huma17

Well, I guess I wasn't specifically pointing to the absence of anyone in particular, but rather the overall attendance level at any given time.

I see that this board is not frequented as it used to be. I know, I know, you can tell by the number of my posts, that I, too, have not been around. I have found the FAIR boards to be to my liking - very much (but I can't log on today, so...) - anyway, I started coming/posting here first (after the exmo board, of course), you could say this board introduced me to 'positive' lds boards. I then posted on the other boards like ZLMB (which I think was the first), the Desseret board, and of course - FAIR. There are more, but those are the big ones. Anyway, the whole point of this/my post, is that it is somewhat sad for me to see the board this way. When I first came, there would always be numerous posters on the board. I could have conversations with immediate replies. Now, it looks like hours can go by before someone replies. WHERE DID EVERYONE GO?? Yeah, I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite, since I go elsewhere. But at least I have checked back in from time to time to see how this board is doing. This is my first post in awhile. I noticed the board dwindling before now, I just decided to speak up today. Hope everyone is doing well.

M-O-O-N, that spells "people live on the moon". A vision was seen with other people living on a different planet. His interpretation was that it was the moon, that is what he knew at the time. Prophets do not know all things. Just like a vision of planes in the future being described as flying metal birds. He had a vision that he saw g-d and j-s-s in the woods too. Should we assume that that didn't happen either? And since when does modern science trump visions given to prophets by god? I don't think you have enough faith. Huh? What are you talking about? Sometimes I wonder if you actually read what I, or anyone, writes, or you just see what you want to see. You can't be so slow, that you cannot understand what I said. When did I say anything about science trumping anything? What did I say: He saw a vision of people living on another planet. He assumed it was the moon, because he didn't completely understand all things. Have you ever read Revelations? It is hard to read, because, at times, John tried to explain what he saw, even though he didn't fully understand it all. Just because JS saw the Father and the Son, didn't automatically make him knowledgeable in all things pertaining to the Father and his Son. I don't have enough faith!? What does faith have to do with this statement? Man, you really need to pay attention.

M-O-O-N, that spells "people live on the moon". A vision was seen with other people living on a different planet. His interpretation was that it was the moon, that is what he knew at the time. Prophets do not know all things. Just like a vision of planes in the future being described as flying metal birds.

The main reason we are here, '...is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.' Just as you pointed out, things aren't the same for everyone. I still need to learn patience, and to control my temper. Maybe, a child that dies at one, needed only to gain a body. You see, many things pertaining to the Gospel are symbolic. We do them soley because we are commanded to. The Lord wants to see if we will be obedient. The age of accountability is set at eight, because that would be the easiest thing to do. Let's say that the Lord says accountability is dependant upon a certain amount of knowledge gained - who would test for it? And how? The Lord knows all, the HG can testify to all truth, but the INDIVIDUAL must be in accordance with the spirit to receive it, or to know the Lord's will. If a judge in Israel is corrupt, how will the Lord be able to let him know if an individual is accountable or not, based upon the criteria I stated earlier. Accountability is set at eight to avoid any controversy, there is no debate. Do you not think that the Lord knows each of us? Do you not think that the Lord will take into account the circumstances that you stated (such as mentally ill)? Why do you trouble yourself with things that you have no control over, nor understand? Leave those things to the Lord - he is the judge. In my opinion, I think children that are not born (mis-carriages, abortions), will be able to come here at a later time. Of course, I do not KNOW. As for my response to your original question - You said there was not 'ONE SHRED' of new doctrine/information in the BoM, than in the Bible. Then you go on to 'credit' me with four (4) points. You finally chide me for 'only' giving you four, when you only asked for one (1)!? Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? You give credit to Snow, for answering your question, when I already had? Now, who's not good at what?

Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember reading anything about Christ visiting the Americas, after his Resurrection, in the Bible? I don't know about you, but that one piece of 'new' information seems pretty original to me. How about the fact that Jesus tells us not to use vain or repetitious prayers? That seems like new doctrine to me. In the Bible, you only have Jesus giving the Lord's prayer. In the BoM, he also gives the Lord's prayer, but is prefaced with new information. Or, how about the fact that he reveals that infants have no need of baptism? That, too, seems like some new doctrine not found in the Bible. He even goes on to give the exact prayer to use for baptizing. Speaking of exact prayers, you will find the prayers to be used for the Sacrament in the BoM, not in the Bible. Seriously, are you asking because you have never read the BoM, or are you just a troll trying to 'plant a seed'? If you ARE a troll, then your going to have to do better than that. By the way, though, the main purpose of the BoM is to be ANOTHER (meaning, like unto the first) testament of Jesus Christ - which has already been pointed out.

Yes, his son. By the way, you don't need to be an 'expert' to see and understand the truth about the obvious.

Well, basically yes. You said you loved ripping into apologetic nonsense, and said it was useless. I want to see you 'rip' into T. Nibley's 'nonsense', when he discusses their book. The topic, I suppose, would be: plagerism from the Bible, and/or BoM compared to the Bible. Something like that.

Hey bat, here's a topic: Tom Nibley's comments on the book Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon by the Tanners?

Seriously ray, I'm not going to keep going in circles with you. I don't need to quote anything from you, all one has to do is read what you posted. I am quite certain that you will do your best to show how all of your post harmonize, but the fact remains - you have changed your stance. If you truly have been saying the same things, but in different lights, because I have not understood. Then why is it that I am the one who has been saying the EXACT same thing throughout. Not once, have you ever said that you agreed with what I was saying, instead, you have tried to show me what YOU were meaning. If we agreed all along, and I haven't changed anything, then why didn't you say that you agreed with me in the first place? You have changed what you were saying, so that I could understand you, yet we 'supposedly' agreed the whole time? How convenient for you!

Keep telling yourself that, ray. All one has to do is read your previous posts. It would be obvious to anyone who read them, that what you were trying to say then, is not the same as what you are saying now.

It is not as simple as you put it. The murderers, as you put it, under Mosaic Law had to perform blood atonement to receive forgiveness. You cannot perform blood atonement today. The ONLY way (according to scriptures) you could receive atonement for murder was to shed your own blood to atone for that sin. If you commit murder today, you cannot perform blood atonement - it is against the will of the Lord. Ask the Lord why this is so, not me.

Ray, Ray, Ray - You prove my point with your own post. I have tried to say that there are unforgivable sins that even Christ cannot save. One is denying the HG (which you have provided scripture that states that it is denying Christ after the HG testifies to you), and one is murder. Under Mosaic Law, you could atone for the sin of murder by shedding your own blood (blood atonement), but cannot do so in this dispensation, which makes murder unforgiveable today. You tried to argue that rejecting truth (any truth), or not accepting truth from the HG was unforgiveable, because you would not receive the rewards that accepting and following the truths that the HG brings. I have continued to show you that that would not make it unforgiveable, because as soon as they accepted the truth and followed it, they would receive Eternal Life (or forgiveness as you say). You have continued to ignore this, but rather have choosen to change your stance. In your post, you have shown that there is indeed an unforgiveable sin, which I have been saying this whole time. This is the FIRST time you have said anything regarding 'total forgiveness'. You have been changing your toon as this discussion has progressed. You also say that you 'presume' that the Father reveals the truth about Christ, when the scripture you quote says that exact thing! Don't try to appear to prove a point, when it is the exact point I have been trying to make.

You will believe that blood atonement was taught by BY to be practiced no matter what anybody says. If Christ himself came down and told you that you were mistaken, you would dismiss him as being a false Christ. The whole quote of BY clearly states what he meant. You are choosing to believe he taught something he didn't, because it makes YOU feel comfortable, not me. See, I already know that blood atonement has nothing to do with our salvation in this dispensation. We have the knowledge of how to return to our Heavenly Father if we follow it. Believing in blood atonement is not one of the requirements. I am comfortable with or without a knowledge of blood atonement. You, on the other hand, need to believe in as many bad things regarding the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, because you have rejected the truth and need to feel good about it. You refuse to admit to the truth, because it goes some distance in showing that you have indeed rejected the truth. I am not taking a part of BY's quotes, but am looking at the whole picture. If you were to do that, you would see that he didn't teach blood atonement as doctrine for latter day saints to follow. Whether you accept it or not is up to you. The state of Utah in the 19th century has nothing to do with the fact that blood atonement is not doctrine for our day. As I said, no modern prophet has taught anything contrary to that. A hundred, a thousand, members of the church could have thought blood atonement was being taught. Some may actually have tried to follow it. The fact remains, though, that they would have done so in error. Some members today could still believe it was taught, they too are in error. I don't need to interpret anything.

Ray, if your implying that the scriptures are from the HG, and prophets are inspired from the HG, it still doesn't prove your point. If I reject the BoM and JS after receiving a knowledge of it from the HG, but still believe that Jesus is the Christ, I will not be cast out as a son of perdition. I will still enjoy rewards and blessings, just not all. I have not commited an unforgiveable sin. You have shared truth with me - truth according to you. But, yes, have a nice day.

Maureen- I am not ignoring anything. You are taking a part of a quote and running with it. You have to take the WHOLE quote together. He is telling the saints that if they had to spill someones blood to save them to do it - IF that is what it would take. Look at the end of the paragraph - 'That is the way to love mankind'. He says if it is 'NECESSARY' to do it, you would. It is NOT necessary, because it is/was not practiced doctrine. He is not giving them permission to kill anyone! Like I said, if anyone killed anyone for blood atonement, it was due to erroneous beliefs. Just like those practicing polygamy today - it is false doctrine. They would have been doing so against the will of the Lord. Stop trying to prove something that just didn't happen!

Faith comes first, not last. We start with faith, not end with it. We seek the truth because of faith - that which we hope and believe to be true. Then we receive a knowledge of things, after faith. Again, I don't know where you get your ideas. You say that you get them from the Holy Ghost, but the HG doesn't give us new and abstract ideas, he lets us know the truth of knowledge already given. The purpose of the HG is not to give ideas, it is to reveal truth - the truth of things that have already been given to us. The Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, he is not the FATHER. Peter received his knowledge from the Father, by the power of God - the power of the Holy Ghost. Not from the HG himself. I have already said that the power of the HG and the HG himself are seperate, why am I having to repeat it? The HG appeared in the form of a dove, not to reveal truth to anybody. I guess I could have been clearer on that statement. While Jesus was on Earth, the HG was not. He made references of the HG coming after him. The HG would be sent in his place. The HG was here before and after Christ, not during. And yes, Peter denying Christ is another subject. Was Jesus commanding Peter...? He did not commit blasphemy to the HG. You believe the spirit tesitified to devils - that's what it is, your belief. What an angel is, and what God is, is irrelevant. The angel appearing to Paul or anyone else, was not the HG. The sin of murder is unforgiveable in this dispensation. Like you said, none of this matters - in regards to blasphemy against the HG. I feel that I'm having to repeat myself to you. You have some different ideas and beliefs - different than the ones of modern day prophets. Like I said, they are your beliefs and I don't know where you get them? I will point to the error in your thinking, for the third time. Once someone accepted the truth, they would have the opportunity to receive Eternal Life. Hence they would be forgiven according to your logic. Again, that would mean it is NOT UNFORGIVABLE. Let me quote: "Those who have committed the unpardonable sin, however, will not be redeemed from the devil and instead, after their resurrection, will be cast out as sons of perdition to dwell with the devil and his angels in eternity." (D. & C. 76:30-49) I feel this discussion is going in circles.

Maureen- I am not denying that blood atonement was a true doctine of the Gospel that was practiced (in other dispensations) - it was. What I am saying, is that no modern prophet (including Brigham Young) taught it to be PRACTICED in these latter days. Why aren't you reading what you quoted? BY said I F men C O U L D, they W O U L D be W I L L I N G!What don't you understand about that statement?? I have already pointed out that BY said you would spill the blood of another so they could receive salvation - if that was their only way. We would do this, AS CHRIST DID, out of love for mankind. BY was teaching how to view the Atonement of Christ, and how to love mankind.Again, why don't you understand this?? Yes, McConkie said the same thing about the law as BY did, but he also stated "There is not one historical instance of so-called blood atonement in this dispensation, nor has there been one event or occurrence whatever, of any nature, from which the slightest inference arises that any such practice either existed or was taught." He also said "...wicked and evilly-disposed persons have fabricated false and slanderous stories to the effect that the Church, in the early days of this dispensation, engaged in a practice of blood atonement...'

I don't know if your trying to be difficult on purpose, or if you really just don't understand what I was saying? I will try to spell it out for you: 'Hence unforgiveable because you wouldn't be 'forgiven' for not accepting the greater light and knowledge of the HG. Forgiven (refering to the fogiven in the statement WOULDN'T BE 'FORGIVEN') meaning to not receive the rewards of Everlasting Life, just as those who are punished do not receive it.' If you wish, I will add NOT to preceed the forgiven at the beginning of the last sentence, if that makes you feel better. 'While the gift of the Holy Ghost had not yet been given to those people Jesus was talking with...' Jesus told his own disciples (who knew he was the Christ already) that they would receive the HG. You say that you believe that the HG was present for all those things I mentioned, then you state that Lucifer has a knowledge of the Lord. Remember that the devils also believe, yet the spirit cannot reveal or testify anything to those individuals. The fact remains that the HG cannot be present while Christ is. You say that transfiguration comes by the HG, but it comes by the POWER of the HG. Which is the power of God. Those are two separate things. An angel of the Lord is NOT the HG, but angels have revealed truth throughout time. There are sins that just CANNOT receive a forgiveness for (such as murder). The scriptures, prophets, and Jesus are very clear on this fact. You may believe otherwise, but that doesn't change the truth. '...and that through the power of Faith, which is an assurance from the Holy Ghost that certain things are true...' Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true. You have some abstract ideas, am I'm not sure where you get them. I am trying to give you examples straight from the scriptures, and you return with things that you believe to be true. You keep asking me if I 'got it', when I already have what the sriptures, and prophets have already said.

Nina- If anyone practiced blood atonement, it was not under the direction of the prophet. Just as some RLDS continue polygamy today, it is out of their own beliefs and understandings. People think early saints practiced blood atonement due to not understanding statements regarding an old doctrine (practiced under the Mosaic Law) that Brigham Young made, and also to some books written by excommunicated persons. Like I said, it has never been church doctrine taught to be practiced. I'm sure people practiced it while calling themselves 'Mormon'. If they had done so, they would have been exed - if they were indeed members. Even some early leaders didn't understand it and had to be rebuked for thinking it was doctrine being taught. People today use that to say leaders didn't agree with the doctrine of blood atonement, so they were exed. Don't be confused by what others say, because they are looking for reasons to disagree with the 'church'.

Hence unforgiveable because you wouldn't be 'forgiven' for not accepting the greater light and knowledge of the HG. Forgiven meaning to not receive the rewards of Everlasting Life, just as those who are punished do not receive it. I felt that I stated my thoughts clearly. As you can see, I said would NOT be forgiven preceding the sentence you are questioning. I do not know why you feel the need to nitpick? As regards to receiving a greater light and knowledge, it does not only come from the Holy Ghost. Moses received a greater light and knowledge on Mt. Sinai from the Lord himself. Peter, James, and John received the keys of the kindom from Elias and Moses (a greater light and knowledge) with Christ. Christ asked Peter who he was, and when Peter said the Christ, Jesus said the Father had made it known. The Holy Ghost had not yet been given, evident by Christs' own words. Numerous accounts are made regarding Jesus giving people a knowledge of things. Some knew by his miracles, and others such as Lazarus and Paul received personal witnesses. Lazarus saw Abraham's glory for himself, while Paul saw an Angel. Also, Jesus said the HG would be sent to reveal truth and bring a rememberance of what Christ had made known. You continue to say things that are correct, but using them to prove an incorrect point: Not knowing something (from the HG) is unforgiveable. Like I pointed out earlier, once they knew and accepted it, they would receive forgiveness (by your thinking). Hence it would NOT be UNFORGIVEABLE.

What you are saying does not agree with the point you appeared to be making. You appeared to be suggesting that unforgiveable/unpardonable sins included not accepting truth from the Holy Ghost, because you wouldn't receive the rewards from accepting and following the greater knowledge that the HG brings. Hence unforgiveable because you wouldn't be 'forgiven' for not accepting the greater light and knowledge of the HG. Forgiven meaning to not receive the rewards of Everlasting Life, just as those who are punished do not receive it. Am I following you on this? The things that you are saying about receiving a greater light and knowledge from the HG are true, but the point you are trying to make is abstract, and I think incorrect. The point that I was making, was that to deny the HG as an unforgiveable sin meant to reject the knowledge of Christ after the HG made it manifest to you. Once you did that, THERE WILL BE NO FORGIVENESS. With your point, as soon as someone accepted the truth that the HG brings, they would be 'forgiven', so to speak, by being able to follow that truth to receive Everlasting Life. That would not make it unforgiveable, because accepting it would bring about forgiveness. I'm not arguing about the points you made; such as needing the HG to receive light and knowledge. I'm arguing with your point of not listening to the HG being a form of an unforgiveable sin. Remember also, that the Holy Ghost is NOT present while the Lord is on the Earth. When Christ is/was here, truth comes by him, and him alone. The light and knowledge that BY was talking about refers to the knowledge that certain sins are unforgiveable, which you stated comes from the HG. Like I said, the things that you have said are true, but your point is not. I do not need to study the scriptures for this, because I already have. They are quite clear as to what unforgiveable refers to, including McConkie. Matt- I don't know why your making a point that has already been made. And I think you'll find that Blood Atonement covered much more than mentioned by Jesus Christ. And unforigable means that. Not "Well, if your blood is spilt, don't worry, that'll fix it all." You cannot atone for your sins by spilling your own blood, that IS the point. I have already pointed that out. BY was saying if you COULD, you would. Listen carefully: BLOOD ATONEMENT WAS NOT TAUGHT AS A DOCTRINE TO BE PRACTICED BY ANY MODERN DAY PROPHET. It was spoken of as a means to get points across.

No, you do not need to finish my thought, because I had already finished it. That is exactly how he saw things. Every time he committed that sin and thought about it, he would be forgiven. He did not think that he had to turn away from it, or ask forgiveness. As long as he knew it was wrong, the Lord would forgive him. I don't know why you feel you need assume what I meant, or 'finish' my thought when I stated fully what I mean? Also, I'm not sure why your trying to 'add to my understanding', or where your getting your ideas? In the New Testament, it refers to blasphemy against the HG as unpardonable, while blasphemy against Christ was not. According to your 'understanding', anyone denying the truth that Christ taught were committing an unpardonable sin since he taught the truth (and HE is the only thing that can save us), and the HG came AFTER him. That would mean all of Israel is damned; but that cannot be since they are still the chosen people of the Lord, and will still receive all the promised blessings, including Eternal Life. Besides, blasphemy means to lie against falsely. Hence denying Christ after the HG has revealed it to you. To commit blasphemy against the HG would be to lie by denying Christ after receiving knowledge of him from the HG. If you are LDS, you need to look in D&C, or read McConkie.

Ray - You are not understanding the term 'light and knowledge'. Light and knowledge of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is one example, and light and knowledge of sins that are unforgivable is another. I had/have a protestant friend/roommate who thought that if he thought what he was doing (while in the act of doing it) was wrong, that that was repenting and he would be forgiven. He is a true friend, but it was/is a foolish idea. Some people don't have the light and knowledge of modern day prophets, and others do not have a light and knowledge that denying the Holy Ghost is unforgiveable. Denying the HG is not the same thing as not listening the Spirit. If the HG reveals to me that Jesus is the Christ, then later I reject that truth saying he doesn't exist, then I have just commited an unforgiveable sin. The light and knowledge that BY refers to are those unforgiveable sins, not everyday sins such as envying your neighbors boat. To think that Christ cannot atone for those sins (IF REPENTED OF) is crazy. By the way, Matt, Christ , ancient and modern prophets taught that not everyone is automatically atoned for, and some not at all. I don't know what you find 'weird' about this - this is not new doctrine here. We have already gone over the fact that the atonement of Christ does not cover that type of sin. Joseph F. Smith is pointing out that the blood atonement doctrine that was 'supposedly' taught requires the sinner to atone for those certain unforgiveable sins. He also adds that it is done so by your own power (it is understood that we do not have power to atone for sins). He states that this 'doctrine' by BY was made by "pernicious insinuations and lying charges". You say members, even modern prophets, ignore, change, or challenge doctrines taught by early prophets, but the fact is; they were not even taught in the first place. It is more like 99.9% of what BY taught is being misunderstood by those who don't have (or have rejected) a greater light and knowledge of the fulness of Christs' own Gospel. You say members ignore the doctrine of Blood Atonement - well, that's because it is not, and never has been, doctrine of the Restored Gospel.

Well, apparently it doesn't matter what I say, or what I show you. You will believe what you want anyway. I feel that I was pretty clear on the matter, but unfortunately it didnt' help. What you have bolded shows what I have already covered; that some sins are not covered by the blood of Christ, which makes them unforgivable, period. There is nothing you can do to atone for those sins. I don't know why you cannot understand that. BY said if you could, you would. Anybody who knew the true state of their sins would shed their own blood to be saved if they could. He is talking about blood atonement to emphasize the importance of the Atonement of Christ. He also states that as members, we should want to shed our blood, or the blood of another to atone for sins out of love for our fellow man, JUST AS CHRIST DID OUT OF LOVE. He is not teaching blood atonement as doctrine to be practiced, but as a tool to show us how to view Christs' Atonement and the role each of us play in the salvation of men. I could use other quotes from BY that would show the same thing, but I don't need to since you are unable to see what he was really saying in the first quote. BY was hard to understand sometimes, but this is very obvious if you just read the WHOLE quote, and not just parts. People didn't understand him when he was saying those things at the time he said it, hence they had to be rebuked for thinking he was teaching false doctrine when he was not. Just like people don't understand him today. You are willing to believe he taught them for your own personal reasons, but the fact remains: he did NOT teach it. You use quotes from someone who was excommunicated for reasons to back your point, which makes no sense at all. There is a reason people are ex'd and it has nothing to do with trying to hide anything. Just because someone says something, doesn't make it true. Why don't you try sticking with quotes from the person who is actually the one being accused of teaching blood atonement, and not from someone who was ex'd. Using John Lee as a resource doesn't help your arguements either. We all know the kinds of stories he liked to make up. Stick with quotes from actual leaders of the church, and not from people who had reasons to hate and bash it. I'm sorry, but I cannot be any clearer on this subject. The quote I used explained it all, its there - you just have to see it.