard fast rule, and I never stated that He did...or that it was.

What He DID say was this.

'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.'

Absolutes? NO.

Impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle?

No. Not if you understand what was meant by that phrase.

Camels can go down on their knees...and they can even walk on their knees...with great difficulty and discomfort.

The eye of the needle was a very low gate near the main gates of the city. As night drew near, the gate-keepers closed the big gates.

And any camel driver who did not wish to take his chances camping outside of the city walls, would be required to go to the eye of the needle and force his camel to go down on it's knees, and crawl in.

This is a difficult proposition even if the camel is not burdened with packs...but more difficult with the packs.

It was possible to accomplish...but very, very difficult.

Ergo, camel drivers usually looked for large caravans to travel with. That way if they did not reach the gates of the city in time...there was safety in numbers camped outside of the city walls.

Not impossible...as Jesus said that with men it would be impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom...but with God...ALL things were possible.

Can you not grasp this simple concept?


I understood it perfectly, but I did ask if there was any exceptions, and asked if it's an absolute rule, you said "that's what Jesus said"

No your back tracking.

Wren wrote:
WW, the difficulty rests in supposing that LDS doctrine is an integrated, actualized fact. It is not, but a synthetic amalgamation and reaction to pressures internal and external to the church.

WaynesWorld wrote:
So, what outcome did you fellow cronies
decide about the priority of LDS scripture?

(1) BoM, the most correct, the book that
according to JSjr would make a man closer
to God than any other book- Does it trump all
conflicting works?

or

(2) The Bible is 1st in LDS scripture priority.
The Book of Mormon only supports what is in the
Bible, and only the King James Version of 1611
is to be trusted?

If the answer most agreed upon is (2)
how is Prophet Benson's "Keystone" speech - FOUND HERE - given in November of 1986, how are we to integrate that? I mean what happened to place the Bible at the top sometime in between now and November 1986?


To me it's clear (although it's not that big a deal) that scripture is equal, none more important than another, of course the LDS faith would fall without the BofM, and D&C, but it would not have been here to begin with without the past history of the Biblical dealings with Gods people.


I look at scripture as equally important, and have gotten spirtual strength from all of them, and depending on what I'm studying, each book gives me great insight.

"Can a rich man get into heaven?"

There are at least 2 different meanings of the sentence.

Anyone by money alone, no matter how wealthy, can enter heaven without a personal Savior in Jesus Christ and his body.

Psalm 49: 6 They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches;
7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

Obviously rich (as in wealthy) people go to heaven. Kings David and Solomon are prime examples.

God maketh the rich humble: James 1:10 James 1:10 -here-
God maketh the poor strong in faith James 2:5 -here-