Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b]
But neither me, you, OR the Church can prove that God considers the Book of Mormon to be of higher import than the Bible...and that overrules individual belief.



And you can't prove that it thinks the bible is above any other.


But it says alot when they call one the "keystone" of our religion.

It? You have just referred to God as... 'IT'?


No Jaye, wow.

But it says alot when they (meaning the church) call one (the BofM) the keystone to our religion.


Wow, is it that unclear? (notice the use of it in this sentence, similar)


It is not that unclear is it? (notice again use of it in this sentence)

It says alot that you can't understand simple
English (notice the use of it again here, simiarly)

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?

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b]
But neither me, you, OR the Church can prove that God considers the Book of Mormon to be of higher import than the Bible...and that overrules individual belief.



And you can't prove that it thinks the bible is above any other.


But it says alot when they call one the "keystone" of our religion.

It? You have just referred to God as... 'IT'?


No Jaye, wow.

But it says alot when they (meaning the church) call one (the BofM) the keystone to our religion.


Wow, is it that unclear? (notice the use of it in this sentence, similar)


It is not that unclear is it? (notice again use of it in this sentence)

It says alot that you can't understand simple
English (notice the use of it again here, simiarly)

Dubbs, the likliness of you being able to correct anyone on grammar matters would be the same as you passing a logic examination -- both would be impossibilities.

You are not capable of anything more that basic comprehension.

I am not being mean here, Dubbs, but stating the obvious. My observation is based on years of evaluating your thousands of posts.

You are learning challenged.

Your frustrations about it are clearly revealed here on the Forum.

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.

Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Uncle_Bud wrote:
[b] In October 1998, McAreavy was able to obtain copies of LDS temple ordinance records for Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun from Philip Roberts of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.


So this McAreavey, supposedly already got them from the family history center, now he get's them again from Mr. Roberts? Who is an anti Mormon obviously, and where did he get them? When the church doesn't hand them out?


So Mr. Mcareavy, already had them, so why did he get them again from Mr. Roberts?

As I said, I'm pretty good and sniffing out BS, and this one stinks to high heaven.


Boy Dubbs you sure did change this post

Now what the heck are you talking about Dubbs???

where did it say that Mr. McAreavy, already had them from the family history center???

I THINK YOU ARE SMELLING YOUR OWN BS DUBBS

Read my post before this one, it says Mr. Mcareavy got them from the church, and the church said they don't have record of Hitler being baptized, now an anti mormon comes up with them?

Not buyin it, give us the link to your site big so I can see who is forging documents.


Never mind, found it on the Tanners website, bunch of lieing blood sucking pigs.