Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b
You have, in past discussions, stated that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the earth.

You have, in past discussions, stated that the Book of Mormon is the keystone to the LDS faith.
.


Not my claims, but the prophets, course how would an LDS man know this? Get in bed Jaye, all the way.

Sorry Kent...I don't like the idea of climbing into a bed with so many other people.

Bedbugs and cooties and all, dont'cha know?

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?

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.

Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Get in bed Jaye, all the way.

Every time you say that, it sounds like an invitation to whomever you are talking to. Are you getting cold? Need someone to snuggle with or something?

Oh barfobits! There went my appetite.

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b] live out their Golden years without such a burden of responsibility on their frail shoulders.

burden? Another little insight into Jaye's attitudes about the gospel.

So, guiding 12 million (or whatever the number is) church members to their exaltation and salvation is not a heavy responsibility or burden?

I'm certain that Percy would relief them of the burden. Then he could herd everyone all the way into the bed.



HARDEEHAR!!!

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?