Dubbs wrote:
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.

Takes one to know one, ol' flip flop, but they are right and you are wrong.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[

Jeffrey Dahmer served his time at the Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin, where he ultimately declared himself a born-again Christian. This conversion occurred after viewing evangelical material sent to him by his father. A local preacher, Roy Ratcliff, met with Dahmer and agreed to baptize him.

A point to remember...simply declaring oneself to be a born again Christian, and fulfilling the ritual ordinance of baptism does not a Christian make.
.

Well according to Wren and his cronies, Dahmer is a saved man then. Hey Wren, you'll be in Heaven with the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer

I do not believe that Wren would consider Jeffrey Dahmer to be a saved man.


Then he'd be judging unrightously.

Because according to his beliefs, if a man accepts Jesus, then he is saved, no matter what he does from then on out.

You are mischaracterizing what I said earlier, ol' flip flop.

Go back and get it right.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Now...without resorting to the usual..."That's all well and fine" happy crappy...address what Russell Ballard had to say regarding the Bible.

And...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."
************************************************

(This directly contradicts Joseph Smith's claims that the Book of Mormon was the best source for knowing God)
************************************************

And:

"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."
*************************************************

When an Apostle says that "the New Testament provides an UNMATCHED ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS, EXPERIENCES, TEACHINGS AND PERSONAL INTERACTIONS OF CHRIST"...he means exactly that.

That it is unmatched. Even by the other books in the Standard Works.

Unmatched does not mean equal...it means superior.


Come on Jaye, it's not hard to see what his talk was on, and what his focus was on.

Of course the Bible is the most comprehensive view of Christs life. That is true, but again, dosen't negate the fact that....

If he was speaking of the Book that gives the most detail on the Priesthood and it's orgainization, he would say "the D&C is the most comprensive book to read on the priesthood restoration"

Or

If he was speaking on the book of scripture that gives the most detail on where Christ went after his death, he would say "The Book of Mormon gives the most detail about the details of Christ's life after he was killed"


Or

If he was speaking on the pre-earth life or Adam and Eve he could say the "Pearl of Great Price is the most detailed book we have on this"

It was, indeed easy to see what he was talking about. Russell Ballard always managed to put his point across in a way that any but the most comprehensionally challenged could understand.

He stated that the Holy Bible provided an "UNMATCHED ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS, EXPERIENCES, TEACHINGS AND PERSONAL INTERACTIONS OF CHRIST"

He stated that "the Bible remains the BEST SOURCE for an intimate understanding of the character and personality of Jesus Christ during His mortal mission."

You are disregarding and disrespecting the words of a General Authority.


Still waiting for something that says it's more important,

Of course it's the best source for Christ's life, that is obvious and I agree, but if we throw any books of scripture, bible, book of Mormon, D&C, the LDS church falls, so that concludes a normal intelligent person to conclude their all equal.

We will take the apostle's word over yours, ol' flip flop.

You are wrong.

Dubbs wrote:
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.

Nope, the facts are historical, and you are wrong.

Typical.

Dubss said:

"Can you say anything in less than 800000 words? Holy crap!!

I doubt they look at their church calling as burdens, if they have the proper attitude, I'm sure you used to see your callings as burdens, says alot why you don't go anymore and don't have a calling anymore."
***************************************************

1. Yes I can. But since your level of comprehension is so very low...I have been attempting to explain so that you can understand. If and when you indicate that your comprehension level has improved, I shall shorten my responses.

2. The Prophets throughout History have often referred to their responsibilities as being a burden.

When God instructed Jonah to admonish the people to repentence, lest they be destroyed...Jonah shrunk away from the burden of that responsibility.

He attempted to run away. He was reluctant to take the burden of this responsibility upon his shoulders, and he was fearful for his life.

And he did NOT obey the Lord's calling until after the Lord sent the great fish to swallow him up. He remained in the belly of that fish for 3 days, until he cried unto the Lord in repentance and asked for deliverance.

When God instructed Moses that he was to be His instrument in leading the Children of Israel out of captivity...Moses questioned the Lord.

"Who am I, that I should go unto Pharoah, and that I should bring forth my people, the Children of Israel out of Egypt?"

And God answered, explaining that He would be with him. He instructed Moses what he should say.

And Moses questioned yet again...saying..."Behold they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The Lord hath not appeared to thee.'

The Lord taught him the signs and wonders he should display as proof.

And again Moses questioned...saying...'Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken to thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.'

The Lord explained that He would teach Moses what to say, and fill his mouth with words.

And again Moses questioned...saying...'O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send.'

(He was basically asking the Lord to send someone who could better handle the task.)

And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses for his doubts.

Moses was reluctant to take the mantle of leadership upon his shoulders. But he obeyed.

And finally...Jesus Christ Himself.

Not only the Son of God, but also accepted as a great Prophet in many faiths outside of the Christian faith.

Jesus shouldered a great burden of responsibility.
He knew for many years the fate that lay in store for Him.

This would be a burden to any man.

And when He knelt in the Garden of Gethsemane, He implored God to take this burden from Him, if there were any other way to accomplish what He must accomplish.

Nevertheless...He said...'Thy will, not mine, be done.'

The mantle of leadership is always a burden of responsibility.

And this applies not only in religion...but in every other facet of leadership...including politics.

Ever noticed how quickly the Presidents age during their term(s) in the White House?

Jaye wrote:
Dubss said:

"Someday it will be an everlasting principle, the saints couldn't live it, maybe it was to prepare us for the knowing what will be expected of us in the future, would you give all you had to the church Jaye? Doubt it.

The fact is, it was done away with, so the payment system to Bishops went away with it,

That you cannot grasp this and ask why they did away with the payment system shows you don't understand the concept, nor continuing revelation, course you don't believe that either."

***************************************************

Well here's a news flash for you Kent.

The Law of Consecration WAS ALREADY an everlasting principle from the moment it was revealed by God through Joseph Smith.

It was explained that God commanded this principle to be enacted and continued until such time as Christ returned to reign.

And, yes...the Saints failed to comply and obey, and this 'everlasting principle' was dully abandoned.

So much for obedience.

Tell me...what makes you think that the current, or future Saints will be any more capable of obeying this law than these very hardy souls were in the 1800's?

You have completely misunderstood and misrepresented the concept of continuing revelation.

It was never meant to give the Church a way to let God's disobedient children off the hook if they just couldn't manage to comply with His commands.

You keep bandying that term around like you know what it means.

Continuing revelation is a concept wherein God continues to communicate His will through Prophets in modern days.

But God explained EXACTLY who He was, and EXACTLY
how He operated. He did this in the opening verses of Section 3 in the D&C.

1. "THE WORKS, AND THE DESIGNS, AND THE PURPOSES OF GOD CANNOT BE FRUST5RATED, NEITHER CAN THEY COME TO NAUGHT."

Really? Well they certainly came to naught regarding the EVERLASTING PRINCIPLE of the Law of Consecration in a scant few months during the leadership of Joseph Smith...and after a scant few years under the leadership of Brigham Young.

2. "FOR GOD DOTH NOT WALK IN CROOKED PATHS, NEITHER DOTH HE TURN TO THE RIGHT HAND, NOR TO THE LEFT, NEITHER DOTH HE VARY FROM THAT WHICH HE HATH SAID, THEREFORE HIS PATHS ARE STRAIGHT AND HIS COURSE IS ONE ETERNAL ROUND."

Really? Well...according to YOU...God changes His mind every time an ETERNAL PRINCIPLE is abandoned, or altered by the LDS Church.

You are guilty of using the concept of continuing revelation as a convenient excuse for disobedience to God, or at least for the very human inability to adhere to God's ETERNAL PRINCIPLES.

Church Doctrine is, indeed, found within the scriptures.

Within Section 42 of the D&C, after revealing His commandments regarding the Law of Consecration, God says this in verses 59 & 60.

'THOU SHALT TAKE THE THINGS WHICH THOU HAST RECEIVED, WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN UNTO THEE IN MY SCRIPTURES FOR A LAW, TO BE MY LAW TO GOVERN MY CHURCH;

AND HE THAT DOETH ACCORDING TO THESE THINGS SHALL BE SAVED, AND HE THAT DOETH THEM NOT SHALL BE DAMNED IF HE SO CONTINUE."

So...he that remains constant in obedience to the LAWS of God which were revealed, and which were found in scripture would be saved...while he that does not remain constant in obedience to these laws would be damned.

I wonder...how many of the Saints in the early Church will find themselves damned because they just could not abide by the REVEALED COMMANDMENTS AND LAWS OF GOD found within scripture?


Ahh, the crooked path sermon, doens't really apply when dealing with continual revelation.


Fact is, you are misunerstanding a scripture to mean Bishops should be paid today, this is not accurate and you are teaching false doctrine.


The Lord allowed the saints to attempt the Law of Consecration, they couldn't follow it, therefore the laws applying to this attempt no longer apply that Bishops should be paid.

You are teaching something that you are ignorant on.