Exaltaion requirements

[Vance]

Where did you see me saying they aren't? Such a simple true didn't demand a response.. IHS jim

Apparently we need a little thread history review.

You said

There were/are many churches that believe baptism is required for salvation the Catholic Church is not the least of these. The Church of Christ and even a Baptist church or two around that hold that opinion.. It has never been a doctrine of the Christian body.. Never..

To which I replied.

Really?

Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Which clearly showed that you were in error (common for you).

Which you would not admit. I could only speculate why you won't admit that you didn't know what you were talking about.

You then tried to do a switcheroo on us.

Isn't the writer to the Hebrews telling us we need to look past these basic teaching of the Church and look to perfection? I don't see any thing like that happening in the LDS church.. Have you set all these things aside and moved on to perfection? Until you do don't be throwing rocks, you still live in a glass house..

So here you admit that "the doctrine of baptisms" is a basic teaching of the Church.

Let me repeat that so you will know what you ADMITTED!!! (even though you didn't realize and will likely deny it).

The writer to the Hebrews IS telling us we need to leave in place these (the doctrine of baptism) basic teachings of the Church.

Now if you didn't mean it, then you better hurry and clarify what you really meant.

[Vance]

Thank you for seeing just how stupid I am.. I can see how you would believe that God created man's spirit some place else before he created his flesh.. I don't believe it fits with Zech 12:1..

I can see how you want to believe that within man is where God created man's spirit. Because it is basic to understanding Mormon theology and the typical anti-mormon must fight anything and everthing Mormon, even if, as in this case, it doesn't affect their theology either way.

I don't accept your interpretation. If the verse said something like "Within man God created his spirit" then I think you would have a very good argument.

So then, if we can agree to disagree here, then fine let's move on.

If there is no body to create the spirit in how does God create our spirit within us?

As I have explained several times already. God created the spirits of all men prior to the physical creation of the earth. And then placed the spirit withing man after to bring the body to life.

I will admit to losing the argument if it makes you happy about yourself.. I am not here to win arguments.. I thought I made it clear why I was here.. I needed information and the LDS here were gracious to give it to me..

As long as you aren't trying to preach to us, then ask away. It isn't like we haven't heard your theology before. I have. I find it vacuous.

I don't know how I can make my position any more clear on this subject..

Let me make this clear, I already know your position. I have heard it before. I don't accept it. If I wanted to know more about your theology, I would ask you about it. (I certainly wouldn't go the CARM, it is not a reliable source.)

I don't hold any of the Bible is a vacuum..

Neither do I.

It all MUST work together..

I have found that Mormonism is more in line with more of the Bible than any other theology I have encountered. The problem you and many others have is you

1) have been misinformed about what we really believe.

2) you try to put the pieces of two different puzzles together and the when they don't fit you scream.

Either it is all true of it is all a lie.. Yes I hold it to be that black and white..

Just because you misinterpret verses doesn't mean that when someone disagrees with you they are evil or even wrong. There are many verses in the Bible that are literal and many that are figurative. Only God can help you sort them out properly.

The Holy Spirit has told me just what I have said here.. He has assured me that the promise of Jesus that heaven and earth will pass away but His word would never pass away . . . .

Good for you and I agree with this.

. . . means the whole Bible..

As far as it has been translated and interpreted correctly then yes, I agree.

I have put my trust in Jesus (God) therefore when He speaks I believe it.. He does this for me through His word as the Holy Spirit teaches it to me..

Good for you. If you will continue with personal and prayerful study of the Bible, the Holy Spirit will continue to guide you to all of the truth that you will accept.

I am commanded by Him though the Apostle Paul to make a defense for the faith in all humility and meekness of heart..

Just make sure that it is what the scriptures really mean and not the private interpretations others.

I have been told that if you believe me to be stupid, if you believe me to be wrong on these points I will yield to your superior intellect and knowledge..

I would rather you yield to the Spirit of Truth. I trust Him more than I do myself.

I won't believe it for myself by I will not get into an "Is so, Is not" argument.. And with your unsupported denials that is where my conversation with you is going.. IHS jim

"unsupported denials"? Have you ever heard of "psychological projection"?

[Flyonthewall]

When leaders of your church teach that the conception of Jesus was done in the same natural way that human fathers conceive their children why would I look for some other greater natural law than what they speck of.. When Human father conceive their by natural means that means only one thing, SEX.. Since that is what your leaders have said "the same natural means" then they mean it was done by sex.. Look again what Elder McConkie said:

"And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events... Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man." (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, page 742)

I am not making this stuff up to make you look bad.. I am us just going by what your "prophets" have said on the subject.

You cite the above as proof positive, in your eyes, that BRM is talking about sex, yet you leave out the following citation from the same person:

"Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. Mary, his mother, "was carried away in the Spirit" (1 Ne. 11:13-21), was "overshadowed" by the Holy Ghost, and the conception which took place "by the power of the Holy Ghost" resulted in the bringing forth of the literal and personal Son of God the Father. (Alma 7:10; 2 Ne. 17:14; Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38.) Christ is not the Son of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18-20.) Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false.[5]

We teach the virgin birth. All our leaders do and always have. Yet you ignore them all and go for what you think means sex.

If you believe that there are three Persons that are the one true God you ARE a trinitarian. That is the meaning of the term.. I don't believe that this doctrine of God would be supported by other members of the LDS church. I have shown you that Elder Orson Pratt believer in an infinite number of Gods.. Not one God with infinite Persons but an infinite number of Gods.. Even is your post you contradicted yourself and went from saying you believe in one God to saying that the Father and the Son are two separate Gods.. This doctrine you now teach is Nicaean trinitarism. Three separate Persons all fully God yet these are the one God.. That is NOT the teaching of the LDS church, it is not the God taught by Joseph Smith..

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it! (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473)

If you reject this and can understand that God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is the only true God that He came here to Give you eternal life in His Kingdom and you accept that gift by faith you are my brother in Christ.. You can believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet, and the LDS church to be the only true Church all you wish.. That doesn't matter in the least.. Jesus His work and our acceptance of the Faith He offers to give to us is all hat counts.. If you have come that far please email me and we can talk about His in deeper ways..

There are 3 Gods that make up the Godhead, the one true God. We say that each are individually God...and mean it. Trinitarians seem to be saying that each are individually God, but not really because there is only one. Make up your mind. Are all 3 individually God or not?

I hope this will help you.. All priests were Levities.. Not all Levities were priests.. The Levities duty was the service of the Tabernacle/Temple.. Just as your ward and stake houses of today these structures needed care.. The Tabernacle had to be moved. These duties were given to the Levities.. Melchizedek is the only man in the biblical record that was a priest unto God that was so without genealogy. He was a type for Jesus to hold that priesthood. No other man in all the Bible other than the sons of Aaron were ever called priests unto God until after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.. And look at the way the Priesthood was given.. There was never any more than One High Priest at a time except when the Romans appoint one that they liked instead of the one who actually held the office.. Tell me was not bringing the word of the Lord to the people a way to show them their sin before a Holy God and their need to bring in the sacrifice to the Priests? till the bringing of the word seems to be tied to sacrifice...

I have already shown you that the priesthood is an inheritance to the tribe of Levi...not only to the sons of Aaron. Even in Hebrews which mentions Melchizedek, states: "5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:", notice that it is not limited to the Sons of Aaron, but to the sons of Levi.

Did you read the whole context of John 21 about John tarring in the flesh.. Let's do it..

John 21:21-23

Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

It says it right there that Jesus was telling Peter to never mind what He does with other men.. That he should keep his eyes on Jesus.. John made it clear that Jesus didn't say he wouldn't die.. He said stop worry about the gifts of other men are given and follow Jesus.. Good advice..

I did read the whole context, and even in your explaination, Jesus does not correct them about John tarrying until He comes again, only that He didn't say that John would not die. Just prior to this He was talking to Peter about how Peter would die. Peter did not ask how will John die, but what will John do. It is reasonable to take from that that there were other words spoken about what was to come for both of them. Jesus didn't just pull that out of the air. On top of that, the disciples understood that John would tarry until Jesus came again, they just didn't understand that John would be changed.

The Civil war prophecy is often used to PROVE that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. Although the USA didn't escape the horrors of that terrible war it wasn't fulfilled as Smith recorded it.. England, though they sympathized with the South never entered the war. They never called on other nations to defend them because THEY DIDN'T ENTER THE WAR. I look at verse 6.. This never happened and will never happen as a result of the civil war:

D&C 87:6

And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations

See how it starts the verse? "And thus" I see that meaning as a consequence of. It just was a total false prophecy and all the repentance that man could have done can't change it because the war was fought and more American solders dies in that war than all the other wars this nation has fought combined.. It was a "sore vexation" that is true but it didn't come from the hand of the few black regiments that were formed.. It was brother against brother.. But the idea that this was the beginning of all wars in the time of the end is foolishness.. So I have put forward that forgiveness is part of God's perfect will and a common thread in the Bible but that a prediction of war just the opposite.. Yet you say that is a double standard. I don't agree..

I do not need the civil war prophecy to prove Joseph Smith was a true prophet, his fruit proves that. As for the Civil War prophecy, it wasn't just about the Civil War. There are already explainations out there that already address the criticism of this particular prophecy so I won't re-invent the wheel here.

David had many wives and the BofM calls it an abomination.. But in the D&C David is said to be justified in that he received all his wives except Bathsheba from God.. I am willing to exclude Bathsheba, as the D&C does, but even then the BofM calls the many wives that David had an abomination.. This is just a flat out contradiction right in the scriptures of the LDS church.. I see no way to make anything but that..

If you were to read the entire subject in context, the people were trying to point to David and Solomon to justify their whoredoms and going agains God. What David and Solomon did while under the approval to have many wives and concubines was an abomination. They went after that which was forbidden.

The translators of 1611 said murder.. Look at more modern translations and see how they translate that passage:

I say that killing done in a war no matter what side you are on is not murder.. NO matter who is killed it is a war and the enemy is those that you try to kill.. When God commanded the elimination of a whole population there is reason and He need to be obeyed.. It is war and not murder..

In case you missed it, I agreed with you that "murder" is a better translation of the word. However, if I want your land, can I declare war on you and kill you to get it and not call it murder? No. The key is that God commanded them to do it.

Since the cross do you know what God commands of His people? He commands two things to become His.. One to believe Him, the other to Love.. That is the whole of all the Law Jesus gave to His Church.. If you do those two things you become His child and He will lift you up.. IHS jim

Those two commandments are simply a summary of the 10 previous ones. You cannot break one of the 10, and not break one of the two. The difference is the 10 had mortal punishments affixed and was the letter of the law. The two have spiritual punishments affixed, and is the spirit of the law.

[Vance]

I use a pattern of forgiveness that is built into the Bible everywhere to know about what was taught to the people of Ninivah. If you can produce that same kind of message for then show it and we can look closely at it.. Are you ready to say that God's judgment is not tempered with his mercy? If that is the case we are all in deep trouble.. The Civil war prophecy is often used to PROVE that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. Although the USA didn't escape the horrors of that terrible war it wasn't fulfilled as Smith recorded it.. England, though they sympathized with the South never entered the war. They never called on other nations to defend them because THEY DIDN'T ENTER THE WAR. I look at verse 6.. This never happened and will never happen as a result of the civil war:

D&C 87:6

And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations

See how it starts the verse? "And thus" I see that meaning as a consequence of. It just was a total false prophecy and all the repentance that man could have done can't change it because the war was fought and more American solders dies in that war than all the other wars this nation has fought combined.. It was a "sore vexation" that is true but it didn't come from the hand of the few black regiments that were formed.. It was brother against brother.. But the idea that this was the beginning of all wars in the time of the end is foolishness.. So I have put forward that forgiveness is part of God's perfect will and a common thread in the Bible but that a prediction of war just the opposite.. Yet you say that is a double standard. I don't agree..

Let's go through this in more detail.

D&C 87:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

That certainly happened.

2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

That certainly happened.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, . . .

That certainly happened.

. . . even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, . . .

That certainly happened. Notice that it didn't say that Great Britain would help, but only that they would be called upon, which they were. This makes this prophesy even more powerful.

. . . and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; . . .

That certainly happened.

. . . and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

That certainly happened.

4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

That certainly happened.

EVERYTHING predicted has happened.

[James Banta]

Apparently we need a little thread history review.

You said

To which I replied.

Which clearly showed that you were in error (common for you).

Which you would not admit. I could only speculate why you won't admit that you didn't know what you were talking about.

You then tried to do a switcheroo on us.

So here you admit that "the doctrine of baptisms" is a basic teaching of the Church.

Let me repeat that so you will know what you ADMITTED!!! (even though you didn't realize and will likely deny it).

The writer to the Hebrews IS telling us we need to leave in place these (the doctrine of baptism) basic teachings of the Church.

Now if you didn't mean it, then you better hurry and clarify what you really meant.

Yes of course.. I believe in baptism.. I believe that Jesus commanded believers to be baptized.. I don't believe in baptismal regeneration. Therefore I don't believe in infant baptism.. I don't believe mere water can wash away sin.. THat is done only by the blood of Jesus as we call upon His name (Acts 22:16)..

I said what you don't seem to be hearing.. I didn't say this verse meant anyting different than what I have seen the LDS posters say about this passage.. Even if you didn't understand I said the passage means that is a time when the basic doctrines of the Church need to set aside and we go on to discuss perfection.. As I said we will never reach this goal but we won't advance in the Faith as long as we talk of the basics of the Church.. Things like aiding the poor, support of missions, and the deeper meaning of God's word.. I am sorry you didn't understand what I was saying I was attempting to stay too close to the wording of the passage.. I see nothing wrong with what I have heard from you and the others on here about this passage.. As I have already explained to you you are not required to believe me at all.. I have stayed close to what God has taught me in the Bible.. You disagree, I will explain what God has taught me if you disagree ok... You win the argument.. You want to call me a liar.. Ok I'll be what ever you say.. But I will HOLD onto my faith with all my might.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

I can see how you want to believe that within man is where God created man's spirit. Because it is basic to understanding Mormon theology and the typical anti-mormon must fight anything and everthing Mormon, even if, as in this case, it doesn't affect their theology either way.

I don't accept your interpretation. If the verse said something like "Within man God created his spirit" then I think you would have a very good argument.

So then, if we can agree to disagree here, then fine let's move on.

As I have explained several times already. God created the spirits of all men prior to the physical creation of the earth. And then placed the spirit withing man after to bring the body to life.

As long as you aren't trying to preach to us, then ask away. It isn't like we haven't heard your theology before. I have. I find it vacuous.

Let me make this clear, I already know your position. I have heard it before. I don't accept it. If I wanted to know more about your theology, I would ask you about it. (I certainly wouldn't go the CARM, it is not a reliable source.)

Neither do I.

I have found that Mormonism is more in line with more of the Bible than any other theology I have encountered. The problem you and many others have is you

1) have been misinformed about what we really believe.

2) you try to put the pieces of two different puzzles together and the when they don't fit you scream.

Just because you misinterpret verses doesn't mean that when someone disagrees with you they are evil or even wrong. There are many verses in the Bible that are literal and many that are figurative. Only God can help you sort them out properly.

Good for you and I agree with this.

As far as it has been translated and interpreted correctly then yes, I agree.

Good for you. If you will continue with personal and prayerful study of the Bible, the Holy Spirit will continue to guide you to all of the truth that you will accept.

Just make sure that it is what the scriptures really mean and not the private interpretations others.

I would rather you yield to the Spirit of Truth. I trust Him more than I do myself.

"unsupported denials"? Have you ever heard of "psychological projection"?

Mormonism doesn't even know how many High Priest there are in the Priesthood. They believe it to be some power to act in God's name when that authority is given only to those who are His children heirs of Him Kingdom.. Priesthood was to explain the law and offer the blood of the sacrifice for sin.. Jesus did that.. He offered one eternal sacrifice.. No more are the daily offering required because Jesus' blood is still there in evidence that the sacrifice has been made.. What more do you require of the priesthood than making one sacrifice that is complete and acceptable to God? A Jesus said "It is finished" Mormonism strikes out in the purpose and necessity for Priesthood..

Mormonism strikes out in the requirement for prophets (Heb 1:1).. It strikes out in the Bible being corrupt (Matthew 24:35). It strikes out that the Church fell into total apostasy (Matthew 16:18). I know you have been taught to see anything but mormonism as totally corrupt. That all we say is nothing more than the doctrines of men.. this passage that you hold and call scripture is the first attack made on the Church.. Mormonism is the only church that has attack statements in it's doctrine..

Mormonism is built on the basis that the promises of God are lies.. No the Bible is not corrupt, No the Church did not fall into total apostasy.. Those teachings are ANTI-bible, even anti-Jesus because they deny His promises.. No matter how many words Joseph Smith put into the mouth of Jesus.. These promises will never be taken from the Church and God will see that they are kept.. The Bible I speak of as being pure is the Bible written in Hebrew and Greek.. It was never translated at all.. Therefore the exception of proper translation is moot.. The Bible as we have it in it's original language contains the full sense and meaning it did when the Holy Spirit gave it to the Prophets and Apostles.. Today's translation have been done to preserve that same intent..

Mormonism doesn't eben know how many High Priest there are in the Priesthood. They believe it to be some power to act in God's name when that authority is given only to those who are His children heirs of Him Kingdom.. Priesthood was to explain the law and offer the blood of the sacrifice for sin.. Jesus did that.. He offered one eternalascrifice.. No more are the daily offering required because jesus' blood is still there in evidence that the sacrifice has been made.. Whay more do you require of the priesthood than making one sacrifice that is complete and acceptable to God? A Jesus said "It is finished" Mormonism strikes out in the purpose and necessity for Priesthood.. It strikes out in the requirment for prophets (Heb 1:1).. It strikes out in the Bible being corrupt (Mtthew 24:35). It strikes out that the Church fell into total apostasy (Matthew 16:18). I know you have been taught to see anything but mormonism as totally corrupt. That all we say is nothing more than the doctrines of men.. this passage that yiu hld and call scripture is the first attack made on the Church.. Mormonism is the only church that has attack statements in it's doctrine.. Mormonism is built on the basis that the promises of God are lies.. No the Bible is not corrupt, No the Church did not fall into total apostasy.. Those teachings are ANTI-bible, even anti-Jesus because they deny His promises.. No matter how many words Joseph Smith put into the moth of Jesus.. These promises will never be taken from the Church and God will see that they are kept.. The Bible I speak of as being pure is the Bible written in Hebrew and Greek.. It was never translated at all.. Therefore the exception of proper translation is moot.. The Bible as we have it in it's orignal language contains the full sense and meaning it did when the Holy Spirit gave it to the Prophets and Apostles.. Today's translation have been doneto preserve thatsame intent..

I will not say I don't listen to Christian teachers.. I do but I am more like the Bereans than most.. I go to the Scripture to see if the thing they are teaching are so.. The Holy Spirit is my one real Teacher. You should do the same.. Listen than go and see if what is being taught is consistent with what has already been given by God.. In this way no private interpretations others can ever twist it's self into your heart and mind..

"unsupported denials"? Have you ever heard of "psychological projection"?

Ok that is one more.... IHS jim

Oh BTW if I miss your posts it's not because I am avoiding you it's because there are so many I lose track.. You might have to ask questions more than once.. I have already told you that I am stupid...

[Vance]

Broken record. And boring. And not on topic. Wake me up when you have something new or interesting.

[Doctor Steuss]

Hi James,

Stellar job telling those who live and believe Mormonsim what they actually believe, know, and live.

Keep up the good work!

-Stu

[James Banta]

You cite the above as proof positive, in your eyes, that BRM is talking about sex, yet you leave out the following citation from the same person:

We teach the virgin birth. All our leaders do and always have. Yet you ignore them all and go for what you think means sex.

There are 3 Gods that make up the Godhead, the one true God. We say that each are individually God...and mean it. Trinitarians seem to be saying that each are individually God, but not really because there is only one. Make up your mind. Are all 3 individually God or not?

I have already shown you that the priesthood is an inheritance to the tribe of Levi...not only to the sons of Aaron. Even in Hebrews which mentions Melchizedek, states: "5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:", notice that it is not limited to the Sons of Aaron, but to the sons of Levi.

I did read the whole context, and even in your explaination, Jesus does not correct them about John tarrying until He comes again, only that He didn't say that John would not die. Just prior to this He was talking to Peter about how Peter would die. Peter did not ask how will John die, but what will John do. It is reasonable to take from that that there were other words spoken about what was to come for both of them. Jesus didn't just pull that out of the air. On top of that, the disciples understood that John would tarry until Jesus came again, they just didn't understand that John would be changed.

I do not need the civil war prophecy to prove Joseph Smith was a true prophet, his fruit proves that. As for the Civil War prophecy, it wasn't just about the Civil War. There are already explainations out there that already address the criticism of this particular prophecy so I won't re-invent the wheel here.

If you were to read the entire subject in context, the people were trying to point to David and Solomon to justify their whoredoms and going agains God. What David and Solomon did while under the approval to have many wives and concubines was an abomination. They went after that which was forbidden.

In case you missed it, I agreed with you that "murder" is a better translation of the word. However, if I want your land, can I declare war on you and kill you to get it and not call it murder? No. The key is that God commanded them to do it.

Those two commandments are simply a summary of the 10 previous ones. You cannot break one of the 10, and not break one of the two. The difference is the 10 had mortal punishments affixed and was the letter of the law. The two have spiritual punishments affixed, and is the spirit of the law.

As I understand mormon doctrine it is the contention that no one would be able to be in the presence of the Father if the Holy Spirit did not come along as an intermediate. To stand between a human being and God so His glory can be endured by a person.. Are you going to tell me that Young wasn't meaning that is the part of the address you used to make it sound like the Father wasn't even present at the conception of Jesus?

Believing in three gods the way you do is what makes the Christian world say that mormonism is NOT Christian.. That and that God wasn't always a God thing..

All you have shown me about the priesthood and the tribe of Levi is that Aaron was a Leivite and he and his son after Him were ordained as the priests.. Most of the Levite were never so ordained.. They were the "Janitors and the Maintenance crew" for the Temple. And I agreed that Melchizedek was a priest of the most High God without genealogy.. Meaning He was a priest outside the line of Aaron.. This is the same kind of Priesthood Jesus holds.. The Sons of Levi that receive the priesthood are of the house of Aaron.. This doesn't teach that all Levites are priests only those that receive the priesthood are of that tribe.. Aaron was of that tribe.. "the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood"(Hebrews 7:5).. This passage is clear that not all of the sons of Levi are of the priesthood..

But is says right in the passage that "yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" It wasn't the will of Jesus, John died...

I have heard LDS people tell me before that it was the start of the wars.. Did you know that just 20 years before the US Civil war there was nearly a world war that England was involved in.. And she did call other nations into the conflict until just about the whole world was consumed in war? Because the USA didn't become involved it wasn't that big a deal for us but the.. It involved the Russians, and the Bulgarians on one side and Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and the Sardinian's on the other. That was much more like a war Smith was describing than the US Civil war.. He was just plain wrong!!!

It doesn't matter why David was an abomination.. He could just stop being so because Smith wanted to take up the practice of polygamy.. The wording from the BofM is in total contradiction to that found in the 132nd section of the D&C.. Read and compare for yourself..

Isn't the purpose of war for one nation to take over the power ans sovereignty of another? Dis Poland ask Germany to come into their country and run things? Or did Germany just run their tanks in and take over? I thought you understood the idea of war? Were the Germans that were ordered to do that murderers as they killed whoever stood in their way.. I don't think so.. Not to say some Germans were not murderers but not all.. They were just fighting for their country..

The Law had both mortal and spiritual penalties.. And there were over 600 of them not just 10... IHS jim

[Doctor Steuss]

Mormonism doesn't even know how

[Vance]

You go get 'em!

Well, Vance. Answer his question. Have you ever heard of the Freudian concept of "psychological projection"? If not, I might be able to provide you with an example or two... maybe.

I am not talking to you, you scum sucking anti-Mormon swine. I was winning this exchange until you arrived and cheered him on. I am taking my marbles and going home.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mormonism doesn't even know how many High Priest there are in the Priesthood. They believe it to be some power to act in God's name when that authority is given only to those who are His children heirs of Him Kingdom.. Priesthood was to explain the law and offer the blood of the sacrifice for sin.. Jesus did that.. He offered one eternal sacrifice.. No more are the daily offering required because Jesus' blood is still there in evidence that the sacrifice has been made.. What more do you require of the priesthood than making one sacrifice that is complete and acceptable to God? A Jesus said "It is finished" Mormonism strikes out in the purpose and necessity for Priesthood..

Good one James. You found the silver bullet. Does the above represent some kind of an argument? I am so glad I have you to tell me what we believe. I never knew about any of it until you showed up. Did you know that JS had a gun in jail?

[Vance]

JS had a gun in jail? No !!!!! Say it isn't so! Who knew?

Edited to add: First that creep Dr. Steuss shows up and now this. My faith has been shattered.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

JS had a gun in jail? No !!!!! Say it isn't so! Who knew?

Edited to add: First that creep Dr. Steuss shows up and now this. My faith has been shattered.

I am just trying to have you think critically about your faith. Geez!

[T-Shirt]

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are commissioned by God and sustained

[Doctor Steuss]

JS had a gun in jail? No !!!!! Say it isn't so! Who knew?

Edited to add: First that creep Dr. Steuss shows up and now this. My faith has been shattered.

These last few weeks have made me see what the appeal is in "witnessing" to Mormons. It's actually quite fun projecting from the palisades in a piety pissing contest.

I

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

These last few weeks have made me see what the appeal is in "witnessing" to Mormons. It's actually quite fun projecting from the palisades in a piety pissing contest.

I

[James Banta]

Actually, to those who can read AND UNDERSTAND what the BofM and the D&C say, there is NO contradiction at all.

For you to claim otherwise tells more about you than it does about them.

Yes words like "abomination" don't seem to mean the same things to me as "in nothing did he sin".. Call me stupid for seeing those statement as a contradiction... Good grief.... IHS jim

[James Banta]

HELLO!!! Earth to James!! Just read the last section of post #423.

It is obvious that you aren't even reading the responses to your drivel. No wonder you keep repeating the same (already refuted) excrement.

And you wonder why people are ignoring YOU? Get a clue pal!

I guess you missed where I sid that war is not murder.. It is killing but not murder.. I have said that several times because it doesn't seem to be getting through to you.. If you want to ignore me I would find that to be a blessing not a curse... IHS jim

[James Banta]

My CFR still stands!!

I gave you examples as to why I see your postions as wrong.. It's all in the context.. If God created the natural first then these can't be the spirits of men.. Because they were formed within the bodies of men.. Do you really want the same referances I have using all along? You ask for more, sorry no more will be given. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Broken record. And boring. And not on topic. Wake me up when you have something new or interesting.

The topic here is "Is polygamy required (at least polygamy of the heart) to gain exaltation" Your post are the ones off topic.. But I have done my best to keep up with them and answer your questions.. Just because I see what you believe as a denial of the teaching of the Bible doesn't mean that I think you are stupid or that you have lost any arguments.. I am not here to wins your appoval of convert anyone.. You ask question I do my best to provide a Biblical response.. If you believe that winning an argument is more important than a presentation of the word of God then fine you win... While your cartoons are funny they have no meaning for me.. If all you are getting from answering my post is a good time please be my guest and stop posting.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

I am not talking to you, you scum sucking anti-Mormon swine. I was winning this exchange until you arrived and cheered him on. I am taking my marbles and going home.

I have told you you can go any time and pat yourself on the back.. You still have NOT proven that there is a preexistence.. That the Spirits of men existed before God word said that He created them within us.. Or that the Spiritual existed before what is natural.. You have ran into the passages that contradict the mormon teaching on these points and you have relied on the strength of man instead of bowing to the message of God's word..

I can't believe such nasty words would come from someone that is commanded to love the lost.. I have never said nor even felt such hate toward any LDS person.. I don't feel that way about you Vance.. I believe you are wrong but you are still loved by God enough for Him to come into mortality to take you sin and die for you.. He loves you that much I wil love you too.. I will never resort to such name calling as this no matter how wrong you are.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Good one James. You found the silver bullet. Does the above represent some kind of an argument? I am so glad I have you to tell me what we believe. I never knew about any of it until you showed up. Did you know that JS had a gun in jail?

Yes and I know that he shot at least two men there is some disagreement as to whether it was two or three and if anyone of them died or not.. No matter, picking up the rocks and throwing them back that those trying to stone you in NOT the definition of a Christian Martyr.. Stephen and Jesus both prayed for those that murdered them, Smith cursed his murderers.. I see a huge difference.. IHS jim

[Doctor Steuss]

You have a fascinating way of showing love, James.

[Vance]

These last few weeks have made me see what the appeal is in "witnessing" to Mormons. It's actually quite fun projecting from the palisades in a piety pissing contest.

I