No. That's not what you said. I quoted exactly what you said and you can link back to it to see what you said, everyone can link back to it.Couldn't even get the frame of reference correct. As I said, it's the "Doctrines and Covenants" fairy tale, I'm "willfully ignorant" of.
I certainly AM "Willfully Ignorant" of his (Joseph Smith's) garbage.
Or Maybe, Just maybe, you have no clue what you're talking about. What sin can a 3-year-old or for that matter a 2-day old infant do?Or maybe... Just maybe.... They are condemned to damnation because of their SINS.
Well, if your Bible says that, then I'm sorry, but your idea of what's in there would be repulsive to me.You don't seem to understand the Bible.
But then again, you're not a Mormon, so it's no wonder you believe the repulsive doctrines you do.But then again, you're Mormon, so I wonder why I'm surprised.
That's for darn sure. Maybe if you didn't write a paragraph for every one of my sentences it would be easier to follow.
Then don't respond to them. You said, the members of the church don't have to worry about people who haven't heard the gospel, but clearly, we do have to worry about it. If you felt that was a tangent, you shouldn't have responded.I'm really lost on anything you're trying to convey, going on tangents to issues I've never even raised,
Or Maybe, Just maybe, you have no clue what you're talking about. What sin can a 3-year-old or for that matter a 2-day old infant do?
Well, if your Bible says that, then I'm sorry, but your idea of what's in there would be repulsive to me.
TrollYour rhetoric or mine?
The intended meaning of keep? Don't you think it's the other way around? That "keep" amplifies the meaning fo the word, "guard or watch over"?
It appears to change the initial or problematic understanding of the translators. Maybe you should contact them and tell them they messed it up. If it amplifies the meaning, please, tell me how it is amplified by a word that the translators, who are scholars, used. I really want to know. This appears to be a great mystery.
It seems that you have checked out an amplified version, but are unable to explain exactly how it's amplified.
Of course, it is, but you don't seem to be discussing much. You certainly aren't amplifying anything that you claim is amplified.
False. A better statement would be, No one keeps all of the commandments perfectly. But if you're talking about the 10 commandments, I keep all of them.
The law is completely different than the commandments. The Law came in two parts, sacrifices made for sins that have been fulfilled and are no longer performed and a list of crimes and the punishments for committing those crimes. The commandments are a list of things that if we do, we can come to know God, according to 1 John 2:3.
The only commandment that comes with a consequence is Honor thy Father and thy Mother that thy days may be long upon the land. None of them have a penalty associated with them outside of secular law. But they are given that we might draw closer to God and learn more from him.
I realize you do, but it seems that asking questions to find out what you think is rarely answered.
If you haven’t noticed, many try to have actual enlightening discussions. But then we get responses like the ones you’ve described from your fellow Mormon.That's for darn sure. Maybe if you didn't write a paragraph for every one of my sentences it would be easier to follow.
I'm really lost on anything you're trying to convey, going on tangents to issues I've never even raised, but I'm sure whatever it is, the conclusion is that you believe I'm wrong - no surprise there. I think the only people you're convincing is you, yourself, and you. Nobody seems to think this board is for actual enlightening discussion, so I guess I'll be on my merry way then. Have fun, y'all.
well, 1 verse at a time is not good scripture as there were no verse numbering at the time of writing.... We say just about anything we like by using single verses, one at a time.Ok. Mormons believe anything given by the Holy Ghost is scripture. (D&C 68:4)
In relation to your previous comment, "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." (1 Tim 1:7)
That Jesus is our Lord and Savior
If that is true, then why are you insisting that a 3-year-old can commit a sin. It's not possible.You'd have to ask God.
It was directed at @Aaron32 You took it to add your two cents about LDS doctrine and you failed. God chose the time and place that every person would be born into the world. He chose to place them in countries and at times when the gospel wasn't preached. He also takes children away from us quite frequently before they are old enough to understand and even worse, allows men to abuse them to death in such a way that the innocent being never had hope, much less heard the cause for hope. God did all that, so to condemn them because they didn't believe or have faith is a horrible doctrine and I don't believe any of you teach it. You go with the attitude that God will know what they would have done if they lived to adulthood. That's absurd, IMO. God is choosing for them? The ideas get more ridiculous all the time. We believe that God teaches them what we know and with their life experience, after having matured in thought, they get to decide what they will do on the same basis that you and I get to decide.The point of my statement is about people who never knew, from infancy to old age they never heard the name of Jesus Christ. If this horrible doctrine is true, then it was God's fault that they didn't hear it. So, through no fault of their own, they would be condemned to damnation.
It's easy to pick on the person who no one has the answers to the questions he's asking. It seems that all this would be avoided if you all would just answer the questions instead of playing games about how a person responded, counting the number of sentences he chooses to make a reply to or trying to dictate when he should respond in a public forum.If you haven’t noticed, many try to have actual enlightening discussions. But then we get responses like the ones you’ve described from your fellow Mormon.
Provides this verse and that makes it the topic. Now children, I suggest you stop bickering and fighting and just answer the questions.And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments - 1 John 2:3
I think the key word is "try". I have no doubt, many people "try" to have enlightening discussions. Yet, IMO the fail ratio is extremely high.If you haven’t noticed, many try to have actual enlightening discussions. But then we get responses like the ones you’ve described from your fellow Mormon.
If you want meaningful discussions, stay and participate in them.
I see. The scriptures say all have sinned, and so an infant who was aborted by its mother has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. You swallow that cow without even thinking about it. But when it comes to baptism being a requirement to enter the kingdom of God, you have a new version of it. It can't possibly mean that. When the scriptures say you must have faith in Christ, Believe in Christ or you cannot be saved and you believe that, swallow that one whole, that is unless the person who claims he believes in Christ is a Mormon, then it doesn't count. You claim that the Bible teaches that faith alone saves, but this child that was aborted never got a chance to have faith. The 3-year-old, never got a chance to have faith, to even know who to have faith in. They are sinners and have fallen short and they can't possibly have faith. That demise is not their fault, it was God's fault. And you are okay with that? You're okay that that sinner got the shaft from God and can never be saved because he never had faith.Please PROVE "it's not possible".
Scripture teaches that ALL have sinned.